captioning sponsored by rose communications

>> these very bad things, and unfortunately he's the one, and today the only one to suffer the consequences. >> rose: we continue with with phil mudd, amy davidson, and jochai benkler. >> i think the finding of not guilty in aiding the energy charge is extremely important. the aiding the enemy charge was a very extreme one. it had a theory that would have effectively threatened life imprisonment for any leaking to the media, and the fact that the judge found manning not guilty is very important, and an admirable and difficult finding. >> rose: also this evening a look at the events in egypt with michael gordon, gauche, and mihcael hanna. >> you have three different groups that have lost all credibility and are fighting for legitimacy. on the credibility stakes, the morsi government lost credibility on-- the military never had credibility of the saviors of democracy, and the liberal groups have lost credibility as democrats.

>> rose: an assessment of the bradley mang verdict, and a look at egypt in conflict next. from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: private first class bradley manning was acquitted today of the most serious charge against him, aiding the enemy, which could have meant life in prison. he was convicted on five counts of espionage and five counts of theft for leaking sense tiff government documents to wikileaks. manning admitted sending hundreds of thousands of documents to wikileaks, including diplomatic cables and reports from iraq and afghanistan. he claimed his actwere meant to expose wrongdoing. joining me from washington is michael hayden, the former director of the n.s.a. and c.i.a. and is principal of the chertoff group. thank you very much for joining us, general hadeep. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: what's your assessment of this verdict? are you surprised? >> no, not surprised at all.

i mean he was convicted on several very serious charges and the one where he was not convicted of aiding the enemy-- although, clearly what he did aided the enemy-- the burden of proof on government was very high if to indicate that that was his intent. look, trials like this are supposed to bring to us some sense of closure. recent trials haven't done that very much, but i think this one is a just enough verdict. we should now move on. >> rose: okay, i want to talk about all of that, let me just stay with this. he was acquitted of aiding the enemy. what would have constituted aiding the enemy? >> i do think he aided the enemy, charlie. he put hundreds of thousands of documents, secret documents, appropriately classified documents out there in the public domain, and any sentient human being would understand once he did that our enemies would read them, particularly the enemy with whom we're at war, al qaeda and affiliate. s copies were found in osama bin

laden's home. he did aid the enemy. the difficulty here is proving that was his actual intent, that he willed the united states specifically that kind of harm, and clearly the government didn't do that. they didn't prove that. >> rose: then why did they bring that charge if they thought they couldn't prove it? >> well, no, i actually thought thought-- i actually think they thought they could. again, we did find the documents in the possession of the enemy. i've made it quite clear in previous commentary that an enemy that could go through the tactical reporting could actually begin to divine who our source were that provided with us key information, and that would in turn put these ?owrsz great physical danger. >> rose: he was convicted of five count of espionage and five counts of theft for leaking sensitive government documents to wikileaks. >> right. >> rose: the counts of espionage, what were the most alarming for you that he did that they convicted him on? >> well, again, charlie, these

were all appropriately classified documents, tactical reporting from the american military, diplomatic reporting from the department of state. i'm not sure how the charges broke down for each count of espionage. but taken as a whole, in its totality, this is to date the largest leak of american secrets we've had in the history of the republic, and so i don't think anyone should be surprised that the government went after this case very aggressively and came down on this unfortunate young man very hard. >> rose: bradley manning, in your judgment, is a traitor? >> no, there's a narrow definition in the constitution that outlines what a traitor is he probably doesn't meet that narrow definition. it's a troubled young man who did a very bad thing and, frankly, charlie, i think he was exploited by others to help convince him to do these very bad things, and now, unfortunately, he's the one--

and to date the only one-- to certificate of consequences. >> rose: what about olympia edwd snowden? >> he may prove to be the single biggest leaker in history, once we learn about what he had and what he revealed already to some press outlets. manning was bad, but even though it was a great number of secrets, they were discreet secretses, onesieies and twossi. i described them as cups of water and he betrayed a lot of cups of water. snowden is a little different, charlie. snowden is betraying the plumbing. snowden is betray the way whie bye which we aqiert dispoaks will have very long-term damage to the center and safety of the united states. >> rose: did he betray sources and methods, as shea say? >> absolutely. when he made public what he has already made public, with regard to how n.s.a. does its business

it's prison program, the metadata program, the allegations of what we were doing with president putin's communications from great britain, other allegations with regard to where we're collecting metadata around the world-- this cannot but help our enemies protect their communications from us. >> rose: i read a report today-- and there is the ongoing question of freedom versus security, and the question that i raised with the president in an interview last month it's idea of-- that a significant number of americans are concerned, concerned about security, of course, but also really concerned about the fact that the government surveillance is going too far. do you understand or appreciate their concerns? >> oh, i-- i deeply appreciate their concerns, charlie. look, i come from the same political culture, the same political traditions, and frankly, events over the past year or two have made me concerned about the creeping

over-reach of government, so i can see we have almost a perfect storm here as these stories come out, what the national security agency is doing to help keep americans safe. but a lot of my countrymen are very concerned about this. but, frankly, charlie, i think if they understand the truth, if they really understand what n.s.a. is doing and how n.s.a. is doing it, i actually think this will end up in a very good place. right now, right now, a significant fraction of our countrymen believe the n.s.a. is reading their e-mails, the n.s.a. is recording their phone calls, and the n.s.a. has dossiers on all of them. none of that is true, but butt that's what they believe and that, frankly, is how the story has been portrayed in much of the media. >> rose: bradley manning has had his day in court and we see what the court has said. this is a military court. how is it different than it might have been otherwise? how does that military court work? >> actually, the courts under

the uniform code of military justice, very strongly parallel our civilian court system. actually, in? somecases, charlie, you actually have more rights in the military court than you have sometimes inside federal civilian court. i don't think this made a great difference, but it did underunderscore a very important fact-- this wasn't just anybody inside american civil society. this was an american soldier. this was an american who had taken up arms in defense of the united states and sworn to do and respect certain things. i think it's very appropriate that the trial was handled in the military court system. >> rose: you seem to have some sympathy-- not sympathy, but you seem to have some understanding-- he's a troubled young man, you said about bradley manning. what do you think about edward snowden? >> i also think this is a troubled young man who kind of embraced an absolute commitment to transparency. he's made some very bad

decisions. i don't know that he fully understands how much harm he has done. but, charlie, let me explain why i think these two cases-- manning and snowden-- are so very important. i mean, these two young men are representatives of a generation that the american security services-- c.i.a., n.s.a., and others-- that's generation from which we are now recruiting most of our talent and particularly our cybir talent. now, i understand the folks in that generation have a different-- a different balance point between secrecy and transparency than our generation did, charlie. but this generation has to be shown that whatever they think of transparency on their facebook page, the u.s. government is very focused, very serious about secrecy when it comes to appropriately classified government information. so in this sense, the manning trial-- and one hopes at some

point the snowden trial-- underscore to this generation that they need to think twice before they embrace this almost-romantic attachment to absolute transparency. in other words, actions have consequences. >> rose: so how do we come to more understanding and figuring out where the balance is and how do we figure out where the bes best-- best means are to handle the issue? >> in absolute terms if you ask me as a professional, i keep it all secret. i'm more effective when no one i target in a variety of knows my tactics, techniques and secrets. charlie, i know i live in a modern democracy, and this modern democracy, although it may allow our president to do one thing one-off, it doesn't allow anyone in our federal government to do anything for

long periods of time without a national consensus underping, and you don't get a national discussion without a significant portion of the citizenry knowing somewhat what you're doing. so i understand, charlie. we're going to shave pointsd off of our operational effectiveness to be a bit more transparent to the american people so they understand what it is we're doing on their behalf, and then allow you us to go and do it in the first place. >> rose: understanding how we make decisions in a democracy, and understanding how that kind of decision might be made if left to the people, would you be comfortable with their decision? >> look, charlie, i've said this since i entered federal service, and certainly my last 10 years in the national security agency and the central intelligence

agency, and i actually said this in testimony in front of congress after 9/11. i said tell me the box. give me the box you will allow me to operate in. i'm going to play to the very edges of that box. i'm going to be very aggressive. i used the phrase, "i'll get chalk dust on my cleats i'll be so close to the out-of-bounds markers," but you, the american people, through your elected representatives, give me the field of play and i will play very aggressively in it. as long as you understand what risk you are embracing by keeping me and my colleagues in this box, charlie, we're good to go. we understand. we follow the guidance of the american people. >> rose: has anything come out of what edward snowden has disclosed that you find-- obviously there's a lot you think shouldn't have been disclosed -- if not all of it. >> right. >> rose: but is there something you think that has been disclosed that you might look at with the perspective of having been away from your leadership roles in the u.s.

government, saying we didn't have to go there? we didn't have to do that? >> no, actually, charlie, i haven't. let me confide in you. i'm prepared to have that reaction and to come to that conclusion, but i have not seen it yet. i suggested earlier, there are some things our government has been doing recently that has me worried about over-reach. i don't understand, for example, how the f.b.i. gets to read director petraeus' e-mails without a warrant as if they're somehow abandoned business records. i don't understand. that. with regard to what ?oapped has revealed, keep in mind, charlie, this is all about foreign intelligence activity, and traditional american law has given the federal government an awful lot more running room when it comes to foreign intelligence collection than it has with regard to, say, law enforcement collection. >> rose: so tell me what you think edward snowden's future is? >> charlie, i don't eye don't know. clearly. >> have a hope that the united states will get him back.

i don't think the chances of our getting him back are down near zero. i actually think there's reasonable chance we will get him back. but i wouldn't put the odds at better than even right now. >> rose: so 50-50 we'll get him, the u.s. will get him? >> approaching 50-50, sure. >> rose: do you believe, finally, as some people who know him have said, you know, that if in fact he ends up in american custody and he ends up in a bad place, that he has left of the capacity to have information divulged that will deal serious damage-- much more than has happened so far-- to american national security interest? does he have access to that kind of stuff that he has not yet released? >> i have no reason to disbelief his claim, charlie, is the best way i would put it. i would also point out, in addition to betraying classified information, he's now putting up

the threat of blook mail to his list of crimes -- >> exactly. >> that he's willing to commit. >> rose: charlie hayden, thank you. >> thanks, charlie. >> rose: joining me for further consideration of the bradley manning verdict from memphis, phil mudd. he is the former deputy director of national security to the f.b.i. and counter-terrorist center of the c.i.a. with me in new york, amy davidson of the "new yorker" magazine. later we'll be joined by jochai benkler of harvard law school. he was a witness for the defense in bradley manning's trial. i am pleased to have all of them here and those coming. i will begin with phil mudd in memphis. what's your assessment of this verdict? >> i think the verdict is pretty predictable. the interesting piece of this to me is what he was not convicted of, that is aiding and abetting the enemy. when i look at this, my response having grown up in the c.i.a., if i wanted to give out information like this when i

grew up in the c.i.a., it was given to the russians or the soaf bloc. you now have a third way. it's not the americans. it's not the russians. you give it to society generally and there is 100 million people out there saying you did the right thing, bradley manning. that to me is fascinating. >> rose: amy? >> i could always in some way put something in the newspaper. it's true when you publish something the whole world might see it, but that's why there are laws against releasing classified information, and that's why he was convicted of a lot of them. this particular charge, aiding the enemy, was a really novel one. it hadn't been used in this way -- >> the charge he was acquitted of. >> the charge he was acquitted of. and a lot of people i think rightly thought it was a dangerous precedent if he had been convicted. the idea was by putting? a newspaper nor any publication that a bad person might read you were helping that person.

>> rose: who was he helping? >> well, helping people who are interested in knowing why we do or don't go to war. helping maybe civilians who might get better protection if there's a sense when civilians aren't protected it might look bad for the united states. helping people whose privacy might be protected. or, you know, if you look at a lot of the state department documents that were released by bradley manning, helping people in a lot of different countries figure out what was going on with their governments. but aiding the enemy is something different. the law is written that you are basically setting out to help an enemy of the united states harm the united states. >> rose: right. >> that's why it hasn't been used in 150 years. >> rose: if you wanted to do that you could somehow figure out how to communicate it directly to them and then you'd have extent? >> right. for example, in the court-martial, one of the big points the prosecution made that was when the seals went into

abbottabad to osama bin laden's headquarters, they found indications that bin laden had read the wikileaks files that were published in the "guardian" that the "times," that he had asked about them and wanted to see them. the question i had when i read that was what would the legal meaning be if they'd gone in and found a copy of the "times" or a copy of the "new yorker"? does that mean we have to think in terms of printing investigative pieces that might embarrass our government? is that aiding the enemy? it's a really different charge and a different category. >> rose: it weighed into this phil. there seems a difference between exwargs the government and giving someone who has a decidedly adversarial relationship with the government. phil? >> i think-- i think that's true. look, as a security professional, i look at this and say some things he did in my view were definitely wrong. you can't take an oath when you're running an organization

like me and is have a bunch of people who took that oath and say unilaterally i get to decide what i'm going to talk about nay public forum. but, look, as you just said, the president of the united states has aided the enemy-- i'm being half facetious-- when you say this is the withdrawal plan for afghanistan, the taliban says game on. that's a slippery slope to get on. >> rose: phil, tell me how you see the guy. bradley manning there had been lots lot of profiled about him, what his vulnerabilities were and what was his frame of mind and the like? >> i think the story is interesting but not complicated. somebody in his situation 30 years would have had to take a bigger step than simply revealing the information. they might have gone to the "new york times." but more likely they might have gone to the soaf embassy and said there's a cache of stuff and for ideological reasons i want to give it to you. in the 21st century, somebody who is 20 doesn't have to take that leap.

they can give it to wikileaks and have whole universe of like-minded people that what they're doing sliekd. i think he's like snowden. he has a messiah complex where he says i have a better way. i don't agree with what the man is doing and i'm going to tell the world about it. >> rose: we're now join from the harvard law school jochai benkler. at first you were a witness at this trial so husome familiarity with what was going on. secondly, you have heard the verdict. what is your reaction yurks assessment of the verdict. >> mixed. i think the finding of not guilty in the aiding the enemy charge is extremely important. the aiding the enemy charge was a very extreme one. it had a theory that would have effectively threatened life imprisonment for any leaks to the media. and the fact that judge found manning not guilty is very important, and an admirable and difficult finding. >> rose: was that because he

lacked intent? was that the reason that they found him not guilty or something else? >> i think that the theory the prosecution presented was a very broad theory. it basically said that if aee-- if someone gives a leak-- if a source gives a leak to the media, and the media then publishes it, and some enemy-- say, al qaeda-- reads it on the internet, that by itself is an act of indirectly communicating with the enemy. and so it wasn't so much a question of intent as whether in fact simply doing something that was publishin publishing in thea available throughout the world by itself is enough to-- for a finding of aiding the enemy, and the prosecution really never showed anything more than that that. >> rose: what was your role in this trial? the primary role of my testimony

was to try to explain how wikileaks was viewed, what a reasonable person in early 2010, before all the hype, before all the excesses, what a reasonable person would have thought about wikileaks when someone like private manning would have given the materials to wikileaks. and i showed in my testimony that wikileaks would have essentially been seen at the time as an edgy, interesting new media site, but the media. and that framed what the prosecution did very clearly as not distinct from had manning given it to the "times "or "post "or "journal." >> rose: do you believe private manning should have been convicted of any charges? >> i believe that his is a relatively hard case. i think that the set of offenses to which he offered to plead guilty-- some of his pleas the judge accepted-- certainly suggest that he accepts responsibility for having done things that are illegal.

the real question in the case was never about is he completely innocent or is he guilty? he offered substantial guilty plea that would have cost him 20 years' imprisonment. the real question was how heavy a weapon can the government wield against the sources of national security investigative journalists? manning and his guilty plea suggest 10, 20 years was a lot and more than enough to deter. the prosecution wanted life without parole, and failing that, decades. >> rose: what's your own sense of response to what he said? >> i think the consensus that i'm sensing that a treasonous charge is too strong that i agree as an american would have been inappropriate. but i think at some point you have to say-- for example, if an american come wants to talk to the egypt military today, is it acceptable for them to say regardless of what you think,

bradley manning, there are some things that a appropriate for a government to say should remain secret. you can't have everybody with a million people requestw a security experience saying i have a different perspective. i'm going to give everything over to wikileaks. it's not appropriate. >> the question is-- the question is what's the proper balance? it's not a question of-- there are very few people-- i think certainly none around this table-- who would say that operable secrecy is never important. but i suspect there's also no one around the table who would seriously say we have never encountered the national security establishment making mistierkz acting with ill faith or actingn incompetently. so if we in a democratic society want to be able to know those things, we can't rely on the director of national intelligence testifying to congress. wean that. we get the least truthful answers.

we can't rely the general in charge of the n.s.a. will be told there are not enough technical capabilities to electrocute e-mail he. >> rose: let me interrupt you. phil, clearly, i think you'd probably agree with part of that answer. >> oh, absolute. having been a government-- we over-classified stuff all the time. that's different than saying somebody can bulk download information and make no effort as to what is really sensitive. >> the cost to over-classification is somebody like bradley manning couldn't do his job without having access ofs until and millions and millions of classified files. >> i'm agreeing with you. what i'm saying is as a government official it didn't cost me to classify a document document. i know there's a cost in terms of debate. >> there's a cost in terms of debate to the public, things we ought to know that we don't know. you know, we could talk a long time about that, but there's also a practical cost. the government needs people to do certain jobs.

in order to have them do those jobs thas to give them clearances because the practical day-to-day things they need to deal with for their jobs are classified when they shouldn't necessarily be. that's how you have 20-year-olds with these clearances. that's how you have private contractors with these cloornses. now, in terms of the broader issue, the cost to all of us, of secrecy, you mentioned the testimony about where there were actual untruths told in testimony about what the nstay was doing, and the whole issue of whether was all of the n.s.a.'s metadata, all of that, the public not even understand, what the terms are, what a business record is, what data is. and that's level of lack of transparency being really harmful to the discussion. the idea that there's a bodie-- as senator widen says, there are not only secret operation but

secret jrps is really jurispru. >> i want to surprise you by perhaps agreeing with some extent to the question of massive document leak. there's a tradeoff. i think whenever we are thinking about what the appropriate punishment-- if any punishment at all. i think snowden for example selected very, very carefully only those documents that actually identified what now we have almost a majority of-- a bear minority of congress saying was really problematic. there, i think it really is immunity that we should be talking about as opposed to what punishment. when you're talking about very large data sets, you have a tradeoff. there are some things in the massive data set that we would never have known but for the massive document leak. most importantly in this regard biker looking at all of the war logs from iraq it was possible

to calculate that the united states military knew about civilian collateral damage in iraq at a much greater level than it was reporting publicly. you can't get that from a single smoking gun document. you can only get that from a massive document. on the other hand, it's much harder for the leak tore make sure that every piece of information is not dangerous. >> rose: go ahead. >> it's also the case that one of the documents that manning is charged with leaking, which is a video of an apache helicopter involved . >> rose: that was early on. >> i think it's very get that vididididididididididie would call classic journalistic fashion, and it had been kept from the public. >> rose: phil you think that was appropriate to leak that footage? >> you know, i have to say, i think that's a fair discussion to have but bauz when you sit nia government chair it's very easy to slip from what protects the security of the united

states and what is embarrassing to leak. i sat in conversations where i thought we were having a discussion embarrassment to the government. if somebody is red in the face, that's not good enough. >> rose: embarrassment is different than threatening national security. >> correct. >> let's remember. that was the response of then-secretary of defense gates to the whole cable leaks. it was-- he said explicitly, is it embarrassing? yes. harmful to america's international relations? he thought the response was overwrought. >> rose: let me ask you because we've gotten around this with general haden and here. the difference between edward snowden and bradley manning, other than two different human beings. wasn one was in the military and the other of was the consultant? >> i think the difference between snowedden and manning comes from both sides of the equation, both how much they disclosed and how discreet the

screbility of the wrongdoing that they exposed. so manning dissclosed many documents. there were important patterns, like, for example, the disschoars of the apache helicopter attack. like, for example, the exposure that the u.s. military that the maliki forces were torturing opponents. these were very important. but there was a broad set of documents and there were relatively minor or specific findings of wrongdoing. snowden is in some sense the mirror image, and that's why manning appropriately accepted the level of guilt. snowden is a very different story. there's a very small number of documents that specifically point out a set of actions that a majority of americans and almost a majority of the house believe are systematic violations of the fourth amendment. there, prosecution is enstierl unacceptable. immunity is the only reasonable

thing a democratic people can give to someone who exposes what so many people believe is a violation of our constitutional rights. >> rose: speaking of that, phil, what do you think is going to happen to edward snowden? >> edward snowden is 30 years old. i view what he did as insidious. he didn't just reveal information. he went to a competitor and said this is what we do. i think he should be prosecuted stronger than manning. i think what he defense horrible. the guy is 30 years old. his life expectancy is 80. to figure that he's never going to fall into the u.s. justice system in the next 50 years to my mind is naive. some day he's coming home on american soil and he's going to spend time in a federal pen. >> i have a question-- given the intensity of your anger, if ?oand believed that he would be facing a prosecution, the sum total of penalty for which would have been somewhere between-- say around what scooter libby

got for burning a live c.i.a. agent, not i two and a half yea, do you think he would have run to chine and russia as opposed to given the shameful treatment of manning in his first year, and the possibility of life without parole? >> rose: it's a good question. you have a minute to answer, phil. >> my answer is i don't know what was in his head. you cannot manage an organization where you say look, son if you want to talk to the chinese about how we attack, have on it. you can't run an organization like that. >> i tiuk it's unfair to talk about handing information to a news organization like the "guardian" because someone is trying to escape the excessive prosecution we've seen by handing over to the chinese. >> rose: phil, i'm going to lose my satellite in memphis. >> thank you. >> rose: snowden should what?

what should happen to edward snowden? >> i think the problem with the situation with edward snowden is there is an agreemently aggressive tendency within the d.o.a. to produce whistle blowers. what we need instead is either a presidential level intervention which, again, without significant political process, i don't think. or congressional intervention of some form, particularly from a congress that last week -- >> into what? >> into creating a defense that will be applied to him retroactively to any set of prosecution -- >> hoe he have leave russia and come back to the united states knowing he will be punished. >> or that he will be punished, i think you're saying, in a modest way, a way comedzerate with what happened, not a life sentence-- aiding the enemy does in theory carry the death penalty. that's why holder, eric holder, the attorney general wrote a

letter last week to the russian minister of justice said, you know, just so you know, if you send ?oand back -- >> he will not be prosecuted for the death penalty. >> we won't execute him and we won't torture him and we'll put him in a civilian court and give him a lawyer. now, what's striking about that is all of those things should be pretty obvious, and in the last few years, it's become less so. i mean, we've sort of gotten very off balance in terms of leak prosecutions, in terms of all of these things, to the point if you're saying that jamie rosen of fox is violating the espionage act, what does that say about the scale of somebody-- of the response of somebody like snowden can expect? and what does it say, really, about, you know, in terms of running the operation, running an open society, there's a need at times for leaks. there's a need at times where

the government is going to try to keep things secret and the press is going to push back and there has to be aness and to just sort of go nuclear with some of these charges the way the government has has been harmful. and i think one thing that happened today in the manning case is a judge pushed back a little bit and that's forked the good. >> rose: last word. thank you, pleasure to have out program. >> good to be here. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. we continue tonight with the turmoil in egypt and the wider region. on saturday, egyptian security forces killed over 70 people. the crowds 4 going tokerred in support of mohammed morsi violence in iraq has claimed more than 2500 lives since

april. the syrian regime has retaken cae years in the city of homs. joining me is michael gordon, of the "new york times." bobby ghosh, editor of "time" magazine, and former baghdad bureau chief. also in new york, mihcael hanna, a senior fellow of the century foundation. i am pleased to have all of them here. michael, what is read in terms of what happened on saturday? >> it's still not clear. we know the death toll was quite high, over 70 people. i don't think it was a preplanned attack. i think it was a confrontation when the demonstration tried to go beyond its regular bounds. but what was notable was this wasn't an attempt to disburse the protesters but an immediate reversion, just about, to live fire. we see much more heavy-handed tactics by the police. they have used live fire before. but this was no attempt to

disburse the crowds, and a really quick reversion to live fire and, obviously, we see pretty disastrous results. >> rose: meaning what fthe increasingly hostility between the military and the muzz lil brotherhood? >> clearly, there's very little room for these parties to back down to, deescalate. that is the key to moving this forward. there's talk of an inclusive political process. we're a long way off from that. first you have to stop this violence. you have to manage a way tobling both sides to a table. there is no negotiating table at the moment. we don't even know what that discussion would be about. and so, obviously, i think there has to be movement on both sides, and we haven't seen any leadership from either side in that direction. >> rose: bobby, is the military losing public support in terms of the support of people who might have wanted them to do something because they were-- they hadn't seen the

kind of democracy they perhaps wanted? >> i think they're beginning to go down that slope. they still have a lot of public support. but these kinds of incidents are not going too help. as we've seen public opinion in egypt turns very quickly. this was the same public that was against the military, against the police a year ago. now they're completely for. you have a few more of these massacres and mood may turn again. what you have really in egypt is three different groups that have lost all credibility and are now fighting for legitimacy. the-- on the credibility stairksz the morsi government lost credibility as a party that's capable of ruling the country. the military never really had any credibility as the ciphior of democracy. and the liberal groupses have lost credibility as democrats. in the legitimacy stakes, the brotherhood has legitimacy.

the other two groups don't have a leg to stand on. but then again, the brotherhood's record-- the manner of ruling the country was so heavy handed and clumsy, nobody can speak for of for anybody. >> rose: how much influence does the united states, especially the u.s. military have, with the egyptian military because of the long-standing relationship? >> well, montarily, the united states is out-classed by countries like qatar and others that are capable of giving-- and are giving-- billions of dollars more than the united states. i think the military has a long-standing relationship and close relationship with the egyptian military, including the current leadership. and they've tried to use the pentagon as a vehicle for influencing the military. i don't know that they've been very success successful so far. >> rose: who wants to take

advantage of this conflict and who has some leverage and means to do it, bobby? >> the people with the greatest to gain here are the-- are those who i can sa, "we told you so." >> rose: the islamists. >> the more extreme end of the islamist movement can say, "we told you so. we told you democracy doesn't work." we told you they would never allow really free and fair elections. >> what's different this time the ismammists governed-- granted in a truncated time-- and failed. the popular uprising evidence mostly made up of conservative muslims. what has happened is an undermining of the narrative, when the democratic comes to the arab world, when the conservative muslims vote-- the quick assumption what is coming

and what will be ascendant in the arab world has-- i think what has happened in egypt clearly undermines that assumption. >> rose: speak to other people in the region what they might do. you know iraq well pup know other people in the region. there's, obviously, conflict in syria experks egypt under morsi made a clear anti-what sahd declaration in favor of the rebels. who else might want to get involved in this thing, as other countries, like qatar? >> i think iran sought with the previous government to establish ties and make some inroads. i think also there is a sort of reverse effect, which is the events in egypt are having an effect elsewhere in the region. i'll give you a small example. the middle east peace talks, for example. because the muslim brotherhood was a supporter of hamas, and because hamas is a rival to

mahmoud abbas, the head of the palestinian authority, this builds up the authority of abbas at a time when the united states is-- in fact, has started direct peace talks for the first time in three years. so the events in egypt are having a ripple effect throughout the region in ways they think people hadn't anticipated not all bad, either. >> rose: let me just take a tangent here. you're in washington and you're covering what secretary kerry is trying to do there with the palestinians, and the israelis. what-- are they optimistic that this is a start that has traction? >> well, kerry is convinced it's possible and he might be a minority of one. but the kind of conventional wisdom is that kerry has taken on a mission impossible pie initiate, yesterday and today direct talks between the pals and israelis which are going to resume.

he just announce thaerd going to resume in the region in two weeks and that the goal is an extremely ambitious one, to sarks chief a comprehensive settlement within nine months on all of the core issues, or at least as much as thie they can . in terms of where the secretary osecretaryof state's focus syess monitoring egypt. he's working the syria issue, which is pretty stalemated and not working out very well from the american standpoint, but really where his heart is, is in the middle east peace talks which he's just put all of his authority and prestige behind. >> rose: talk to me about how you see the rel-palestinian talks and whether secretary kerrs hay chance to somehow make a difference. i've talked to leaders in the region who say this plan-- which we really don't quite understand-- has some merit. >> as long as they're talking there's at least the prospect. it's very hard to see where they can find common grounds.

clearly, kerry has put so much of his political prestige, as michael said, on the table here, he's-- he doesn't have a whole lot else-- a lot of capital left to then force them to come to some sort of terms. >> rose: syria is tied up in their own áilule, egypt is tied up in their own battle, so the arab initiate and i have partners might have whomight have interest in doing this are not available to be involved. >> this conflict has been somewhat overshadowed by the events of the arab uprising has been a quick assumption as well that perhaps this was a secondary concerning perhaps it wasn't quite all we'd cracked is up to be. and i think despite the fact that people are caught up in their own domestic struggles, this is still quite important to the arab world, to the sort of collective consciousness that still exists, and i think in some ways has been revitalized by the shared public space of

the uprisings. palestine matters. and naertz for u.s. interest. i don't know that this is going to be successful. but i do know the lack of a resolution is definitely a big detriment to the united states. >> it is a very big deal. if you track the arab media. even with everything going on in egypt, tunisia, and syria. the moment kerry announced this was likely to happen it became the headline news. it sort of immediately becomes something everyone is talking about. ythe other arab states may be a little distracted at the moment, but when the talks begin you'll see them rallying around and you'll see them, i suspect, going back to familiar positions. and the egyptians will try to get involved, too. there are actual seats at the table and then there's the gallery. >> rose: tell me about general cecewhat, you know about him? >> he's very religious. he's also-- he has no real

battle experience. he's not a battle-hardened general -- >> what we call a washington general? >> exactly that. he's a cairo general. he spent most of his career in back offices. his still is in organizing. he sif you like, a bureaucrat in uniform-- a very big one. this is an enormous leap of faith, if you like, for him. he's taken on the mantle and he talks already bike sadat and nasir and he is constantly referring to them in his speeches. >> i don't know that he knows exactly what his end game is. i think this is a really fluid situation. and i'm not sure that the military itself and the general who is obviously the most

visible leader at the moment, has figured out where this is headed. i think the military always assumes that tts interest and privileges and autonomy will be sacrosanct and protected, regardless of whichever civilian is there. >> rose: which raises the question, was he reluctant? >> i would say the cu the coup t inevitable. i don't think the military is necessarily scheming but clearly at some point they began to consider possibilities and began a contingency plan. >> rose: what about the liberals? >> i think they thought they would win an election. a lot have a sense of entitlement. there's a sense among the leaders that i get eye don't know if michael would agree-- they felt well, we won the revolution. so when we go to the people and ask them to vote they will vote for us automatically. we don't have to do the hard work of creating political pears

and campaigning and creating offices -- >> that was my point, they were politically naive. >> they were naive and we saw this in iraq where the reason why the religious parties suck stleed, was the liberal-- what we call secular partie parties t simply didn't do the work. two years ago, the liberals had an excuse-- this was new. they didn't really have the infrastructure that the brotherhood had. the brotherhood about have a huge organizational advantage, but it's been two years and they still haven't really done all that work. >> rose: michael what are the fears washington has about this, the white house and the pentagon? egypt. >> well, i think egypt is probably the most important arab country. the united states has had a long-standing relationship with it. apart from how events might twrans spire in egypt, the big fear and i'm sure of the united states and israel-- there was a

peace agreement with israel and there was a agree of cooperation between the two sides and if egypt was totally engulfed in turmoil, and the muslim brotherhood and others like that, could change-- i think there's an enormous amount at station, and i think that's yet white house has moved very gingerly on the legal front and has basically come up with a decision that it doesn't have to decide in terms of enforcing the law about declaring whether this-- changing government was a coup or not. i think it's probably their front-burner issue but it's. when and if they have influence. i think it's ironic they're poring a lot of energy into the peace talks but of it is important but it's in an arena

where they have influence. >> it's not susceptible to falling apart over night -- >> indicator's camp david? >> carter's camp david. i think what we need to worry about from the american perspective, protect anything of your interests, requires a stability in egypt. and that threshold might not be met. and that's where this becomes problematic because the old formulas of repression leading to stability i don't think pertain anymore. if this new government, along with the military, thinks it can compress it's way back i think it's a mistake. >> rose: is syria viewed by most now as a stalemate? >> it is. audiences are lose interest.

>> rose: michael, how do you see syria? >> i think syria is in a pad way. i think the assad government has the upper hand-- it might be temporary-- but thanks to an infusion of fighting from hezbollah. i think the americans are late to the conflict and only as secretary kerry once said-- kind of allowed himself in a moment of candor-- and i think the army and training is only now beginning to get under way in earnest, and it's going to be hard for the rebels to reclaim ground. the main point i have is there's a disconnect between the united states political strategy and absence of a military strategy. they're seeking peace talks in ge?eefa, and if and when i they occur, the rebel side, the opposition is going to come in a

very weakened position. they're concerned they're that going to have to a disadvantage. i think there is the contradiction under the call for a political solution and what's happening on the ground. >> rose: michael thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> rose: one last question-- president obama's leadership on this issue, in you talk to people, they say we want the united states to lead. we want them to play a role. we want them to be involved in some way. is this going to be viewed if it doesn't change failure or wisdom on the part of the obama second term? >> well, maybe a bit of both. i think the problem is, the discussion has been too polarized in the sense sense we've talked about completely

staying out in some circles and direct military interventions. ping both of those options are bad ones. they're not going to work. the terms of the debate and discussion have been quitely simplistic and what we could still do. >> rose: which might be? >> this war is it going to go on for a long time. it's mitigate and contain. >> nuls see the rul impact on the ground. often american trading and american aaiftance. the longer this goes on, the less relevant the u.s. seems noob that particular conflict. >> rose: thank you. thank you. thank you for joining us. see you next time.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org