. ♪ from washington, the mclaughlin group, the american original. the best sources, hardest talk. . issue one, malaysian jetliner downed. >> a malaysia airlines boeing 777 jet crashed in eastern ukraine in the region of donetsk, a scant 40 miles from the ukraine-russia border. the black smoke rising is believed to be the jet crashing caught on amateur video. the jet was en route from amsterdam to kuala lumpur. because the plane was flying over an area of ukraine, where the ukrainian military is battling pro russian separatists, the crash immediately fueled speculation and finger pointing that the

jet was deliberately downed by an antiaircraft missile. president obama addressed the tragedy. >> evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile that was launched from an area that is controlled by russian-backed separatists inside of ukraine. moreover, we know that these separatists have received a steady flow of support from russia. this includes arms and training. it includes heavy weapons. and it includes antiaircraft weapons. there has to be a credible international investigation into what happened in order to facilitate that investigation. russia, pro russian separatists and ukraine must adhere to an immediate cease-fire. evidence must not be tampered with. investigators need to access the crash site, and the solemn task of returning those who

were on the plane to their loved ones need to happen immediately. what impact will this downed malaysian jetliner have on relations between the u.s. and eu? pat buchanan? >> what we know, john, this is not an atrocity or war crime deliberately done, but rather a military blunder by the rebels using a surface-to-air missile. we don't know where they got it from. so in that sense, it is not deliberate, but at the same time, it's like the airliner that was shot down by the united states in the persian gulf accidentally in 1988. but john, this puts vladimir putin in a hellish box. he is the backer of the rebels, and he's going to be under tremendous pressure either to pull back on supporting the rebels and to basically abandon them and to get his people and get his forces out of eastern ukraine and basically, you know, leave these people in the

lurch, which is going to be very, very tough to do. and if he doesn't do it, i think he is going to face certain sanctions from the united states and the real open question is what do europeans do? >> eleanor? >> whatever reluctancy europeans have had in following president obama's lead with putting sanctions on russia i think has been substantially reduced, if not erased. virtually every one of those european nations, and especially the dutch, they had 150 of their people on that plane, many european nationals, lot of pressure on them to respond. maybe whoever did this did not intend to get a commercial airliner, but nonetheless, the result is this tragic accident and somebody's going to have to take responsibility for it. and i think president obama's role here is to make putin own, own this, not let him get away with saying, oh, it was really the ukrainian government or whatever dodge he's going to put in. at the same time, the

president's got to give him room to back down because he can stop what's going on in ukraine. only he can stop what's going on in ukraine. so he still has an important role to play. >> he's facing an enormous potential strategic setback here. remember, not too long ago, he effectively controlled the government of ukraine. now he's had big assumptions that have gone wrong. he thought there would be a spontaneous uprising in the east and there wasn't. he had to create one. he thought it would founder. instead, it's turned out to be quite capable militarily. then he was counting on european opinion being passive, and this event will galvanize it. he doesn't have a lot of cards to play and looks like he might have a real losing hand. >> the europeans now likely to support stronger sanctions on russia? >> without question. this is not an accident. this is something that was deliberate. you can't just fire -- it's not something as if you drop a match in the forest and it caught fire. this was a missile that was deliberately sent up. nobody has any doubts about it.

the president was very clear and very forceful on it, and i thought very effective on it. and i don't think anybody's going to be able to walk away from it, including the russians. they are going to have to figure out what to do. if they don't do anything, i think all of europe is going to be tilting against them in a way that hasn't occurred in a long time, and we are going to be very tough with them. >> what is the russian public being told about this masacre? >> well, there's -- in no way is the russian public being told in such a way that they blame their own government for it. you know, that's not the way it works in that country. >> what's putin's line that he's putting out? >> he hasn't formed a line. >> let me agree with eleanor here. look, putin does not want donetsk. he doesn't want to own them. he could send in the russian army to get them. he's been playing a game, keeping this rebellish movement going. now he's in a real spot, and frankly diplomatically, they will have to give him a way to walk down from where he's been and, you know, diplomatically i think, because he cannot want

to continue this thing. otherwise, it represents a total breach with the west and united states, and i don't believe that down deep he wants that. otherwise, he would have grabbed eastern ukraine. >> what do we think of this? russian state control media are reporting that the ukrainian military accidentally hit the malaysian jet when they tried to shoot down putin's presidential aircraft. >> it's an outrageous lie. this guy is a thug and a liar. there hasn't been any doubt about that for a very long time. the ukrainian military has not been in the business of shooting down planes in that area. the rebels have. they have been shooting down cargo planes and they have been doing it with russian-provided military, and perhaps with russian personnel, because a lot of these called rebels on the ground are russian troops or covert agents. >> the question, multiple choice, what will president obama do in reaction to this atrocity? will it be, a, push for more

sanctions? b, give ukraine military support, like u.s. air power? c, schedule more political fund raisers? he wasn't in town when this occurred. >> right. he will not start now with military support. i think that would be a real mistake because we would escalate and putin couldn't back down. i think he's going to wait for putin's response to this, which is the right thing to do, quite frankly. and to see if somehow they can get putin to back away from supporting the rebels and end this rebellion and this war. >> i think that's right. the u.n. ambassador samantha power was a lot tougher on putin than the president. i think the president really is trying to say to putin, you know, come home prodigal son, if you will, to give him a chance to make this right. this is a horrendous, horrendous incident. and the blood is on his hands. so what will the president do? probably all three of those things. he's not going to stop raising money for the november

elections. >> yeah, there will be some a, a lot of c, but it should be b as well. the ukrainian government should crush this insurgency and reach out to the east, which does not support this russian-based insurgency. >> what's the best case for russian separatists? >> thebest case, it seems to me here, from the point of view of -- my judgment, russia, he's got to back off from what he's been doing to some extent. this undercuts whatever moral ground, whatever political ground he has, at least in the west. so there's going to be a much tougher response to him. he's got to know that. i agree that we have to give him some limited way to step down, but not too much. we've got to show strength under, under a situation like this. if we don't, we should just pack up and go. >> the best case for the russian separatists is that they were trying to shoot down a ukrainian military plane. do you know what they look like? >> i personally have never

dated one. i don't care what they were shooting down. this is what happens when you have this kind of weaponry going up in the air without the technical knowledge of which plane you're shooting down. >> this is an aeronautic i did gretion, but it's a world's monster plane. it takes 42 landing wheels. >> wow. >> an enormous plane. >> good argument never to give any rebel movement, syrian rebels surface-to-air missile of any kind, because they wind up shooting down airliners. >> that's what happened here. that's what they will put out. they hit the jetliner instead. >> this was not a surface-to- air shoulder-held thing. this is a rocket that can knock down planes at 72,000 feet. >> that's right. >> they needed training. where did that training come from? >> right. >> do you want to speak to this? >> well, it may actually have been operated by russian covert agents. lot of these so-called officials in the break-away republic are former russian defense officials. so it may have been a russian rocket operated by a russian,

operated by russian personnel. >> certainly russian observers is probably likely, just to help them make sure that they do it well. issue two, the ongoing nuclear deal. >> i am returning to washington today to consult with president obama and with leaders in congress over the coming days about the prospects for a comprehensive agreement, as well as a path forward, if we do not achieve one by the 20th of july. there has been tangible progress on key issues. however, there are also very real gaps on other key issues. >> with the sunday, july 20 deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement with iran now at hand, secretary of state kerry pressed on with his iranian shuttle diplomacy. in vienna, he tried to rescue the stalemated talks between iran and the p5 plus one.

the p5 plus one nuclear negotiations had bogged down over tehran's insistence on keeping the nuclear status quo without limits on research and development of nuclear centrifuges, a vital component in making weapons-grade nuclear fuel. the u.s. wants limits on the centrifuge, equally vital component in preventing iran from achieving what is called a quote, unquote, threshold capability. keeping iran from being able to quickly cross a nuclear threshold and build a nuclear bomb has been the stated objective of the past six months of negotiations. >> what we are trying to do is find a way for iran to have an exclusively peaceful nuclear program while giving the world all the assurances required to know that iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon. i want to underscore. these goals are not

incapacityible. >> iran's foreign minister feels the same way. here's what mohammedsa reef told secretary kerry and the press. quote, as we stand now, we have made enough headway to be able to tell our political bosses that this is a process worth continuing. this is my recommendation. i am sure secretary kerry will make the same recommendation, unquote. president obama signaled he is also on board. question, what's the reaction on capitol hill to extending the deadline for the talks? mitch lowry? >> well, capitol hill's more hawkish on this than the administration is, john. but i do think we'll get an extension probably past the november election. i think it's in iran's interest to cut some sort of deal that preserves its essential capabilities. the question is whether the ayatollah is too hostile to the united states to cut that sort of deal. >> i think, i think the u.s.

and iran have more in common these days, certainly they are in agreement on iraq, on afghanistan, and on syria. so i think this is certainly worth pursuing. i don't think either side has a full six months. they are really pressing on capitol hill to put on more sanctions. that comes from republicans and democrats, too, and i don't know how long his leash is. he's got to start showing benefits. these talks are worthwhile and they should be continued. >> so you think the hill is skeptical? >> very. >> they have been skeptical all along, but they are not-- >> than jo, it's been a success. the talks have been a success. look what they have done. they have all the 20% in rich uranium is diluted and can't be used to bomb-- >> wait a minute. do we know that? >> the iraq nuclear react, which was going to be heavy water is being modified so it doesn't produce weapons grade plutonium. they will limit the number of these centrifuges they got. so you have had progress along this. i agree with rich.

i don't think the iranians want a nuclear weapon, quite frankly. >> that's not quite what i said. not what i said. >> the american intelligence agency says they don't have a nuclear weapons program and never reversed that call. >> definitely -- wouldn't go to this great trouble-- >> mort-- >> -- nuclear program. >> this isn't something you sort of pick up and say what are we going to do this weekend? let's start off and do some weaponry. they have not only the material, they have got various plants, the nuclear plants that are producing all of this weapon, material. >> enriched you uranium? >> enriched uranium. i don't know what you're reading. all the stuff i'm reading is very skeptical whether iran will do a deal and whether this administration will hang tough in terms of making sure that we control the very element that will produce the capacity for nuclear weapons. >> what they are doing is worth it. >> the ayatollah is calling the shots. and anybody below him, it

really doesn't count. >> well, he is calling the shots, john. but the point is, i think iran wants a deal, because i think they looked out there and said we get a nuclear weapon, what good is it going to do? turks get it, egyptians, saudis. >> if they want a deal, they want a fig leaf deal that reserves their ability to do whatever they want in secret and they can break out at any time at the same time they get sanctions released. >> why did the intelligence community of the united states declare twice on high confidence that iran is not building a nuclear weapon? >> if you think about medical research, pat, this regime is so into medical progreso oh. >> all-- >> peaceful nuclear energy. >> -- want a collision and a war with iran. they would like to see these talks collapse. and you watch congress call for new sanctions and try to duck the talks. >> if you stall their program for an indefinite period, i think that's still a pretty good deal. if you got all these politicians standing up and

saying if they -- if we think they are going to go for a weapon, therefore we'll have to go to war, that's not a very good alternative. so diplomacy is-- >> not a good alternative if they develop the capacity to have nuclear weapons either. it's going to transform that whole region of the world where we have enormous national-- >> should we go to war to stop that? >> i don't think we should go to war under any circumstances unless we feel there is a major threat. >> iran wants to consolidate its major program and it's playing for time to do it. >> exactly. >> is that what's going on? >> they have been investing a huge amount of time, huge amount-- >> -- for a nuclear weapon now than they were six months ago if they are building one! >> enough of iran. this will be around for a while. let's shift the middle east focus to gaza, where israel has launched a ground offensive against hamas. what, what are israel's objectives? mort, speak to that. >> well, this year's objectives are fairly simple, okay? they want to make sure that they are in -- first, the objective is to make sure that they aren't going to be

attacked by missiles that are launched against them and they have had hundreds and hundreds of them launched against them, with various kinds of weaponry capabilities. that's the first thing. the second thing that they want to make sure is that gaza does not remain a platform for continuous attacks on israel. the most important thing is to make sure that is not a threat to their country and they have already had it. >> that is correct to what their objective is, degrade the missiles. i think also take care of hamas leadership. this is a diminishing return they are getting, because all over the world, including the united states, the pictures what is happening to civilians in gaza, hundreds dead, over a thousand wounded, is causing a tremendous uprising in the arab street and much of the western world. >> much greater-- >> lett rich-- >> greater understanding in time that those are the pictures that hamas wants. that is why hamas bases its operation in densely-populated areas, exactly so civilians

will die and exactly so they can try-- >> -- waited area-- >> why are they shooting rockets-- >> the united states had a program which israel agreed to, which hamas did not agree to to basically bring this to a halt. [ overlapping speakers ] >> -- philadelphia with almost 2 million people, the whole place is densely populated. and if israel wants to destroy hamas, and i think that is their goal, they have been doing these periodic bombings. they call it going in, they call it mowing the lawn, it's not working. >> eleanor, it's because they are -- hamas-- >> -- another strategy and giving the people who live in this densely-populated area some access to the outside world. some of the-- >> but they left 10 years ago, unilaterally, left the greenhouses all in place, wanted to give them the chance to create a decent policy. instead, you have another failed terror state that's launching hundreds of rockets at israel. >> they had 3000 greenhouses the israelis left over for them

and they burned them and destroyed them. >> thank you. >> iraq wants six months and we're willing to give them three months. that's where the talks are. >> i don't know exactly where the talks are, to be honest with you. i'm not sure that's exactly what the talks are. >> iran, i think -- i'm -- this is one place where i'm optimistic about what kerry is doing, for the reason i think the iranians really want a deal. they want-- >> kerry-- >> -- kerry is kerry! >> he's good. >> kerry did a good job. >> the iran-u.s. nuclear dialogue be extended? pat? >> it certainly will. >> yes, and kudos to kerry getting the agreement in afghanistan to count the votes. >> it will be extended because the iranians want to string it along and the administration's desperate for a deal. issue three, arc of instability. >> in an enterprising piece of reporting, two "wall street journal" correspondents, jay solomon and carol lee, interviewed u.s. and foreign officials and foreign policy experts about the, quote, arc of instability, unquote,

currently convulsing the planet and its impact on president obama's options. >> you had the arab spring. you've had the rise of these really, you know, crazy militant groups in iraq and syria. you've had the syrian civil war. you've had the strengthening of china and russian's foreign policy and iran. he's had a real difficulty of managing what he ran on and what he was elected on in a world where there are many different competing powers. >> from the russian-ukraine crisis to the military cow in thailand to the wars raging over the middle east to the fight against the taliban in afghanistan, it doesn't take an expert to recognize growing worldwide jitters and instability. check out the stories that feature conflicts, as obscure as nigeria's in fighting with boko, open warfare on europe's

threshold and now renewed hostilities between palestinians and israelis. president obama campaigned on diplomatic engagement with iran and with russia and more broadly american military retrenchment, especially pullbacks from iraq and afghanistan, and disinclination to use military force, as he used with his memorable syria red line with chemical weapons. some critics of obama say his prudent retrenchment has morphed into something else. dangerous disengagement. and this has bloomed into the american guys, inadvertently maybe, encouraging global mischief makers, so creating an arc of instability. question, has president obama's foreign policy made the world less stable? eleanor? >> i did read that article. and i did note that with the exception of a quote from brian, who is involved with the democratic administration at the end saying the world is

yearning for a quarterback to call the plays, and, and president obama hasn't fulfilled that role. they quote mostly republican critics and most of these critics do not say what they would do instead. nobody's advocating putting troops on the ground anywhere. there's -- nobody's making a case for an air war. there's lots of people complaining, but nobody seems to have any great ideas about what to do. and the notion that all of these instances are somehow connected is, is ludicrous. what's happening in gaza doesn't have anything to do with what's happening in ukraine. and so, you know, suggesting that if president obama were tougher and was more, you know, swaggery on the world stage somehow these events would not flare up, i think is actually ludicrous. >> do you think it can be blamed on the economy? five years ago, the world was plunging into the worst economic crisis since the great depression, the social impact has had huge political impact,

democracies, revolution, competition over resources and jobs from trade wars, and currency wars are escalating military tension. there, i've answered my own question, haven't i? >> i have that feeling. >> do you think this is a valid explanation? >> i think it's a part -- part of the explanation, but i think by far the more important part is the fact the united states has lost a great deal of credibility as the leader of the free world and this president has particularly, the symbol of it all was when he made this commitment on syria and then walked away from it, okay? this would have to end and he wouldn't act on it. he's lost an enormous amount of credibility, certainly in the middle east. >> what you're seeing-- >> hold on, pat. >> rich? >> eleanor is right. obviously a lot of these events are generous, but mort's also right. the unifying theme is u.s. weakness. it's amazing. look are not a the world and it's hard to come up with a place where our interests have been advanced over the last six

years or where our alliances are stronger, and that's an extraordinary thing. >> pat? >> what you're seeing, quite frankly, is the end of global western empire, just like when the british empire went down, all these explosions all over the world. the united states is coming home from the world and we're seeing the consequences of it. >> do you think we're in a neo isolationist switzerland-like mood? >> i don't think you're isolationists. america wants to be involved in the world, but doesn't want to fight these wars that are none of our business. predictions, pat? >> governor rick perry has attacked and paul's isolationism, echoed john mccain, echoed by dick cheney, by the neo conservatives. what this tells me, john, is that foreign policy, so-called isolationists, neocons, or the realists versus interventionists, this is going to be a major issue in the republican primaries in 2016 and i think it's really a healthy thing. >> is and paul winning? >> i think when everybody is attacking him, as nixon said, when you hear about everybody getting together to stop x, put

your money on x. >> eleanor? >> but most elections are bread and butter elections. the unemployment rate is going to fall below 6% by this november, which may brighten the mood a little bit for voters going to the polls. that means the unemployment rate is dropped from 7.5 over the last year to its 6.1 now. and while it may not take effect by this november, an improving economy could set the election up for democrats. i know mort is going to disagree, but actually things are looking better. >> so you think-- >> finally. >> obama's going to score, huh? >> i do. >> and they are going to keep-- >> he's going to be vindicated! [ laughter ] >> he's going to be vindicated, despite the republicans not letting him have any of his policies. >> what do you think? >> everyone is focused on this impending john boehner lawsuit over the employer mandate delays in obama care. where the real judicial earthquake that will happen has

to do with this case that's been brought because obama care says you only get subsidies if the state has set up the obama care exchange. then when dozens of states didn't set up the exchanges, the administration said, oh, forget what's in the law. we're going to pronounce from on high that you get the subsidies, even if the federal government sets up the exchanges. there's going to be a decision probably within days that's going to strike this down. it's going to be an enormous reaction. >> that's good position and quite lengthy. mort, 15 seconds. >> i'm going to point out the fact that the unemployment rate is going down because they are counting part-time jobs as if they are full-time jobs. we have 47 million part-time jobs and all the jobs that were created when we had 288,000 jobs were part-time jobs. president obama's attended two political fund raisers during the malaysian airlines crash. he should have canceled the events and returned to washington to manage the u.s. and the allied response to the

atrocity. bye-bye. . ♪ ♪ ♪

this week on moyers & company: the battle over women's health and reproductive rights. >> it's better to be a corporation today than to be a woman in front of the supreme court. there has to be, in this country, a public health care system that will insure that women can get access to the care that they need regardless of religion. >> announcer: funding is provided by -- anne gumowitz, encouraging the renewal of democracy. carnegie corporation of new york, supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security at carnegie.org. the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. the herb alpert foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society.