captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: president obama has given the green light for the u.s. to supply syria's rebels with arms and ammunition. good evening, i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. on the "newshour" tonight, now that u.s. intelligence believes assad's government has used chemical weapons, we debate the american response with two former foreign policy advisers: zbigniew brzezinski and vali nasr. >> woodruff: then, ray suarez gets the latest on detroit's dire financial situation, after the city's emergency manager said it will default on $2.5 billion of debt.

>> brown: six months after the tragic shootings in newtown, margaret warner updates efforts to push for gun control legislation. >> woodruff: mark shields and david brooks analyze the week's news. >> brown: and we wrap up our week of stories on food security. tonight, the demand for dairy and what that means for california farmers. >> many people in the industry believe we make too much milk. my view is we don't make enough milk here in california. if you take a global view of the international dairy market, there's actually a shortage of milk around the world. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> i want to make things more secure. >> i want to treat more dogs. >> our business needs more cases. >> where do you want to take your business? >> i need help selling art. >> from broadband, to web hosting, to mobile apps, small business solutions from a.t.&t.

can help get you there. we can show you how a.t.&t. solutions can help your business today. >> support also comes from carnegie corporation of new york, a foundation created to do what andrew carnegie called "real and permanent good." celebrating 100 years of philanthropy at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

>> brown: the prospect of sending military help to the rebels in syria sparked a range of reactions today from friend and foe alike. the policy shift also triggered a number of questions: what kinds of arms will be sent and how soon? >> i can't give you a specific timeline or an itemized list of what that assistance is and when it will get there. >> brown: deputy national security advisor ben rhodes offered few details today, but he said the president's decision means dramatically increasing military aid to the rebels. initial reports suggested the assistance could range from small arms and ammunition to anti-tank missiles. in turkey, rebel leaders of the free syrian army welcomed the announcement. but they also made clear they hope for more and larger weapons. >> we are going to ask them directly and clearly that we international community should use all their power because we need help. >> brown: on thursday, in the u.s. senate, arizona republican

john mccain sounded a similar appeal. >> these people, the free syrian army, need weapons, heavy weapons, to counter tanks and aircrafts they need a no-fly zone, and bashar assad's air assets have to be taken out and neutralized. >> brown: the rebels also called for a no-fly zone over all or part of syria. but france and others said today that would require approval by the u.n. security council. the u.s. decision to authorize military aid followed a finding outlined yesterday at the white house. in a late-day statement, deputy national security advisor rhodes said: "the assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year." today, the syrian government charged the u.s. findings were full of lies and based on fabricated information. what's more, syrian state television claimed it had an

intercepted phone call between rebels showing they are the ones using chemical weapons. >> ( translated ): everyone is now using masks, our heroes want to attack the pigs with poison gas. >> brown: russia-- the syrian government's main weapons supplier-- also rejected the chemical weapons claim, and the move to arm the rebels. >> ( translated ): there is little doubt that the decisions made regarding additional supplies of weapons and military equipment to illegal armed groups will increase the level of confrontation and violence against innocent civilians. >> brown: moscow further warned the decision could undermine u.s. and russian plans for a syrian peace conference in geneva. at the united nations, secretary general ban ki-moon said he, too, opposes putting more weapons in syria. >> providing arms to either side would not address this current situation. there is no such military solution.

only political solution can address this issue sustainably, >> brown: the german foreign minister raised another concern- - that radical islamist fighters in syria will somehow get hold of american weapons. >> ( translated ): we need an end to the violence as soon as possible and the start of a political process. germany will not send any weapons to syria, but we respect other partners of ours to do so. but whoever opts for weapons delivery must make sure that those weapons do not end up in the wrong hands. >> brown: up to now, president obama had raised the same concern, but at the white house today, advisor rhodes said it's been addressed. >> we have relationships today in syria that we didn't have six months ago that gives us greater certainty not just that we can get stuff into the country, but also that we can put it in the right hands so that it's not falling into the hands of extremists. ( explosion ) >> brown: the turn of events comes as the syrian regime has captured one key town, and is now stepping up attacks on rebels in aleppo. plus, pushing to regain control of the central provinces of homs

and hama. the syrian crisis is expected to top the agenda when president obama holds a bi-lateral meeting with russian president vladimir putin at next week's g-8 summit in northern ireland. we invited a member of the obama >> woodruff: still to come on the "newshour": detroit defaults on billions in debt; gun control six months after newtown; shields and brooks on the week's news and china's growing demand for california dairy. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> holman: millions of iranians voted for a new president today, as their leaders rejected criticism of the process. long lines of men and women could be seen outside polling stations in iran and at embassies around the world. six candidates were allowed to run but only hasan rowhani was considered a moderate. supreme leader ayatollah ali khamenei rejected u.s. criticism

the election is stacked in favor of hard-liners. he said today his response is, "to hell with you if you do not believe in our election." in turkey, activists weighed whether to end a sit-in at an istanbul park that gave rise to widespread protests against the government. last night, prime minister recep tayyip erdogan met with a delegation of protesters. he offered to let courts and maybe a referendum decide on the park's future. today, he called it a final warning. >> ( translated ): we told the group taksim solidarity that visited last night that we are asking them to show determination and support now, to speak to our youngsters, to let them take this step and don't make us use different methods. then we said goodbye to them. i hope this will end today and we will take our steps in determination. >> holman: erdogan has called his supporters to rally in ankara and istanbul this weekend, raising the prospect of more tensions with the protesters. a chinese newspaper today urged china's leaders to talk to

edward snowden-- the man who exposed u.s. surveillance programs. snowden also has said the national security agency hacked targets in hong kong and mainland china, thousands of times. today, the communist party- backed "global times" addressed that allegation in an editorial. it said, "the chinese government should let him speak out and use it as evidence to negotiate with the united states openly or in private." u.s. officials have repeatedly accused china of cyber-attacks on american targets. a record-breaking wildfire near colorado springs, colorado has claimed new victims in property and lives. as the fire burned today, officials said they found the bodiess of two people who'd been trying to flee on tuesday. so far, the fire has destroyed 389 homes over 25 square miles, but local sheriff terry maketa said it slowed in the last 24 hours. >> i know circumstances can change, and we're going to

expect a little bit of wind today but you notice we have some cloud coverage that's to our favor and the winds were calm throughout the night for the most part. and right now we're not sitting here talking into the wind, so that's a good sign as well. >> holman: the fire now is the most destructive in colorado history. there's no word yet on how it started. a military judge has barred the suspect in the fort hood, texas shootings from arguing he acted to protect the afghan taliban. army major nidal hasan is charged with killing 13 people and wounding nearly three dozen in november 2009. the judge ruled today there was no evidence that his fellow soldiers posed an immediate threat to anyone in afghanistan. the u.s. house today passed a defense bill that includes mandatory two-year prison terms for sexual assaults in the military. it also would strip commanders of the power to overturn sexual assault convictions. the overall bill envisions $638 billion for defense in the coming year.

but president obama has threatened a veto because it blocks closing the detention facility at guantanamo bay, cuba. the latest data on the u.s. economy left something to be desired today. factory output barely rose in may, and consumer sentiment fell in june. wall street reacted with a friday sell-off. the dow jones industrial average lost nearly 106 points to close at 15,70. the nasdaq fell nearly 22 points to close at 3,423. for the week, both the dow and the nasdaq lost more than 1%. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: today the city of detroit, and its creditors, were presented with a series of painful options. retired city workers were warned of significant cuts in pensions and health insurance and creditors were told the city won't be able to pay them back. the day started with an announcement that the government already defaulted on some debt.

it got worse from there. ray suarez has the story. >> make the banks pay. >> suarez: a handful of protesters picketed outside the westin hotel this morning, while inside, detroit's emergency manager kevyn orr laid out a last-ditch plan to 150 creditors to accept pennies on the dollar in order to help keep the city running. orr spoke afterwards. >> if pe a scere and they look at the data that's contained in the proposal and it's stark, it's beyond dire. you would think a rational person would have to step back and say, "this is not normal. i don't want bankruptcy; i want to make an adjustment. it's going to be hard, it's going to be difficult but what choice do we have." >> suarez: during the meeting, orr said the city would stop payments on its unsecured debt to bondholders; cut healthcare and pension benefits to current and retired city workers; give an independent authority control over the water and sewerage department. the changes help tackle what orr said was up to $20 billion in debt and liabilities. he was appointed three months ago by michigan governor rick

snyder to try to turn around detroit's finances and operations. but there's been skepticism among some residents about the plans and about whether's detroit's finances are as dire as orr has said. abayoma azikiwe protested the meeting this morning. >> we feel that the bankers and the creditors who are here today with the emergency manager are not going to negotiate in the best interest of the people of detroit. we are saying that the same financial institutions that mr. orr negotiating with today are responsible in large part to the crisis that exists in detroit. >> suarez: once a booming midwestern city, detroit has suffered a big population loss and now ranks as the poorest major city in the u.s: more than a third of the population lives below the government poverty line. we get more on the plan spelled out today and the reaction to all this from matt helms of the "detroit free press."

welcome, kevyn orr did not sugar coat the situation. even so, was something this extreme expected today? >> well, i think we'd been warned to expect something drastic, but that doesn't -- the warning certainly doesn't prepare you for the scope and the risks involved here and, you know, especially the cuts that -- you know, the creditors, retirees, pensioners, city workers are going to be asked to take. >> suarez: who are the main holders of detroit debt and who is it that's being told to expect just pennies on the dollar? >> it's everyone. it's retirees, pension plans, the cities unions representing current workers, it's bond holders, the insurance companies that backed those bonds and bond holders can range from major institutional investors to-- as

one of the credits or told me today-- mom and dad investing in a mutual fund. >> suarez: how did detroit get to be an estimated $17 to $20 billion in debt? it's had shrinking revenues for some time. it's had very heavy legacy obligations for some time. were there always institutions that were ready to line up and continue to lend the city money? >> there certainly were. and they did up until last year when the crisis hit and the last round of borrowing had to be backed by the state because detroit's credit rating had really just gone into trash territory. the state helped float $137 million in bonds to help stabilize the city through what they hoped was going to be an agreement to keep it out of the appointment of an emergency manager. that did not work and here we are today perhaps just weeks away from a chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy filing.

>> suarez: as we mentioned earlier, kevynor already announced the city defaulted on our obligation as of this morning. how much was it and to whom? >> well, it's to a number of creditors, but it was a nearly $40 million payment on a complex structure, a finance structure called a -- sorry, a certificate of participation obligation and we know that the city has also kind of triggered terms for default in the past as well but has been able to negotiate with creditors to extend payment dates. and, you know, there's a long line of vendors, for example, who provide goods and services to the city who have gone months without payment. >> suarez: now, the emergency manager said the odds of a bankruptcy were 50-50 and, indeed, it would be the largest municipal bankruptcy ever.

but why isn't detroit considered bankrupt already? if it missed a payment today and is telling people that it owes money that it's only going to give them, in some estimates, ten cents on the dollar why is it already considered bankrupt technically? >> i guess technically it already is bankrupt but as a spokesman for the emergency manager told reporters today, there's a difference between being bankrupt and being in bankruptcy. bankruptcy is the process of resolving that debt and the -- really the difference between the two is whether you go to court to resolve it. >> suarez: today the spokesman for kevyn orr mentioned they would give the institutions involved a couple of weeks to digest the news they got today. it must be terrible to hear but are there some hard-and-fast dates? some deadlines that are looming in detroit's future that aren't the kind of things that you can give people a couple of weeks to think about? what's the next chapter in this

drama? >> well, at best we can tell, if the negotiations don't go well we could know within a couple of weeks whether kevin orr thinks that there is no option except for bankruptcy. beyond that, these talks, these negotiations with creditors could extend into july or august and, you know, there are a lot of bankruptcy experts who say they doubt that an out-of-court settlement can be reached and that the best kevyn orr can hope for at this point is to get maybe 80% to 90% of the creditors lined up so that when he goes in and files a chapter 9 petition he's got a majority of the creditors lined up, and that can help persuade a federal judge to get the recalcitrant creditors on board with the deal, even cramming down in the jargon terms on creditors who are so far fighting the deal. >> suarez: have any of the

creditors been heard from today? any of the institutions you mentioned earlier that might be expected to get a loss less money back from the city? >> many of them are not commenting. we have heard a lot of from the city unions today. they're worried, they're scared. their members face pay and benefits cuts and there is even talk that vested pensions-- which under michigan law typically are protected from being cut once you are a retiree-- that that may not be the case here in detroit and that kevyn orr and the city of detroit may have to battle in court if necessary to reduce pension benefits for retirees who are already living on fixed incomes. >> suarez: matt helms of the detroit free peres, thanks a lot for joining us. >> glad to be here. >> brown: today marked six months since the massacre in newtown, connecticut, an attack that brought tears and outrage and prompted a new debate over gun violence and rights.

margaret warner has a look at how the day was commemorated. >> if we can take that moment now, please? >> reporter: the sister of slain teacher victoria soto asked for twenty six seconds of silence today. one for each of the victims killed at sandy hook elementary school. the victims were gunned down on december 14, after adam lanza killed his mother and then stormed sandy hook. police said lanza shot 20 schoolchildren and six educators, before shooting himself. today's moment of silence was followed by a day-long reading of more than 6,000 names, all victims of gun violence around the country since the newtown tragedy. the memorial was organized by mayors against gun violence, a group funded by new york mayor michael bloomberg that has been working with some of the victims' families. some of those families have been trying for months persuade lawmakers to back tighter gun control measures, including

background checks. but that legislation failed to pass the senate in april. now, some senators, including some who voted no, are said to be discussing an amended bill. families came to capitol hill yesterday vowing to support it. >> we will continue to fight until congress stands up and does something to make us safer from gun violence. >> reporter: senate majority leader harry reid endorsed the effort, but had a warning. >> the writing is on the wall. background checks will pass the united states senate. it's only a question of when. i want to be very, very clear though, in order to be effective the bill that passes the senate must include background checks and not a watered down version of background checks. >> reporter: gun control advocates have had mixed success at the state level. several states, including colorado, maryland and new york have passed tighter restrictions. but other states like arkansas

and mississippi have eased them. just yesterday, nevada governor brian sandoval, a republican, vetoed a bill mandating background checks for all purchases in his state. the national rifle association is fighting back as well. >> as your senator i'll protect your 2nd amendment rights. >> that was joe manchin's commitment. >> reporter: it plans to spend $100,000 running this ad in west virginia asking voters to remind democratic senator joe manchin, who co-sponsored bipartisan senate legislation, to support gun rights. the white house also may be making a new push of its own. vice president joe biden will be hosting a gun-control event on tuesday. we invited a member of the obama administration to discuss the change in syria strategy. our request was declined. but, with us now to assess the

white house decision: zbigniew brzezinski, national security adviser to president carter. he's now a counselor at the center for strategic and international studies. and former state department senior advisor vali nasr, now dean at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. welcome to both of you. dr. brzezinksi, many questions about how much, the timing, et cetera. what's your initial reaction to this announcement that the u.s. will be providing some arms? >> it's kind of baffling because there's no pattern of consistency. you know, we started helping the rebels-- whatever they are, and they're certainly not fighting for democracy given their sponsorship, qatar and saudi arabia-- as far back as early spring of year, 2012. it, but we were doing that. since then i'm not at all clear as to what our policy actually is. >> brown: so it wasn't clarified by yesterday's announcement? >> i think that was even more baffling because it refers to a

very small number of casualties allegedly inflicted by chemical warfare. it doesn't refer specifically to the date involved, although the president drew a red line, it certainly is materiel to foe whether those acts followed or preceded the presidential warning. and besides why should that be the issue especially on the scale of casualties inflicted by that kind of arms is so limited. 93,000 people allegedly have been killed and incidentally not like what the official line sometimes is, by assad and his henchmen but by both sides. this is a civil war, a brutal civil war. >> brown: vali nasr, you've been on the program, you've talked about wanting to see more action by the u.s. government. is this the kind of first step or a step that you want? >> well, it is a step but i think it's problematic because, as dr. brzezinksi said, it's not clear what objective it's supposed to serve. we haven't said what it is that we want to accomplish by providing arms to the rebels. do we want to just address the

humanitarian issue in is our objective to reverse the recent gains the assad regime has made? is this punishment for the use of chemical weapons? is it to shore up our sagging credibility in the region? so it's not clear whether this is enough or it's too late unless you know what it's for. >> brown: what do you think it should be for? because there is a debate right now at the white house, right, about what to do and how to target it. >> well, i think our goal was to try to arrive at a diplomatic solution to this crisis in geneva. we can't go to geneva for a diplomatic solution if assad has just scored big gains on the ground. so our goal ought to be to reverse the gains that assad has made on the ground. so we have to be -- if we're going to do this, we have to do it with view to change the dynamics of this war, at least in the direction that it's going. and secondly, we -- >> brown: does that include with weapons and even more weapons that they're asking for? >> well, it would require more weapons than we have announced.

it also would require probably a strategy about how we're going to -- who we're going to give the weapons to, how we're going to give it. and i think larger issue is our credibility, the credibility of american foreign policy is now at stake and then we have to essentially use any kind of intervention to reverse that. >> brown: what do you think about a strong -- more weapons, a stronger involvement and this question of our credibility at this point? you raised the red line question. >> well, weapons to whom, first of all. as we know, there are a great many factions competing for power on the ground in syria and most of them are not very friendly to us. so weapons for whom? it so happens, unfortunately, that those factions which we consider to be allegedly democratic are the weakest. so what are we going to accomplish by infusing a few more arms for groups that are the weakest? if we're going to engage in political warfare with a straepblg strategic outcome and we insist on a victory for those

who allegedly are with us and a victory particularly for us, we have to do it whole hog, not just from the air, not just by supplying some arms to some not particularly strong groups, but we have to do it by, in effect, invading the country. if we invade the country, we'll just stop with fighting in syria. might we conceivably collide with the iranian forces? do we really want that at this stage of history in the middle east as we are getting ready to disengage from afghanistan? >> brown: what's the response to that? >> those are all dangers are that are on the table that we have to take into consideration. the syria crisis has now become very complex with many issues that we have to be able to sort out and address. but going forward, you know, essentially you're dealing with dynamics of two separate wars and two separate issues here. one is the war between the rebels and opposition and the syrian government in which we have said that we would like the

rebels to win. the second one is really the war between the different factions within the opposition. the jihadis and the extremists vis-a-vis the other ones. so the key question is which one are we trying to influence? are we trying to influence generally the rebels as it stands against assad, which has all the dangers and problems dr. brzezinksi said, who do you arm? how do you arm them what is the dangers of having to confront the iranians and the russians. and the other argument is regardless of whether assad survives and leaves, there's going to be a battle between different factions of the syrians and the question is do we want to arm a faction of the syrians that would be the counterpoint to the jihadis? if so, is this the right time to start building those relations? >> brown: is there an alternative? because if the u.s. does little or nothing and the syrian government wins-- as now the battlefield perhaps looks like it's been turned-- doesn't that affect our interest in the region and the world as well.

>> well, of course it doesn't affect them positively. but we have to think of the alternative consequences. if we get involved in a protracted war, we are again in a war in the region. this hurts us also in afghanistan. secondly, that war produces a collision between america and iranians supporting assad. is that better than an outcome in which perhaps assad stays in power? better still, of course, an international geneva conference. but let's just think of who ought to be there. should we be there with the french and the british? the two countries which are most hated in the region this former colonial powers? are these the right countries with whom we ought to be dealing? of course turkey ought to be there. what about china? what about japan? what about india? all of which are dependent on a stable flow of oil from the region. they have stakes in that region. they might prefer some orth of a compromise solution and might be

prepared to give the political support for it. they might also be able to influence the russians. but to simply go in on the hope that somehow or other by doing something which is not very precisely described for groups s who which are not very powerful-- in fact, the one that favors us is the weakest-- is not a strategy, it's an evasion of strategy. and there's a kind of lack of clarity which has defined our posture there for the last two years. >> brown: mr. nasr, last minute. what about the prospects of this international conference which is supposed to be later in the month? who should be there and what are the diplomatic possibilities at this point? >> well, i think the diplomatic possibilities are limited. i think dr. brzezinksi is right that it can not be just the french or the russians -- the british who drew these borders and are now being contested. but the key question is also what is our objective out of the conference? we're trying to go to a conference saying that the result of the conference would be removal of assad from power. that's not being supported by developments on the ground.

he's actually winning. so, you know, even our conception of the conference is wrong. i think the best purpose for the corence uld be to try to arrive at a cease-fire, try to create certain traction for the international support for a political settlement and ultimately find a way that the worst that's happening in syria does not impact the entire region. i think the best we can hope for at this stage is to contain syria and then find a way to gradually wind down this conflict. >> brown: very much to be continued. vali nasr, zbigniew brzezinski, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: and to the analysis of shields and brooks, syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. welcome, gentlemen. so we've just listened to dr. brzezinksi, to dean nasr. david, where do you come down on this having heard the president basically change policy? >> yeah, i've been leaning more

interventionist as the months and weeks have gone by. i've -- you know, obvious caution which dr. pwr +*eugz talked about are there. but i think it's outweighed first by the humanitarian needs, second it's outweighed the possibility that assad and a rogue regime will be there forever and will win, third it's eightw by the collapse of the region around there if that rogue regime does win. and finally i think the big story in the middle east is iranian radicalism and i think we have a lot to fear from an iranian client state, a victorious hezbollah. we have a lot to fear from that. so i think it's a continuum of no action, total boots on the ground-- which obviously is not going to happen. i think obama administration has tilted a little toward a little more interventionist. too little to do do any good, actually. but i think probably a little more tilt to prevent the things i described. >> woodruff: how do you see what the administration is doing? are they moving into the right direction?

>> well, judy, after listening to that discussion-- which was a good discussion-- with dean nasr and dr. brzezinksi, i think you've what the problems are for the administration. there is not a compelling case that has been made that people say okay. i mean, there's a lot of individual discrete reasons. americans don't like to see children suffer. and 93,000 people-- according to the u.n.-- have died already and thousands more continue to die. one and a half million have fled into jordan. jordan is an ally and its stability is threatened and the reasons that david cited, you know, the prospect of assad being in the saddle with hezbollah at his side and russia playing this kind of a role there, you know, but at the same time i don't know, judy, it has a feel of fast and furious. remember fast and furious, the gun policy in the bureau of --

department of justice and bureau of arms tobacco did? alcohol, tobacco, firearms, just get out guns and maybe they'll get to a mexican cartel and we'll find out and trace the guns that way. we're going in and providing arms. we don't have a reliable ally, an identifiable ally. we don't have that most e luce iive subtype in the entire world and that is a rebel who believes devoutly in religious freedom and pluralism and believes in democratic elections. i mean, so -- >> woodruff: you're saying it's complicated. >> beyond complicated and i don't think the president has made the case for it. >> that's sort of stacking the deck, expecting a rebel force of the a.c.l.u. you're not going to get that. >> pelley: . >> well, you've got al qaeda. >> there's no question. we probably should have been involved in forming the rebels a little earlier and more

aggressively, though some of that has been done. so i do think there is a group there. but the downsides -- and, again, the downsides of having an iranian client state, of having a mass murdering regime are significant. now, we can have this academic debate about what outcome we like, the reality, of course, is we have very little influence. we certainly have no influence given what the administration is doing which is a few antitank and some bullets and rifles. this strikes me as just a sort of gesture. a political gesture. >> woodruff: what about dr. pwr +*eugz's point? he said there's a lack of clarity's point and he's -- you were saying that this is a step in the right direction but his point is if you keep going in that direction, are you going to end up in a war with iran? >> well, i mean, a foreign policy is like art. you have to draw lines. so i'm a little dube rouse about slippery slopes. this whole debate is a series of parallels. some people like bill clinton drew a parallel to rwanda, we

can't allow this to happen again. other people are drawing the iraq or vietnam parallel. i think the iraq and vietnam parallel, we are so far away from getting deeply involved in syria that we're not even close to that kind of line and we won't go there. there's no support at all in the country for that kind of thing. so i don't buy that slippery slope. >> in the final analysis, if we're going into this war-- and we're talking about going into this war-- an army doesn't fight a war, a country fights a war. and we've gone through 12 years of wars where, judy, the president -- neither president-- neither president bush nor president obama-- has ever acknowledged the fact that the country is at war. i mean, there's been -- there has been no sense of collective mission. all the sacrificing, all the fighting, all the dieing is 1%. >> woodruff: it's a volunteer force. >> it's a volunteer force. >> woodruff: who are serving multiple terms. >> multiple terms at the cost of enormous personal injury and damage and as well as to their

families. so, you know, i just don't like to talk sort of cavalierly about doing this. >> there's not a human being on earth who's talking about that. there's no single american who says we should be sending soldiers over there or troops over there. we're sending -- the question is we're sending maybe antitank guns. we're sending some riflery. the question is whether we're sending antiaircraft, the question is whether they're going to do a no-fly zone on the outside. >> what is the mission? >> well, the mission -- >> and how we will know we've succeeded. when we stop the massacre? >> well, that would be a start for me. >> woodruff: well, we may not resolve in the the next few minutes so let's talk about another story we've been watching for last few weeks and that, of course, is the government surveillance since i talked to the two of you last friday. it's been revealed that a 29-year-old former government contractor named edward snowden who we think is still in hong kong, david, is the one who spilled the beans. is edward snowden a hero?

a whistle-blower as some say? or is he a traitor who violated his stpho +*et. >> he's a betrayer. he betrayed his oath which was given to him and which he took implicitly and explicitly. he betrayed his company, the people who gave him a job, the people who trusted him. he betrayed his friends who are all now going to be suspect and they won't be handing responsibility to a lot of 29-year-olds in the future. he betrayed the democratic process. it's not up to a lone 29-year-old to describe what's private and public. we have procedures for that set down in the constitution and established by tradition. and he sort of betrayed that. he betrayed the cause of liberty because if you don't have mass data sweeps then these agencies are going to want to go back to the old-fashioned eavesdropping which is a lot more intrusive. so i don't have a lot of sympathy for him. >> i don't think he's a traitor to the best of my knowledge. he is -- he did not sell secrets. he did not provide secrets to an enemy or an unfriendly entity. he did not risk americans

to the best of our knowledge. he did not reveal projects of plans or programs that were going. is he a hero? i would not certainly categorize him as a hero. the president says "i welcome this debate." that's healthy for democracy. there wouldn't be a debate, judy, if we didn't have this disclosure. i mean, that's a little bit disingenuous to say we welcome this debate. what we've had is we've had no debate. what we've had since 9/11 on all the security measures that we've taken, the debate has been overseas. it's been rendition, it's been guantanamo, it's been abu ghraib. now for the first time it's a question of what is the trade off. >> what are americans willing to do to give up their own privacy without court orders to let the government and the appetite for secrecy for every administration is absolutely limitless. >> i think we've had a bit of that debate: warrantless wiretaps. there's been some of that stuff. but i agree with mark that the

openness should have been there. >> woodruff: openness to what degree? >> that this policy existed. i don't think it's news to the terrorists that we did this. >> woodruff: you don't think he revealed that much? >> well, we know some details. he apparently told the chinese the stuff we knew about them. that was harmful to americans. that's being a traitor. >> woodruff: and there's a chinese newspaper today saying the government should use him to negotiate with the u.s. >> so if he wants to stay in china -- >> he would be a lot more heroic if he weren't in hong kong, no question about it. but, i mean, let's be honest about it: he did sacrifice and surrender his own job. quite conceivably his own freedom. i mean, this is not without cost, what he did. i i have to tell you, what i find the most offensive of all the criticisms of the guy-- whom i don't know and i probably will never meet-- and that is that he was a high school dropout. we have had ph.d.s named wolfowitz and an m.b.a. named

bush and a ph.d. student named cheney take us to war and a terrible war in this country that's cost division and lives and caused suffering. and we've had a lot of high school dropouts in this country named washington and lincoln and mark twain and will rogers and rosa parks who've made great contributions to this country. and there's something terribly snobbish about washington's credentials if he had gone to an ivy league or had a ph.d. from the university of chicago like paul wolfowitz or like richard pearl. i mean, that is -- >> he had to attack chicago. no, i don't attack him for being a high school dropout. i attack him for being a grandiose narcissist. >> is that a felony? >> no. it's a plague around here. (laughter) >> woodruff: we're not going to get personal! >> when you work for an institution-- any institution, a company, a faculty-- you don't get to violate the rules of that institution and decide for your

own self what you're going to do in a unilateral way that no one else can reverse. and that's what he did. so he betrayed the trust of the institution. he betrayed what creates a government which is being a civil servant, a servant to a larger cause and not going off on a unilateral thing because it makes you feel grandiose. >> woodruff: so he should be prosecuted? >> well, obviously there's a calculation involved. he was willing to sacrifice what was according to all reports a six-figure income, a prestigious position. i mean, and he was willing to sacrifice that or trade it for making public -- i mean, you can call it narcissism but -- call it a martyr complex, but he did do this instead of, you know, leaking it out or whatever. all administrations hate leaks unless they look good by them. unless the leaks are made by them themselves. i mean this is -- but i just don't see -- john boehner calls him a traitor and dianne feinstein calls him a traitor. >> can i just make one political

point which struck me this week powerfully. which is the polling i thought-- and i think i said in the program that there would be revulsion in the program. not in the polls. by 2-160% of people say it's a good thing, we'd like to see our privacy invaded to make it safer. >> i would say this if you look at the polls and particularly pew what you see is a total reversal. our politics are polarized. democrats who opposed this under george w. bush now endorse it under barack obama. republicans who embraced it under george w. bush now resent it and oppose it under barack obama. so, i mean, the polarization just seeps into national security. >> woodruff: on that note we're going to say good night but before we do i want to remind everybody watching that mark and david always go to our newsroom on fridays and record what they call a double header. they've done it today, you'll see it tonight on television. one week from tonight it will be a special double header because they're going to take your questions live and we're trying to drum up as much of an audience as we can, that's why

we are talking about it tonight. >> going to hit the double digits. >> woodruff: you're both getting nervous. >> do you think we'll get to a dozen people? is it 5:00 eastern? is that when it is? >> woodruff: mark and david, thank you. >> brown: finally tonight, we conclude our week-long look at food security and how climate change is affecting what we produce and how we eat. special correspondent susanne rust reports on how china's growing demand for dairy products is affecting california farmers, the economy, and global trade. it's part of our series: "food for 9 billion" tnership with public radio international's "the world," homelands productions, american public media's "marketplace" and the center for investigative reporting. >> reporter: at the culinary institute of america in california's napa valley, a group of pizza executives is taking a cooking class. they've come all the way from asia to try cooking with

california cheese. davis wei works as a cheese buyer for the largest pizza chain in china. >> ( translated ): i definitely like dairy. i'm very passionate about it. just look at my figure and you can tell that i really love this type of food. >> reporter: wei is here on a tour of the states dairy industry, organized by the california milk advisory board to drum up business. ross christieson heads up the organizations international efforts, and he's bullish on milk's future. >> if you take a global view of the dairy market, there's actually a shortage of milk around the world. we know a lot of these markets in china will grow 10 or 20 fold over the next few decades. by being there now, we can be at the start of that growth.

>> reporter: milk production is a nearly $8 billion business in california, and the state is the country's largest producer. but the business is changing and that's raised a host of economic and environmental issues. to some, china looks like a great new market for milk; to others it's a symbol of what's wrong with the old way of doing business. for one thing, california dairies have been going bankrupt. ray souza has been producing milk in turlock, ca for over 30 years, and manages herd of about 900 holstein cows. but he's worried, nearly 300 dairies in california have gone out of business in the last five years, including three of his neighbors. >> the farm to the south of me, was seized by the bank and i happened to witness that. this was a functioning business. the dairy family had been here for years and years and years.

father, mother, children were here in the daily operation of the dairy. but it's one of those things where feed costs got high, and through no fault of their own, they were not able to sustain the business. >> reporter: the problem is the cost of grains like corn and soy which are used in dairy feed, has reached record highs. >> my corn costs, which is a primary source of energy for dairy cows, is darn near tripled in the last five years. >> reporter: why? supplies are tight due to an increased demand for exported grain, the use of corn to make biofuel, and a drought in the midwest. feed prices have affected dairies across the country, but california was particularly hard hit. bill schiek is an economist at the dairy institute of california. >> in california, the traditional model of production has been one where you bring in, you purchase feed from the rest of the country and transport that to california and feed that to dairy cows, and it's a very specialized operation.

>> reporter: by importing cheap feed grains from the midwest instead of growing them on the farm as dairies in other states do, california producers are able to raise more cows and produce more milk on smaller parcels of land. it's a model that worked when grain was cheap. >> i don't know that were going to see those kind of prices return again. there's simply too much demand for feed in the world today. >> reporter: while feed costs have gone up, the price of milk, which is controlled by the state, has lagged. historically, california dairy producers have coped with low prices by increasing production and selling more milk, so despite the loss of hundreds of dairy farms, milk production in the state has never been higher, says dan putnam, a forage expert at the university of california davis. >> we've increased production per cow at about 2% to 2.2% per year relentlessly for about 30 years in california, and that even continues today.

and so what that does is it creates a real problem for the dairy producer in the sense that a couple of years goes by and they have another 5% more milk they have to figure out how to market. >> reporter: so who's going to buy all this milk? remember mr. wei, the cheese buyer for a chinese pizza chain? he's part of a growing middle class in china, who, as incomes rise, are consuming higher protein diets, including more dairy. in fact milk consumption in china has tripled in the last decade, and chinese milk producers are desperate to ramp up. recently, leading chinese dairies came to the world ag expo in tulare, ca, to acquire the latest technology. leon sun is with the shanghai dairy group. >> our main priority in this world ag expo is trying to expose ourselves to world dairy business, including feed

so we have to fill in the gaps very quickly. everything that we can absorb and import into the china dairy and boost production, and revolutionize everything. >> reporter: the shanghai dairy group is also here to import alfalfa hay, a high protein feed supplement that will boost milk production for cows in china. >> they now have fairly large dairies outside the major cities in china. and many of these dairies are every bit as modern and advanced as western dairies. and they are rapidly learning how to increase milk production per animal, but a key missing ingredient is high quality forage crops. >> reporter: alfalfa is california's largest acreage crop and also one of the most water-intensive using about a fifth of the states precious water. >> reporter: despite china's land mass, it has a shortage of water and arable land, so a few years ago chinese dairy producers began buying alfalfa from california and other western states. >> exports to china are definitely increasing.

we've seen a pretty dramatic rise since the year 2005, 2006, and i think all expectations are that it will probably increase again this coming year. >> reporter: not everyone is eager to see that happen. critics complain that california should not be shipping its valuable water supplies to china in the form of alfalfa. what's more, environmental advocates point out that dairies cause serious environmental damage, and question if california should support such a large industry, much less seek to supply china. >> here's some smaller lagoons. those are manure separators right there. those tilted things. >> reporter: tom frantz is an almond farmer in kern county, who heads a group called the association of irritated residents or air. >> it's a relatively recent phenomena in the last 20 years to 30 years that you see dairies with more than 2,000 cows.

i mean the biggest dairy, about 50 miles north of here has 18,000 animals. >> reporter: a 2012 report from the university of california davis found that one of the leading causes of nitrate pollution in groundwater comes from dairy manure used to fertilize cropland. >> by aerating there, they're getting ammonia to go up into the air. >> reporter: in addition, valley's air pollution control district, dairies are a major source of pollution in the area. fermenting dairy feed and gases from the cows themselves contribute to ozone pollution and greenhouse gases. brent newell is an environmental lawyer with the center on race, poverty and the environment. >> already, california communities are overwhelmed by the amount of air pollution that comes from these facilities, the effect on groundwater is really unacceptable, so continuing to produce milk to put on a ship and ship across the pacific ocean to china, to satisfy some kind of growing demand in china for dairy products, really makes

no sense at all. >> reporter: if the chinese continue to develop their own independent dairy industry california will lose much of its market for surplus milk and california farmers will pay more for alfalfa as exports to china drive up demand. in this complex exchange of resources and money, china may well end up the global food industry winner. >> brown: on the environmental issues, the dairy industry has responded saying central valley farmers abide by some of the nation's strictest water quality regulations. their efforts include sampling and testing manure and soil as well as monitoring groundwater. they noted that air emissions are also regulated and cited a u.n. study showing california dairy farms lead the world in a number of sustainable farming practices, including having the world's lowest emissions of greenhouse gases.

>> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day: white house officials said president obama's policy shift on syria means dramatically increasing military aid to the rebels. but, they offered few details on what kind of arms will be sent, or when detroit's emergency manager said the city is defaulting on $2.5 billion in debt in a bid to avert outright bankruptcy and millions of >> brown: online, our readers voiced skepticism about a recent story on trees and our health, so we asked the researcher to address their concerns. kwame holman has more. >> holman: in a recent study, the u.s. forest service links the health of trees to the health of humans. is it that simple? some of our readers said no. so we asked one of the research authors back to field your questions. all that and more is on our website newshour.pbs.org. judy? >> woodruff: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. on monday, we'll look at the next round of decisions from the supreme court. i'm judy woodruff.

>> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thanks for joining us. good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> more than two years ago, the people of b.p. made a commitment to the gulf. and everyday since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we shared what we've learned so that we can all produce energy more safely. b.p. is also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.

>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and friends of the newshour. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the great john mcenroe. >> well, the economy's going to try to do a lot of things, which is one open up our doors to people, for example, in harlem which is right around the corner from me. so it would be nice to have some of these great young athletes instead of playing basketball, for example, or football, that they choose tennis. and that there's a means and a ways possibly that they could get themselves from doing something possibly not good to possibly doing something great for their country. >> rose: and one of the great golf writers around, jaime diaz, talks about the u.s. open at marion. >> and tiger used to do it better than anyone. just like jordan would do it at thd