>> charlie: welcome to the broadcasts. tonight, race in america in the aftermath of the arrest of a harvard professor by the cambridge massachusetts police officer. we talk about the meaning of this with the reverend floyd make, david remnick and raina kelly. >> when this happens, it comes another time when you say we thought we were past this and here it is again. if it can happen to dr. gates, then it can happen to me. >> these are not questions anymore about, you know, kind of

binary questions about water found towns and lunch counters they are questions about institutional racism. they're questions about incarceration rates which are crazy and out of control which have to do with thought just racism but drug laws in the country. it's a complex of problems that i think obama's very aware of. >> it's amazing that obama allowed himself to make that speech this afternoon. we're so used to seeing people harden their position over the course of a new cycle. i will never apologize. the rhetoric gets built up and built up and built up and then when the american people say to themselves, please let this be over. >> charlie: we continue with a new film opening this weekend directed by armando iannucci. the floim satisfies the leader in a war to the middle east. >> i thought there was something intrinsically farce cull about

the story, going out to washington, thinking they were in some way preventing george bush from going to war, and in fact by their very presence in the whitehouse, encouraging him and enabling him to go to war. now i know you pull your hair out at that or you scream or you say that's a farce, that's a total absurd sad events. >> charlie: a program note. our conversation with ross douphat, the new york sometimes columnist will be seen next week.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: we begin tonight with a conversation about race in america. in the aftermath of an incident between a harvard professor and a cambridge massachusetts police officer. the controversy over the arrest of henry louis gates a prominent african american professor. added to the controversy is criticizing the cambridge police officer. >> recently henry gates, jr. was arrested at his home in cambridge. what does that say to you and about race relations in america? >> well, i should say at the outset that skip gates is a friend. so i may be a little biased

here. i don't know all the facts. what's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys. jimmied his way to get into the house. there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. so far so good, right. i mean if i was trying to jigger -- well, i guess this is my house now. it probably wouldn't happen. [laughter] but my home in chicago. here, i'd get shot. [laughter] i don't know not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. but i think it's fair to say number one, any of us would be pretty angry. number two, that the cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were

in their own home. and number three, what i think we know separate and apart from this incident, is that there is a long history in this country of african americans and latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. that's just a fact. >> charlie: today the president spoke on the phone with both professor gates and surgery crowley. the president asked the country to reflect on the broader meaning of the incident. >> my sense is you've got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved and the way they would have liked it to be resolved. the fact that it has garnered so much attention, i think is a testimony of the fact that these

are issues that are still very sensitive here in america. and so to the extent that my choice of words didn't illuminate but rather contributed to more media friendly, i think that was unfortunate. my hope is that as a consequence of this event, this ends up being what's called a teachable moment, where all of us, instead of pumping up the volume, spend a little more time listening to each other. and try to focus on how we can generally improve relations between police officers and minority communities. and that instead of flinging accusations, we can all be a little more reflective i terms of what we can do to contribute to more unity. >> charlie: joining me is a former congressman and pats ter the reverend dr. floyd flake,

also david remnick and raina kelly. i'm glad to have you all here to learn about the teachable moment on this and reflect on the huge amount of attention in the last couple days. i begin with you floyd flake. tell me, what should we learn from this? >> i think what we learned is that there are still some remnants of the past and that those remnants are reflective in moments like these because persons my age, 64, somewhere around my age, the experiences of our past are so deeply imbedded that when an incident like this happens, it comes back up. it becomes another time when you say we thought we were past this and here it is again. and if it can happen to dr. gates, then it can happen to me. it can happen to my children. and so it becomes another one of

those moments of fear. i think the big problem here is the identification and the way that the neighbors saw the person trying to get into his own house. i think that's the beginning of it all. and i don't know that if that had been a white person trying to get into that house, there would have been a call to the police department in the first place. and so a big challenge becomes one of not trying to stereo typically look at people and believe that just because they're a different color, something is wrong or treat them differently. i remember when i was dean of students at boston u, and i went into a major store called louis, wonderful store, nice clothes, it was saturday, i had jeans on and a t-shirt and they look at me like i am out of place. i put on a suit, armani, on

purpose, went back monday, and they fell all over themselves trying to wait on me. i think the bottom line becomes when do we get to that place where just because of how you look or just because he had just come off of a flight and was not in a suit, did not necessarily mean he was a criminal. that's the kind of problems we have to try to find a way to work our way around. >> charlie: is this difficult because as the president said, these were two good men. >> it would appear that they are two good men. the policeman is a trainer on racial profiling. and we all know who dr. gates is. reality is the terrible thing about this is confluence of events brought it to a place where i don't think it should have gone. somebody did not, neither responded it seems in a way they should have, and over reactions

brought into a place where here. >> charlie: here's what the president wrote in audacity of hope. largely through circumstances i'm in a situation about the bumps and bruises the black man can endure -- during my 45 years have been directed my way. security guards telling me as i shop in department stores -- tells me their car keys are outside a restaurant waiting for the valet pulling me over for no apparent reason. i know what it's like to have people tell me i can't do something because it is my color and i know the bitters are swallowed back. tell me how you see the president's response to this. >> well remember there was a 60 minutes interview that i remember well with michelle

obama and barack obama. michelle obama said look i know my husband can get hurt or killed if he's in the corner gas station and gets in the wrong situation. these things are thank god less than they were. this police officer was not crowley and it's great he was a trainer but by the available testimony on both sides of the evidence he was wrong. especially when he was shown a university identification. skip gates is many things and wonderful things. he's a great friend. he uses a cane, he's not 26 years old. he's not profiled. as far as what president obama did today, he's very barack obama. this is a man who, and it's a great argument for diversity including the presidency of the united states. because george bush or richard nixon or bill clint would -- bn

would not be able to do what he did today. >> charlie: to call up the president. >> to modify his own statement. the takes a flexibility of mind even if it has a political insult as well. but he had a certain kind of intellectual and moral grace in what he did today. he did not want to be involved on this issue, he wanted to be on the issue of healthcare which is very hard. yet he probably went a word too hard the other night. maybe he regrettedly saying the word stupid. he did what he's been doing all his life, reconciling. seemingly opposite points of view. that's his habit of mind. that's what made him a harvard law review president. his ability to attract conservatives over to his side as well as the liberals and left

wingers. he's been doing since profiling in the state senate. that's a kind of specialty of barack obama. >> charlie: you talk to friends today, people you know, african american, white, immigrants, if you've done all that range of people. what's the response. does it break along certain lines that people would say or is there unanimity that because skip gates from harvard a distinguished professor with a cane who makes it so vention what professor gates considered it to be. >> what's interesting to me and i wrote about that today is that there's a real weariness with the new cycle that in evidently occurs when a racial incident happens.

instantly you see people hardening their position. refusing to have any kind of, as david said grace, moral grace, intellectual grace, refusing to bend in any way, and of course the discrimination can never be about what the teachable phone is, it's about the people using the available evidence in whatever way to prove that they have always been right. never looking, never looking to see how this could be a more nuanced reflection of where we are in terms of race relations in this country. i think this was a very interesting incident that happened. this is a harvard professor who happens to be an african american man. a white male boston police officer, excuse me, cambridge police officer who happens to be an expert in racial profiling. there's something there that needs to be recognized. and the fact that they happen to have an altercation that got

blown up to the point again where the cops are racist. black people are oversensitive. there's no such thing as racial profiling. all cops are racial profilers. children, our people who elected an of current american president, they do a disservice. they deserve a better conversation in the race in the media. they don't deserve a frenzy, they deserved a nuanced examination of what happened. >> charlie: much of the media has been putting professor gates and officer crowley, either, back to back. >> yes. >> charlie: there's been a he said she said kind of thing. >> these are gentlemen who clearly understand the impact of race in their particular field. certainly dr. gates does and it seems that a trainer, someone who talks about racial profiling all the time, this is a man who

understands it as well. they had a bad encounter. and i do believe that the sergeant was wrong to arrest someone for disorderly conduct. however, disorderly conduct has always been a shady area between individual citizens and the police. can you talk back to a police officer. can you, you know, can you refuse their command. but again, all that's lost in all the sound and fury. >> i just want to say though in defense of skip gates' behavior, it was not disorderly conduct. he's demanding what he's allowed to by law, a badge number and name which was refused him. he showed id. yes, skip gates showed some temper. you're dammed right i would but it's not going to happen to me. and that call would not have happened if i were breaking into my house, the incident wouldn't have happened if it were me. it would have diffused almost instantly if it had. that said, i think that you're

absolutely right, that these are, what obama entered -- what obama added to this, which was not necessarily there until this afternoon was complexity. >> i think your reality here is, if it was a white man and a white man, it would have been a different reaction. if it was a black man and a black man, it would have been a different reaction. i think that the reaction is in large measure because it is black and white. if it were not black and white, it would not be a significant news story. it would be two guys who got into a contest so to speak. and was not given any ground. it seems that neither gave ground and at the end of the day, they would have settled it some way. it may have been a different kind of settlement. but at the end of the day, they would have settled it some way and it would not, it would not

rise to the level that this situation did. >> i think it got chesty, it got male. very male. one mentioning of your mom area exactly. >> charlie: what should this president do. you thought long about president obama and race issues, during the campaign, his speech, his book, his life. what is he, what is his responsibility as he said it's in my portfolio today? >> it was thrust in his portfolio just as it was thrust in his portfolio during the reverend wright incident. he was carrying around notes for a race speech. it wasn't news to him he was an african american male running a different kind of race than jesse jackson or his predecessors. >> charlie: he was carrying around notes. >> he wanted to give a race speech. >> charlie: like a kennedy

speech on catholicism. >> yes, he wanted to come forward and do this. his advisors said look, everybody understands you're african american, let's see what we can do about getting a critical mass of votes. and along comes the reverend wright business in the spring and over a weekend, riding alone for the most part. he puts together this speech which most people consider a kind of masterpiece of political rhetoric in the highest and best sense. and it was that, that was the ultimate teaching moment. and it saved his campaign. if he had failed on that, that could have started spiraling down terribly. i don't think the stakes were by the as large here but agai he had to react. a lot of being president is drinking from a fire hose. you have to react every day. >> charlie: so what does he do now. >> he did it. >> charlie: this is it. >> yes, i think he would woulde

delighted. >> charlie: yes. so therefore he says i've done everything i can? for the moment. >> not everything yet. i think what he says is i will be the re referee. because if it's a race issue, it's a problem for me. i can bring them together so america can see how you recollect nile these kind of issues. that's the most important thing now and i think he will make that happen. i think the police will come, i think skip will come. and at some point, some event willow cur -- occur where it comes to some conclusion where it's in some best interest, not just give gates and not just the police officer but for the nation's sake this is the kind of coming together, reconciliation that we have to have. >> charlie: so you meet and draw a larger message from the

reconciliation from a the example of the kind of thing we have to do on racial questions. >> i should think so. >> we have to because reconciliation is not a concept that we have seen a lot of when it comes to race. we've seen violence, we've seen heated words. rarely do we see two parties come together and say -- and intend in any way, shape or form. i mean, it's amazing that obama allowed himself to make that speech. we've seen people harden their position over the course of a news cycle, i will never apologize. the rhetoric gets built up and built up and built up and then when the american people say to themselves, please let this be over, we move on to something else. but really all we did is delayed payment. we've been delaying, we've been delaying reconciliation, delaying dealing with our issues for years, decades.

even. and each time, when there's a chance to say let's come together and have a discussion, let's learn something from this, it never happens. >> coming from a southern segregated background, our fathers taught you if you are stopped, you smile, you act like everything is okay. and i think that kind of thing being in the spirit of so many of us who came out of that kind of segregated background, it is still a reality that we teach our kids. the problem for african americans, and as my kids and my boys are now 25 and 27, the reality is we have had to sit nights wondering whether or not, not worried about whether they went to a party and something was going to happen. but whether they would be stopped on the way home. >> it's very difficult but i think forgiveness is going to be the key to moving on. and it may not be possible for you, it may not be possible -- i

think it's possible for me. you know, i'm younger, i did not have the same experiences as my parents who are in college in 1969 but the next generation my son is interracial and very to observe both sides of this debate and he has to decide whether or not he's going to be angry at his father, bitter at me or he's going to try to move forward. we have to. >> charlie: i just don't know how we get there and how long it's going to take. the question i ask of david earlier. i mean, what kind of dialogue, what kinds of education, what kinds of, is it simply a matter of time and generations and a president who has the capacities that this president has, people in the pulpit who has the capacity you've had in your experience? you've right. i would like to see the roadmap and i would like to see how we

get there. >> it's a partial term but it's also other factors. there are still not african american kids who are not benefiting from the whole brown versus board of education. you still have many people who would love to be homeowners even if you took some of them out who cannot afford to do it because of laws that mitigate against it. you still have situations that on an every day basis, people are facing a reality and still at the bottom of the heap. and i don't know when i get up. and i think until you make equality, not just a rhetorical word but a reality in the life of more and bringing people together. >> these are not questions anymore about, you know, kind of binary questions about water fountains and lunch counters. they are questions about institutional racism. they are questions about

incarceration rates, which are crazy and out of control which have to do with not just racism but drug loss in the country. it's a complex of problems that i think obama is very aware of. remember he came into office with not two crises to deal with but a dozen, and this was not first on the dance card. >> charlie: should it be put on the dance card. >> i think it's inevitable and remember again, i'm not here as the journalists should be critical minded but i think even the most gentle minded or critical minded recognizes that this president came into office with a financial system about to absolutely collapse to wars, etcetera, etcetera. he's been president for six months. we've been around for 200 -- we've been around for a couple centuries and haven't solve these things. i do think that they will enter

into the agenda and if they aren't, there's going to be a lot of dissolution people, black and white. >> charlie: thank you. >> you're welcome. >> charlie: thank you david. >> thanks for having me. >> charlie: we'll be back. stay with us. armando iannucci is here. his television programs have changed the face of british economy. he created the day today, a terrible news program considered to be a precursor to the daily show. he created, wrote and directed the thick of it, a sit call in the office politics of government bureaucrats during the blare administration. now he directed a film loosely based on that show, it is called in the loop. it started peter capali; steven kugen and steven kambelini. take a look. >> in the fold. the mountain is unforeseeable but then it is suddenly very

real and unforeseeable, thank you very much. >> he did not say unforeseeable. you had him say that but he did not say that. >> i don't think it's unforeseeable. i don't know. >> no. >> no. >> it sometimes work. >> you know i'm against the war. where is the intelligence. >> there's an informant. >> i don't need them. >> they are all kids in washington. >> you're going to use it -- >> what does that mean. >> well i think it just means -- i don't know what it means. >> you're an idiot. >> no, it won't.

it will be difficult, difficult. >> john and yoko. >> you're a useless piece of -- >> funny, smart sophisticated committee. >> have i heard the word committee. >> there are a lot of words. kansas city, kitty. >> itty. itty is not a burden, bob. -- is not a word, bob. >> you've lost me. >> general flint stone. he will kill anybody. that doesn't count. >> i will march to hound you

>> the problem is civilians want to go to war. you don't want to be there unless you absolutely have to. it's like france. >> charlie: i'm pleased to have armando iannucci here for the first time. welcome. >> pleasure to be here. >> charlie: this is politics suggesting that young 23 year olds play a larger than life role and dictate in many ways the way the world works. >> yes, yes. in the film, you see that a lot of them, the state department functions off the energy of 22 and 23 year olds and that's, as i was, as we were writing the film, i spent sometime during research. i met a 22-year-old who is sent out to baghdad to help draw up the constitution. there was a 24-year-old who came up with a paper on america's funding of central america and his boss was busy, his boss'

boss was busy so he was put in charge of central america. >> charlie: what else should we come away from in this film. >> well, we should come away with, i think an understanding that behind those rather imposing edifices that you see in washington, all of the buildings that you see in wall street but look from the outside and make you think i should pass them, everyone in there must know what they're doing. >> charlie: they must know something and they know something we don't know. >> or that they think they know what they're doing. and then you realize, i mean look what happened, the house hearings on wall street, where you got all of these bankers up in front of them going we didn't know, we just were guessing. everyone else was borrowing and we thought we would borrow money as well. that recognition that you peel

away the edifice, people like you and me, people who are butly threatening they've done the wrong thing or worrying they're going to be found out or trying to draft their own patch of territory and maybe do it on someone else and maybe find the right mentor to attach themselves to. >> charlie: now, do you like politics or a or politics. >> i've always been fascinated by politics. i've never been politically active but i'm probably a really liberal but i'm fascinated by the behavior of politicians. >> charlie: and you see in some cases the absurdity. >> well absolutely. that's when politicians, and this is the new breed of politicians over the last ten years. when they are obsessed by trying to monitor and control the news agenda and their obsession actually leads to them coming up with policies to fit the

headlines, rather than the other way around, then i find something absurd about that. >> charlie: what brought you to "in the loop." >> it's really, it's based on, it's in a fictional time where the british prime minister and the american president are very committed to military invasion overcome the middle east. we don't know who the president is or we don't know the country. >> charlie: and we don't see them. >> we never see them because i want to see the middle people, i want to see the middle management politicians, the staffers and the deputy assistant secretaries of state and the underlings and the down frauden cabinet ministers in the uk government who are told what to do. >> why flawed do one government, why not do two governments. >> because i thought it was something intrinsically farcical about going out to washington thinking they were in some way

preventing george bush from going to war and in fact by their very presence in the whitehouse, encouraging him and enabling him to go to war. i know you're pulling your hair out at that or you scream or you think that is a farce. that is a total absurd set of events. >> charlie: we're going to see a slip now between the two leading american characters. one, games gandolf who plays -- characterize him before we see the scene. what does he represent in your imagination. >> he's the sort of guy who talks the talk but we have yet to find out whether he walks the walk. he clearly wants to halt the march towards war. and they are discussing a paper that's one of the staffers has written that really blows the whole case apart but he's reluctant to be the one -- >> charlie: he's a careerist.

>> he's a careerist in the end. >> charlie: karen clark -- >> plays the secretary of state. and they are having a little chinese meal at lunchtime. and her character's really the only one because james and his finery in his uniform and mimi's character is the only one that can puncture that pomposity, really. >> charlie: roll tape. >> so you red line with paper i guess. >> no, i'm a voracious reader. >> he defended on it. >> he's gay. >> no, he's not. >> i beg to differ. >> he's gay because i've been saying -- >> he is gay. >> i guess i better stop there, then. it's ridiculous. the case against war is far stronger than the case for war and the case for war is all to hell. they believe the state is looking to expand aggressively beyond the borders. the only source is iceman.

he probably does ten bags of met methamphetamine a day, the ice man. >> does he even exist. >> he says he doesn't trust him. we're dealing with intelligence here. >> when do you want to. >> me? >> isn't that what you were suggesting. >> no. >> you don't have to say it came from you. >> no, i'm not leaking it. this is good today. >> i don't think clinton reads. >> the little bit about gore vidal is im provised. we have a script but i encourage the actors to loosen up a bit. sometimes when they loosen up we get all the lines again but a different order. mimi and james together -- >> charlie: he said i read

gore vidal. and she said he's gay. >> the rule when you're floiming is always respond to what you hear. so she through this line in gore's gay. and jim picks it up. >> charlie: he knows it's otherwise opportunity to play. >> yes, and he loved that. >> charlie: we'll take a look at another piece. this is where simon played by tom hallender meets with the press. >> he's the minister for international development. y he's one of the good guys in the uk government. he's the guys in charge of international aid, charity work, that sort of thing. he's quite ante the war. the film starts with him saying the war is unforeseeable and malcolm turker -- >> charlie: he's the masseter of communication. role tape. this is simon meeting the press. >> that's right. >> it's going to be a nightmare.

>> do you want to -- >> hello there. >> so, is war unstable in a sense. >> look, there are all sorts of things that are actually very likely are also unforeseeable for the -- the mountain is unforeseeable but then it is suddenly very real and inevitable. right. >> is this your opinion or the government position. >> the mountain is completely hard mountain that could represent anything. >> who is the mountain. >> let's talk the -- sometimes we need to be ready to climb the mountain of conflict. thank you so much. >> so there he is. he's been backed into making a very hawkish remark about climbing the mountain conflict and they see him as their hero.

>> charlie: what's amazing about this too, if this happens, did somebody tell you this happens. they take a document and they rewrite it. >> of course. >> charlie: they take out everything and change the meaning so it means if it's black it's now white. >> yes. there was an incident in the uk when tony blair needed the votes of the british parliament to go to war. and he trumpetted so that frane could use it within 45 minutes. now it turned out this dossier in the end consisted of hypothetical arguments, evidence that had sort of qualifications, evidence that was only from one source, nothing verified. and all of the civil servants who have worked on the document, they were pressurized into taking out all of the qualifications in said of saying

well it might be possible that saddam could launch missiles within 45 minutes. meantime in the cia when they were under pressure to come up with evidence, they cover themselves by presenting documents that basically told the politician what they wanted to hear. but they put all their qualifications at the back in caveats and appendices. so they're in court hearings later on, they could say why didn't you say we shouldn't go to war, it's a disaster. they say well yes at the front we've written perhaps you could go to war. and at the back we could have said but it will be a disaster. so they could cover themselves with the caveat and it's playing about with tact and argument and slowly and softly bending meaning to fit the ears of the person who wants to hear it. >> charlie: tell me about creating the character who is

based on the idea of al stir campbell who was one of the principal advisors to attorney -- tony blair who sat at this table and talked about the blair. >> yes. >> charlie: and al stir campbell on this show. >> remember her. she took a stand on health. everybody decided she was meant actual because they showed pictures of her with a could you. >> it was particularly powerful. look the prime minister of this country doesn't drink blood. he doesn't go around biting -- >> i know the prime minister isn't a viking. >> he oppose physical violence. >> i was there doing a job where people did some time immemorial and time was changing faster than any part of our life. it was becoming more aggressive and more politically judgmental. and the thing is they talked

about me bullying all the rest of it. i can spot a bully when i see it, and i was in a room full of bully's twice a day when i was briefing them. if i hadn't stood up to them, i would have been blown away. >> and malcolm tucker the character who is based on author campbell, it's based on an amalgam of arthur campbell and anonymous enforces that there are in government. many of them you don't hear about, you don't read about. the british politics as the enforcers. make them sound like the demeanters in harry potter. and we wanted, we didn't want to do an impression of alstir campbell, we didn't want anyone who looked like him. meter campbell is scottish. we wanted someone who summed his

rage. he's a pleasant amiable person when you meet him in real life. >> charlie: alstir campbell. >> yes, as peter crowley. privately when he's dealing with politicians behind the scene, he's ruthless, he's vicious. >> charlie: i read something in the times of london where alstir campbell came to view, someone suggested he view the show. >> yes. >> charlie: with someone else or by himself. >> with a film critic on the bbc. the idea was to sit and watch it, watch the film. and they wanted me there as well. >> i got the e-mail very late in the day but alstir himself spun that. >> charlie: if you had gotten the e-mail would you have gone. >> who wants to sit next to your arch enemy and present him with something -- i just that that he would not review the film. he would certainly review

himself and that's what he did. >> charlie: what did he do. >> he wrote a column the next day after watching the film and he said he found it boring. i tell you it's one thing, it's boring. but i thought that's interesting because if he says it's boring that ilies he's seen it all before. and yet he also argued that it was a high exaggeration of real life and bore no relation to real life and he chose as this particular example, he chose a whole section within the film that deals with a committee in the senate, a secret committee that is looking into invasion but has been given a very dull name. it's called the future planning committee. suddenly every senator on the hill who has an experience, he wants to get on that committee and it grows and grows. you can't fill all the people into the room. and alstir campbell said this was a gross cartoonish distortion. except that incident happened,

that's an entirely factual instant. dick cheney sets up an office of future plans which looks into the feasibility of looking into the invasion of iran and syria. >> charlie: the allen partridge show you did also. what was that. >> that's a character played by steve. you mention the day to day which was sort of a fake news program. it had real news and graphics and sound bytes and alan partridge. the thing about him is he has this inferiority complex which i think all sports journalists have which they worry that they are being looked down upon. >> charlie: they only do

sports. >> yes. the clever people that know about politics. i think that they are incomplete journalists. alan partridge has this inferiority complex. >> charlie: some of the best started out in sports journalism. >> yes, exactly. they are great word smiths. >> charlie: they brought language to newspapers. >> otherwise you're going to run out of methods describing how a ball gets from there to there until you start elaborating and making it more interesting. >> charlie: what's interesting is people like to think there's a different of sensibility in britton than the united states. on the other hand, things that have begun in one country have gone to the other and vice versa. >> yes, the office here is a great case in support. >> charlie: before that it was archie bunker and red fox and all those shows came out of british comedy. >> yes. there might be a case that the grass is always greener and americans say to me the british comedy's much more sophisticated. i come here thinking well actually the best american

comedy, like seinfeld and daily show is a sign of intelligence. there may be something in the fact in britton a bit more default setting is cynicism. there was a british politician who was saying why can't we portray british politicians more like the west wing and less like in the thick of it because in the west wing -- >> charlie: they are minded. >> they're great. they are good looking and intelligent. >> charlie: they speak well. >> they're loyal. whereas if we try to do that in a british drama, it would be laughter. it would be laughable. >> charlie: so unless you make fun of your politicians it has no remarkability. >> it's just not believable. i think the audience wouldn't take it seriously. >> charlie: so is there less of a respect for politics. >> yes, yes i think so. and i also wonder whether it's a fact that in the u.s. the role,

the office has a charisma of its in. the office of president is the office of the head of state where as our head of state is the ... >> charlie: the queen. >> the little old lady in the palace. whoever at downing street doesn't have hat charisma bestowed on them. they have to earn it. >> charlie: there's also this. part of what you've done in your career is to give people a sense of seeing something they haven't seen. you're seeing sort of the unabridged. you're see people behind the scenes. you are piercing the curtain. >> yes. i mean, that is the the trick we're trying to pull, it's short in a very documentary way and i jumped and so on. but i load it with authenticity and details we pick up speaking to the people in their environment seeing what their environment looks like. we sometimes make stories up and

exaggerate them and then find out that they are true. and that's the shocking thing. that's what i despair. you know. that's what i find like ridiculous, you know. >> charlie: it's like you couldn't make this up. >> no, exactly. >> charlie: that's the exact pression. >> exactly. it still happens. here the moment dick cheney is arguing that it would be wrong reveal secrets about something which never happens. you think that absurdity is still present. >> charlie: tell me about the character who plays the neo -- >> david. he watched john bolton and was fascinated. >> charlie: is richard pearl part of this too. >> rich pearl. there are lots of them. and they all have, they are all

intellectually brilliant apart from rumsfeld. they are all intellectually brilliant but they speak in very enigmatic clipped phrases. we all know about rumsfeld about his knowns and unknown knowns and his poetic saying and we gave characters in the film. he says all roads lead to munich and then he'll walk away. and also the other thing is they have a certainty about themselves which means that, see -- >> charlie: it's more than about themselves. it's about they know better, they have seen the truth and they will now -- >> and therefore absurdity drives what the policy is. finally presented with evidence that there are well-known weapons of mass destruction. their automatic response is well they must be hiding them.

and in fact it's that certainty that drives everything. >> charlie: the puts them into syria. >> but it also means that the building is not an aggressive one, it's acknowledge emotional psychological one. if they speak to someone who disagrees with them, their thinking is i no longer need to talk to you because you are beneath me. >> charlie: beneath me nor do you have -- if you don't understand me then you're too stupid for me to talk to. >> i'm wasting my oxygen. >> charlie: tony blair, the real person. >> now talking about that certainty, blair, he said knowledge isn't the same as facts. i only know what i believe. now that sounds great but if you analyze i only know what i

believe is the exact opposite of how we have functioned as a western civilization for the last two and-a-half thousand years really, ever since aristotle really that you ascertain empirical evidence and your judgment. and i just thought that was an interesting insight into how he worked. he went in with a belief first and therefore everything that was presented to him was filtered through that belief. >> charlie: what is it you think made the decisions he made. >> i believe him when he said he thought it was the right thing to do. >> charlie: i do too. i don't think he set out to trick anybody, he believed it. >> no, no. he believed it was the right thing to do but what i would argue is that's not enough. that's not enough if you're sending people to die. that really isn't enough. government instinct that has to

be backed up. especially if you have not run out of options. >> charlie: if you could change one thing about the way the world works as you see it and as you create media about it, whether it's film, opera, television shows, radio shows, what would it be? >> well, i find i get frustrated with the notion that possibly the more information we have and the more opportunities we have to broadcast or to record or to -- we fall into thinking therefore we've reached clarity whereas in fact -- >> charlie: the more information does not necessarily bring clarity. >> no. and also the appetite that to fill the sort of 24 hours news cycle. >> charlie: so what brings clarity. >> at pause. i think what's lacking now is pause, the pods of -- pause of thought. i think it would be better if

politicians especially work 9 to 5. we expect them to come up with an answer when we stick a microphone in front of them. we expect them to think everything through and have an opinion. i don't have an opinion on everything. i'm a terrible politician. if somebody said to me what should we do with syria, i should do this on one hand. it's something to doubt within seconds but that pressure we put on them to be able to perform 24 hours a day, though i think prevents them from having that pause really and being able to analyze. >> charlie: if you were operating in america, would it be difficult to satirize america. >> he has that inspiring ability in his speech but actually he's very clever at using words that in the end mean very little when he wants to, you know.

he's good at getting -- >> charlie: what's an example of that. >> that requires me to fast track his speech. >> charlie: i know exactly what you mean. >> he would say this perfectly decent clear glass, the glass brought to us by the mothers of the past and watered from the caps of history into the cup of the future, you know. it's that, which sounds great. >> charlie: it represents everything that has the strength and purity. >> yes, yes, yes. with the bubbles of optimism that lie floating on the passion of truth. i could go on. but there's that. i also say, it's another thing when you work for one of the better worlds, the satire industry, people expect you to be negative on everything. my feeling is i would be probing ann political and i will exaggerate where i start where i feel drawn towards doing that.

so my attitude to obama is not to automatically think here is another baddie, another politician who is out to deceive and whatever. but what i think is important is that you don't get swayed by the e -- reverse and thinking he's on a title wave of optimism -- if you're alert to any mistakes or any flaws and distortions that he might make. he also when he comes down steps from an airplane, there's a very amusing jiggle. >> charlie: you and i can see that. >> he holds the banister. he kind of comes down the stairs doing that which i find funny. >> charli "in the loop" starts july 24th. >> july 24th. >> charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time.

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