the news from the ""newshour's" "gwen ifill. dana milbank of the "washington post." jim vandettei of politico. and our own john dickerson. the government is shut down. but we're not. this is "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news in washington, "face the nation" with bob schieffer. >> schieffer: and good morning gaining gwen and for the very latest on the terror raids carried out by u.s. forces in weekend we're joined by our national security correspondent david mart and i know former bush motor adviser on terrorism, juan zah rawty. david, what is the latest on what happened? >> who trait sprait operations in two separate countries, both in africa and libya. u.s. commandos snatched one of the f.b.i.'s most wanted terrorists off the streets of tripoli in broad daylight, and

he is now in u.s. custody, probably on a ship in the mediterranean. this guys names was aby abas el-liby. he was want the for his role in the 1998 bombings of the u.s. embassies in kenya and tanzania and one of the original members of al qaeda, one of the few still at large, but he will now, after he's interrogated, be brought back to the united states and almost certainly stand trial in new york city. >> schieffer: this was a big get. >> this was a big get and it was a risky get. you were going into a major metropolitan area. the other operation, the one in somalia, was conducted by u.s. navy seals, and it was-- appears not to have been as successful. they were out to capture a senior leader of al-shabaab, the group responsible for that shopping mall massacre in nairobi two weeks ago. they got caught in a firefight before they could capture the

guy, and had to withdraw to avoid another black hawk down situation, and in withdrawing they were not sure what became of the leader they were after, whether he was killed, wounded or simply got away. >> schieffer: and no americans hurt in that operation. >> no casualties in either operation. >> schieffer: juan what, is the significance of these two things? >> bob it demonstrates the u.s. has a long reach and long memory, particularly with the snatch-and-grab operation of aby abas el-liby in the heart of tripoli, somebody who has been part of al qaeda in the 1990s. in the context of the somali raid, i think it demonstrates the u.s. is growing more worried about the growing power of these regional groups, al-shabaab, and in particular in the wake of the nairobi attack on the shopping mall, what you see is the u.s. demonstrating we need to get into the fight to not only go after the leadership of these groups but to help our allies to disrupt their reach and capabilities. i think it's an important moment pause both operations signal that the landscape has changed.

it's no longer just al qaeda in western pakistan and afghanistan that worries us. it's these regional manifestation, and the u.s. is now demonstrating we're willing to put our boots on the ground in some instances to go after he's leaders. >> schieffer: and probably better to get these people when we can capture them alive than to kill them. >> absolutely. one of the key issues of aby abas el-liby, somebody who has been with bin laden since the 1990s what can we learn from him? he has been in libya for two years, reportedly trying to establish an al qaeda base there in connection to other groups. we'll want to know what he knows, not just hively but currently in terms of what al qaeda is planning. gleefd david, do you think we're going to see more of this now? >> i think the first thing that is going to happen is the terrorists will take more precautions about hiding. i think particularly ellib ehe was-- he thought he was safe in tripoli because it's become such a lawless city, and i think he just stopped taking all the

necessary precautions to hide. and now that two guys have targets in one day, i think you're going to see other potential targets be a lot more careful. >> schieffer: all right, well, i want to thank both of you for coming by this morning. thank you very much. well, now, on to the big story here at home. there are just 10 more days until the october 17, and that's when treasury secretary jacob lew says we will run out of money and could begin to default on our loans unless congress raises the debt ceiling. he is with us here this morning. do you see any hope that this thing can get resolved, mr. secretary? >> good morning, bob. it's good to be with you this morning. you know, i think that the simple answer is there's a majority in congress they believe is prepared to do the right thing, to opponent government and make sure we don't cross over that abyss that you describe. i hope that mat jort will be given a chance to vote.

the stakes are really high. the american people have come out of the worst recession since the great depression. the american economy is showing its resilience. our leadership in the world is the strong-- we're the strongest country in the world. our currency is the world's reserve currency. congress shouldn't be created self-inflicted wounds that hurt the economy and the american people. i think congress can and should act. >> schieffer: let me tell you something, john boehner was just on abc with george stephanopoulos, and he didn't seem to think there's any way to get this started unless you all are willing to sit down and at least talk to him. here's part of what he said. >> we are not going topaz a clean debt limit increase. >> under no circumstances. >> told the president there's no way we're going to pass-- the votes are not not house to pass a clean debt limit, and the president is risking default by not having a conversation with us. >> under no circumstances will you pass a clean debt? >> we are not going down that path. it is time to deal with america's problems. how can you raise the debt limit

and do nothing about the underlying problem. >> schieffer: so he went on to say the president knows my phone number. i decided to stay here in washington. i'm ready to talk. but i'm not going to do anything until we have a conversation. >> let's be clear, bob. congress needs to do the job. it needs to open the government up, and it needs to make it possible for us to pay our bills on time. i think the president's record is quite clear on his willingness to negotiate. for the last three years, he's made every effort, with speaker boehner, negotiating in person, through his budgets, putting proposals out there that many democrats were not happy that the president put serious entitlement reforms in his budget along with serious tax reforms. the problem isn't the president's willingness to negotiate. the problem is we have not yet engaged with republicans who are willing to put everything on the table and want speaker knows that. i know the speaker well. i know the speaker doesn't want to default. he also department want to shut down the government. he needs to give the majority a

chance to vote. >> schieffer: it sound like the two of you are talking past each other. he said the votes are not there. >> why doesn't he put on the floor and give it a chance. i worked fair speaker for eight years. i wonder for speaker o'neill who believed deeply that one thing americans won't tolerate obstructionism. he put things on the floor and sometimes he won and sometilgs he lost put but that's the right thing to do. let the congress vote. >> schieffer: is there some kind of backchannel way, is there any way to nudge this off where it is? >> you know, i think if the question is on opening the government and making sure we don't default, congress just needs to do its job. there's not-- we're not asking for anything from congress. let's remember how we got here. over the summer a bunch of fairly extreme members of the republican party said we're going to use shutting down the government or defaulting on our debt as a way to go back and reargue the affordable care act. that was-- that was a bad decision. it was bad for the country. i don't know that the leaders

decided to do it, but they ended up having the debate where the government is now shut down. in 2011, we saw the same group say that we would rather default than have the kind of honorable compromise where there's real give-and-take. that's no way for the united states to do business. >> schieffer: what do you think the impact on the economy will be if we do go into default? >> nothing good, bob. un, it's kind of a little bit ironic that you look even at the government shutdown, the people who chose to shut down the government are now day by day discovering all the important things and the bad consequences of shutting down the government because it's a really important thing to make sure we do things like provide health care and that we have intelligence and the ability to do what the federal government does. it's a whole different order of magnitude if we default for the first time since 1989. we've never done-- 1789. can i read what president reagan said about it. i think it really captures very much what i think the risk is. and i quote, "the full

consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of default by the united states are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. denigration of the full faith and credit of the united states would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets." why would anyone take a risk with those kinds of consequencewhen it's really just a question of letting a majority vote? >> schieffer: mr., is the i thank you for coming here and giving us that side. but i have to say, in all candor, i don't get any sense from you that we're any closer today to resolving this than we were, what, a week two, weeks, six months ago. >> well, if you're asking when the republican leadershill cide to hedule a vote, that's really their decision. we don't control that. i think if you look at what we've seen in public over the last number of days, what we've seen in public is there is a majority. there is a clear majority. >> schieffer: would the democratic majority, would they be willing to talk to them? i'm not saying who's right and

who's wrong. i'm just saying i don't see how you can get-- when both sides are unwilling-- >> fing you look at this last week, you saw 100 members of the house go out on the steps and say they would vote to open the government at spending levels that they abhor, but they would vote to oi open the government. i don't think it's fair sty that's no reasonableness on the democratic side. what we've seen is demands-- unless i get my way, we'll bring these terrible consequences of shutdown or default. these kinds of threats have to stop. >> schieffer: mr. secretary, thank you for coming by with the administration's side. >> schieffer: now we're going to get thing other side from the assistant republican leader in the senate, texas senator john cornyn. senator cornyn, give me some scenario. where do you see this ending? how does this end? >> well, the president's got to lead, and do his job. we rejected the concept of a

king when our country was founded, and created three co-equal branches of government. the president said he won't negotiate on the continuing resolution and now he said he won't negotiate on the debt. what he needs to do is roll up his sleeves and get to the table and i'm sure we can get past the impasse on both the continuing resolution as well as the debt ceiling. >> schieffer: as i said to mr. lew, i just see both sides talking past one poorpg republicans say they wan want-- they won't vote on this until everybody sits down and talks. the president says vote to and then we'll sit down and talk. somebody has got to give here it seems to me. >> well, 17 times since 1976, the government has temporarily shut down because of an impasse over spending levels. and that's what's happened again. and we're not going to resolve this without the president engaging. now, the debt ceiling and the continuing resolution have sort

of morphed into one another because of the timing of this thing. again mr. lew says the president won't negotiate on that. i think what's happened is in 2011 the president now realizes that republicans who were concerned about spending levels got better of him on the budget control act which is actually cut $2 trillion over the next 10 years. we're on that trajectory, of discretionary spending. and the president realizes he's going to have to give something in order to get what he wants. and he doesn't want to go there. >> schieffer: well, you heard speaker boehner say that he does not think that there are votes in the house right now to pass a clean bill air, bill that doesn't have anything attached to it. do you think that's the case? >> well, he knows the house better than i know the house. but i know there is a lot of concern among conservatives about actually the level of the continuing resolution. as you know, it came out of senate at $988 billion which is actually above the budget

control act number of $967 billion. so i imagine there are a number of different views about this. but the fact is that the continuing resolution has now become part of the debt ceiling negotiation, and the president needs to do 'tis hiz job. so far he's been awol. >> schieffer: well, don't republicans also have to do their job-- >> everybody does. >> schieffer: after all, this law-- this all started because ted cruz, your colleague from texas in the senate, didn't like obamacare, and he worked up this deal that we won't raise-- i mean, we won't fund the government unless we can also get you to agree not to fund obamacare. i mean, which is almost like you know, "i'm going to throw a brick through your window unless you give me $20." >> well, i would look at it a little different way. i would say that ted and i share the concern about what obamaed care is doing to our economy. >> schieffer: but that's dead

bdz the point. let law has been passed. why not keep the government running and then everybody can sit down and decide what they want to do about it. >> well there, should be a negotiation, and this government would still be up and running in full if harry reid had allowed democrats to vote to eliminate the congressional carve-out which treats them favorably under obamacare and treat average americans the same way american has decided to treat business with regard to obamaed care penalties. >> schieffer: senator, isn't there something wrong when you say i won't fund the government unless i can attach my personal wish list to the legislation every time we vote? i'd love to see the government find a cure for cancer, but i don't think you can say i'm not going to pass and passany fund for the rest of the government until n.i.h. finds a cure for cancer. i mean, instant just kind of the same thing here? >> well, it should be pawrt part of the negotiation. but there's actually more common ground than you might think. we have it's house has passed a provision to open up n.i.h. to

do the cancer research and that's been shut down by the democrat gleefs you can't do that every time you get ready to fund the government, it seems to me, somebody comes up with some new thing that is their thing they want done, and you can't fund the government unless you get that. i mean-- >> well, i know you can't reach an agreement and get passed this impasse if the president won't negotiate. and he's not at the table. we've moved from the defund obamacare effort to eliminating this congressional carve-out. and eliminating the penalty on individual americans like the president's done for businesses under obamacare. we would have the government be funded today if harry reid and senate democrats had agreed to vote for that. >> schieffer: what would you like? what do republicans want? >> well, i'll tell what you we want is some measures to address the out-of-control debt and spending in the country. and particularly, looking at $17 trillion in debt, which is hampering our economy, creating

uncertainty. it's helping to contribute to slow economic growth and high unemployment. and the president says he want a clean debt ceiling increase. that's not going to happen. and we can't let it happen if we care about the next generation. >> schieffer: well, where does this end? i guess i've asked that question before, but where does this end? because i don't see either side this morning moving any closer to that than they were six months ago. >> well, i think you're correct this morning. things change rather quickly around here. my hope would be the president would reconsider his decision to sit on the sidelines and be a mere spectator. and he will roll up his sleestles and do the job. i can't imagine coming from texas, i can't imagine lyndon baines johnson as president or any other president-- frankly-- in the 17 times we've had a shutdown sitting on the sidelines and outsourcing these negotiations to other people. >> schieffer: let me just ask you this-- you've been around fair while. how is it that you wind up with a freshman senator who has been

in office less than a year becomes the architect of this thing that has the two sides so gridlocked that nobody seems ton a way out of it? how did that happen? >> well, there is a way out of it. but it's going to take the president's involvement and i'll speak to that. i think what ted and so many others have-- are addressing is the fear in this country that we are careening down a path that unless we stop and correct it in terms of spend, in terms of government over-reach, that our country will become something we don't even recognize. i think they see this as an opportunity. i think they're right. it is an opportunity, but it's going to take the president being a co-equal partner along with congress negotiating the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling. >> schieffer: senator, thank you for coming by this morning. >> thanks, bob. ♪ [ male announcer ] may your lights always be green. [ tires screech ]

♪ [ beeping ] ♪ may you never be stuck behind a stinky truck. [ beeping ] ♪ may things always go your way. but it's good to be prepared... just in case they don't. toyota. let's go places, safely.

story last week was that the reaction to after three decades the united states and iran are talking again. the president called iran's new president who was here for the opening of the annual u.n. session. thraid a friendly chat about iran's nuclear program. no one was more interested in that conversation than israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. he says we must not be fooled by iran's friendly words. he blistered iran in his speech to the united nations. and just before he headed home, i asked him what was his main concern now? >> i think we should have a common concern. we all share it. we don't want to see a nuclear armed iran, a nuclear armed iran would take the preempinent terrorist regime of our time, one that payments in the the mass mferred men, women, and

children in damascus and in the cities of syria. one that since 25 cities and five continents in the last three years alone, one that calls for the annihilation of israel, and developing i.c.b.m.sphoz reach the united states-- not us, they already have missiles that can reach us, reach you-- we don't want them to be able to put nuclear warheads on these missiles. we don't want them to have the ability to practice nuclear terrorism that can reach ever america. we want to be sure iran does not have nuclear weapons and my concern and my goal is to make sure the iranians don't dupe us into a deal where we lift the sanctions and they maintain their-- they maintain the ability to continue to develop at whim nuclear weapons that will threaten all of us-- israel, the united states, and the peace of the world. we cannot allow that to happen.

>> schieffer: do you feel that you and president obama are on the same page here? >> definitely on the goal. we talked about that. he spoke about his determination to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. he also said that iran's conciliatory words should be met by meaningful action. we spaint lot of time talk pentagon that. >> schieffer: netanyahu is too much the diplomat to get in the middle of the american government shutdown argument but he did pass on how israel solved its problem when it couldn't agree on a budget. >> you know, i contributed once to a change of legislation in israel. we have, i have to tell you, a system that is not good. some say it's lousy. we introduced one change-- if you don't get a budget by the end of the year, an automatic budget goes into place 1/2 each month of last year's budget. you don't get a budget within six months, you go to

elections. guess what, bob? we always get a budget. >> schieffer: well, that may not be such a bad idea at that. we'll have a lot more from the prime minister on part two of our broadcast this morning, and i'll be back in a minute with some personal thoughts.

>> schieffer: writing a commentary is usually the last thing i do when i'm preparing for "face the nation." i want to make sure i take

last-minute twements into account. well, i could have written this one four or five years ago. the government is shut down. it's the other guy's fault and into on and on. nothing has changed, yet this time everything is different. this time around they're all talking, just not to each other. it's not just republicans against democrats. it's also republicans against republicans, to the point that a republican senator, ted cruz, a freshman at that, was advising house republicans at one point on how to stand up to their leader john boehner. that's beyond rare. in a legislative body where seniority determines everything from parking places to who chairs committees, we seldom see anyone with less than a year in office having much of an impact on. anything. but cruz, all sides conditional, crafted the strategy that got to us where we are. in its wisdom the latest

democratic ploy is an ad picturing house speaker boehner as a cry baby. >> speaker john boehner didn't get his way on shutting down health care reform, so he shut down the government. >> schieffer: what i'm wondering at this point is whether it would be more productive not to embarrass boehner but quietly help him find a way out of this mess. that would have to be done in the back channels and would require some finesse which by now qualifies as an endangered species. but who knows? nothing else has worked. maybe it's worth a try. back in a minute man: [ laughs ] those look like baby steps now. but they were some pretty good moves. and the best move of all? having the right partner at my side. it's so much better that way. [ male announcer ] have the right partner at your side. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company.

go long. [ male announcer ] let's go places. but let's be ready. ♪ let's do our homework. ♪ let's look out for each other. let's look both ways before crossing. ♪ let's remember what's important. let's be optimistic. but just in case -- let's be ready. toyota. let's go places, safely.

>> schieffer: well, some of our stations are leaving us now. but for most of you, we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation," including more with our interview with israeli prime minister netanyahu, and our political panel. so stay with us. unrest halfway around the globe affects us here at home. america imports millions of barrels of oil from the middle east every week. but we don't have to. along with increased domestic development, the transcanada keystone xl pipeline could eliminate america's reliance on unstable and often unfriendly foreign energy in 10 to 20 years. the pipeline will bring more than just oil.

construction will support the creation of over 40,000 american jobs. let's build the transcanada keystone xl pipeline.

"face the nation." when i sat down in new york with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu he was preparing to head back to israel, and the new iranian president had just sent out yet another tweet, this one critical of israel. netanyahu was not amused. >> what message of peace-- look at the tweets. he's tweet of tweeting here, but he doesn't allow the iranian people to tweet over there in iran. he's saying all these nice things about iranian democracy. they're executing people by the hundreds, jailing them by the thousands, any dissident. i mean, that's double take and sugar talk. but the important thing is it's part of a strategy. iran-- iran's leader, the real leader, is not rouhani. rouhani is a servant of the regime. he's a clerk. the real leader of iran who heads this cult that controls iran, that controls with an iron fist the arabs people is the ayatollah what mainy. he's the so-called supreme court

leader, in some case so-called aptly named. he wants nuclear weapons. this is why they're building the underground bunkers and the i.c.b.m., and the heavy water reactor. that's what they want. the previous president, auk din jad, said we get through through hard actions and hard work. get them crippling sanctions, coupled with a credible military threat, they'll be on the ropes. they're on the ropes now. in comes the new guy, president huh, who said let's do it differently. hard actions, soft words, sugary words, smiles. >> schieffer: what makes netanyahu so suspicious of rouhani, was the book he wrote when he was iran's chief nuclear negotiator. >> did you hear about this book, bob? >> schieffer: tell me. >> i'm quoting what he says in the book, while he was

negotiating with the western powers about stopping the nuclear program, he said, "while we were talking to the europeans in tehran, we were installing equipment in a plant where they convert iranian yellow cake to enrichable form. that's what you need to make a bomb. and then he says, "by creating a calm environment--" calm international environment--" we were able to complete the work, we were able to complete a crucial part of iran's nuclear weapons program." they're not there yet. they have to get through a few more phases and he basically does a fool me once, fool me twice thing. are we going to be fooled twice. we can't listen to the words-- i mean, you can listen to the words. you can talk. i'm not against talking. but it's actions that we want and what we want is the complete dismantling of iran's nuclear weapons capability. the whole caboodle, the whole thing, dismantle it completely.

what khomeini is saying, he made some tactical concessions, some minor concessions give some nuclear material but maintain the necessary material of low-enriched uranium so i can make a bomb and the centrifuges and the underground bunkers. no way. we're not gullible. we're not fools. >> schieffer: netanyahu says he's not against talking to iran but we must listen very carefully. >> look if we can have a real diplomatic solution, which means a complete dismapt ling of the program and no enrichment left-- and also, by the way, no heavy water. not only are they enriching. they have another route to the bomb they're developing under rouhani, by the way. they want two paths to the bomb. they want to keep it in exchange for the smiles and double-talk they have here. no way. >> schieffer: you said and reiterated it during this visit, if you have to stand alone, israel will stand alone.

could israel destroy iran's nuclear capability if you had to? >> well, you know, i will say i's veal a state secret by tell you the american military is bigger and stronger than israel's. but i wouldn't short israel's capacities. >> schieffer: i think you have pretty well explained what iran would have to do if they were going to demonstrate they were really serious. but what would be the first step? >> the first step is i'll say no first steps. full program. just way with syria. you didn't go and say to assad, "well, you know,--" i don't-- "sends me some fancy speaking com diplomat do the u.n. and say nice things and tweet in new york." you wouldn't say that. i mean, you'd say, "all right, talk is fine. here's what we want complete

dismantling of the syrian chemical weapons program." that's what i would say to iran. it's not they wouldn't talk to them. i'd talk to them, and i'd be very clear. and very tough. i would tell them here's the package. if you don't adopt the package, we'll increase the sanctions. and if we increase sanctions, they'll collapse. choose, but it's whole package-- dismantle your program fully, no enrichment capacity left. >> schieffer: for all his deep concern over iran, netanyahu told me he is seeing signs of a new mindset in the arab world where it is recognized that israel and some arab countries may share common enemies. that, he believes could present an historic opportunity. what would that opportunity be? are you talking about israel in some sort of an alliance with arab countries? >> i don't know if i'd call it an alliance, but i would say there's something i hadn't seen

in my lifetime, and that is a real sharp refocusing of priorities in the arab world. remember, these societies have been inundated for 60, 70 years with anti-israeli propaganda. israel is the source of all your problems. this is why we have mis expree so on. that is clearly not the case. you can see israel has nothing to do with what is going on in libya or what ising if on in syria or yemen-- >> schieffer: you could actually see-- >> they got that-- >> schieffer: working with say, many some of the gulf states? >> i think there is a different perspective now. how that translates into practice will take time. i think that they understand that we have to address the central problem of iran's nuclear weapons and perfectly they're very much concerned with what is happening in syria. they want to see a durable peace between us and the palestinians,

but a real peace there, too. they don't want fake piece peace. nobody wants fake things anymore. we want real things that match the situation on the ground. >> schieffer: and we'll be back in one minute. and the best move of all? having the right partner at my side. it's so much better that way. [ male announcer ] have the right partner at your side. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. go long.

this analysis of what we just heard. gwen ifill is coanchor of the pbs's ""newshour" "moderator of "washington week. dana milbank from the "washington post," jim vandettei, from politico, and rounding out the group, our own john dickerson. john dickerson, where do you see this government shutdown ending? is there a way out of this mess? >> well, there may be but we should-- looking at where things are now, i mean, if you look at the white house positions, they see the republicans are totally divided, shooting at each other in public and saying things in private unmentionable, particularly the house very

conservative caucus-- >> schieffer: and you're saying that about republicans. >> the democrats think as long as we're united and they're divided we're nay good place. they think we'll keep the pressure and the house will have to cave. you talk to house republicans and they say the president cannot on this debt limit question with so much in peril, the president, it's not tenable for him to just say i'm not going to negotiate because the polls show that people want some spending reductions in exchange for an increase in the debt limit, and also they sort of expect a president to do this. so that's kind of where things are. is there a happy place they can get to because things are pretty grim right now? the model might be, based on some reporting i've done, the debt limit increase that the republicans voted for in january of 2013. republicans voted for it. it was considered a clean debt limit increase, which is what the president wants, nothing tied to it. but on the side was an agreement that the senate would vote for a budget or lose their pay. now, that was a separate agreement bfs it was kind of

coupled with it. the idea is could thereby a clean debt limit increase that meets the president's criteria but also an agreement between harry reid and john boehner that they would have future discussions on a list of specific issues and that way everybody gets to pretend they got what they want and avoid the calamity of a debt limit breach. >> some day i want to be an optimist but today i am a pessimist. they're probably going to have a solution like every one we've seen in the last three years-- a bad one, short-term one. there's no way out of the this box at this point other than republicans are going to be forced to increase the debt limit. i think john boehner signaled privately they're going to do it, they're going to do trarl what he's saying over the weekend. the problem is, any solution gets to what you're talking about, doing these broader ideas-- pleat do entitlement reform, tax reform. they can't. they've tried. they come from different worlds. there is no common ground on these poornz they'll say let's punt this another couple of months, let's punt that another couple of months, and we're going to keep relitigating this

exact same debate, i think sadly, until after the 2014 elections. >> schieffer: you know, gwen, i was just thinking, i guess you and i were both covering congress back in the days we had the last one of these. >> i'm afraid we were. >> schieffer: how different is this one? >> it feels more toxic except when you go back and review who people had to say at the time, they were using the same words, hostages and extortion." the difference is there was an election year coming hard on the 1995 closure so people really had to get with the program because there was going to be an electoral consequence. bob, i want to congress you for chasing jacob lew and john cornyn around the table to try to get them to say something this morning. clearly, the reason they had very little to say to move the the ball is because very little is happening. they're out of town. there are no secret meetings going on. i think boehner said on another network this morning there was a backroom, but nobody was in it. this idea of punting i think is the best possible outcome and how sad is that? i think they're all hoping for external-- whether it's wall

street revolting, whether it's the american public, public opinion polls slidingly-- they're look for something else to force them to do the job they agree the other side should be coul dike. >> isn't it different this time around. in 1996, there were moderates in washington. even today when you talk about a republican moderate in the house. we need to find a new word. they were not moderate, they're not pro-life or prolabor. you could say slightly less conservative republican who might be willing to wheel and deal but it's just a different world today in washington. >> there may be two dozen moderates but not enough to make enough of a difference. but i think that's the dynamic and that's the difference between '95 and '96 you're not necessarily dealing with reasonable people. they have mabel 50 died hard conservatives in the house and 150 republicans who are terrified of being praerd by one of those. you know what? americans are oppose to the shutdown, but 57% in the cbs poll of tea party members said they're just fine with the

shutdown. so they're responding perfectly rational to their elect exprait have no reason to budget even if it's doing something bad to their open country or the party. >> schieffer: i must say, dana, you must feel like you've died and gone to heav nen that you write a column about what's going on in washington, and while i think maybe you kept some of us laughing when we probably would have been crying otherwise on both sides because you have pointed out the absurdity of this over and over again. >> yes, for me it's an embarrassment of riches. unfortunately, sort of what's good for me is not necessarily what's going goodfor the national interest so i'd be very happy to sacrifice some of the humor they're producing if people could behave rationally. >> schieffer: talk to me about ted cruz. this is really unusual in this town built on seniority, where you have a freshman senator who is not only emerged as the leader of this in the senate but is leading the house rrngz sometimes against their own leader. >> more than that. he's a complete phone pep i met

ted cruz 15 years ago. he wasn't some tea party guy. he was an ambitious kid working for the bush campaign, ivy league debater, and basically what he saw is, hey, sarah palin can do that in 2010. i can ride this tea party. i can take it to town, and i can get really famous, really fast. he's absolute right. he's a real smart guy. he's playing this game very well. i feel bad for john cornyn who is a serious man who actually could cut a deal. >> you can say cruz is a political genius to some extent. he is the one of the few people who recognizes politics today is so different than it was 10 years ago. nobody cares what leadership has to say. we have lot of weak leaders and the grass roots, if you're clever about intervening in primary and exploiting campaign finance laws which very much work to the favor of outside groups at the expense of the establishment you can have awesome power and he has that. >> is ted cruz leading the parade or did he see the parade and got to the front. >> a little both.

>> ted cruz was not the one who came up with the idea, the grand strategy, financed lavishly by conservative groups to defund obamaed care. they've never taken their eye off the ball. i don't think the democrats will saw that coming. >> rewind the clock to 2010. the minute the health care bill was signed into law, the republicans had every right to say we're winning. they've cut government, won more than seats than democrats have won, they they feel like-- and they're right if you look at the polls-- that obamacare is unpopular. that's why the strategy seems so crazy. they were winning. >> schieffer: why is it so many house republicans have no problems with this. they see these polls about this, but they're much different than the situation in their home district. >> that's right. one fact, if we look back at 1995, president clinton at the time could put pressure on some house republicans. why? because he had won in 79 house districts. there were 79 republicans where

bill clt won in their dispringtz now there are only 17 republicans who are in districts that barack obama won. so they don't feel the pressure from a president. their constituents, many are grass-roots tea party folks who got really energized in 2010 based on the president's health care plan so, they're not going to listen to the president. so they're anxious and fine about this with this government shutdown. i think another thing that is a part of this is both in the house and senate, the ted cruzs of the world-- when hubert humphrey tried to take his party on immediately when he came to washington over civil rights among the southern democrat he got slapped back immediately because the leaders had power and his rise in life was going to be determined by those senate leaders. ted cruz's rise in life is determined by the grass roots. and mitch mcconnell who cowed, if he had the power of a party leader of 40 years to go, could try to punish him, but mitch mcconnell is look over his own shoulder with his own tea party college in his state with his upcoming election. ted cruz has found a new way to power and the power of the people who might restrain him

has been diminished. >> schieffer: can i add what i think is one lesson in all of this that i think people on both sides-- never pass a law again that doesn't go into effect immediately. what you have had here with this health care law, you pass it, and nobody really knew what was in it. it's 2,000 pages. it didn't go into effect for two years. so the people who might have benefited and saw some good in this, they-- a lot of them don't even know what those parts of it are. there are also some parts are not too good that have to be straightened out. but the fact, is the opponentes of this have had two years to just go at it from all different angles, and the-- you know, the law is not on the books yet. i i think if this had gone into effect immediately i think you'd have a very different situation. >> a plot did go into effect immediately, especially the part that allowed young people to stay on their parents' health insurance.

>> schieffer: people don't know that. >> the failure is the white house saying we have it now, let's relax, everybody will know how good it is. because it was such a huge bill twasn't all going to go into effect at once, but the white house, if the ball was dropped, was in selling it in a consistent, never taking your foot off the gas pedal way so people would not be so confused when the big part kim kicked in, the big, complicated part. >> we're piling on republicans here at the panel, but the white house carries a lot of blame here. if you talk to democrats off the record they, would say this is a weak white house, in the performance of the health care bill has been weak in large part because of the president. they pass this historic piece of legislation and did nothing to educate the american people. they left a huge void. so again it gets to ted cruz and being politically smart. what do you do when there's a void? pump a little bit of money. not even a lot in terms of the politics, pump a little money to change public opinion against it. >> schieffer: it strikes me we're 50 years this year since lyndon johnson became president. and in a funny kind of way, his legacy is being enhanced every

day in every day way. >> true, he had a very-- >> schieffer: because he knew how to deal with a congress. he was one of the-- >> it was a different congress. >> he had a very different congress to deal with. >> schieffer: yes, but could he make a difference today if he were here rather than barack obama? >> a stronger leader would make a different. when this president was strong, he got health care passed. when he takes his foot off the accelerator. he's winning the showdown debate because he said i'm not negotiating and sticking to it. this is a president who likes to negotiate with himself. when he is strong or any president is strong, he gets stuff done. >> so then the question is and that's true-- the from the feels the heat from democrats wh democrats who have seen him capitulate in the part-- you hear this from white house aide oolz we worry the republicans don't think we're serious about not negotiating on the debt limit, and they insist of the president feels this in his bones that he's not going to negotiate over the debt limit, and in somewhat that case he would be answering the leadership questions by saying i'll be the leader here, i'm not going to negotiate. and the ultimate outcome of

that, is frepublicans hold their position is-- >> where we are right now. >> schieffer: you know, tben, there are some constitutional scholars who say the president doesn't really need the congress' permission to raise the debt limit. do you think there's any chance he might just go ahead and do it? >> let's put it this way-- he hasn't triewld out. it's entirely possible he could use executive privilege, the tenets of the 14th amendment to do that, but i think that's up against the wall. jim just said something interesting, which is whether the country is ungovernable. i would argue the country is not ungovernable. it is possible washington is right now. in fact, governors are doing the job that the they're not doing in washington, and they're either stepping forward or away from the health care plan, in ways that affect people's lives, which is not happening in washington. >> when it domentz heart of the question for court lyndon johnson come in and govern it's possible the answer is no. i do think we forget about the structural problems we have right now as a country.

empirically we're extremely polarized. the filibuster has radicalized the senate. there's not a middle to be had. we'll never know-- if you roll back the clock and the president had engaged people from day one and had relationships and had cut cutsome deals, could we number a different spot in maybe. i think what president obama would say is no. they will never negotiate with me. never wanted to. never will at a. never will tomorrow. >> schieffer: but both lyndon johnson and franklin roosevelt had the ability to understand how much the country could swallow at one time. f.d.r. didn't just the minute the germans started moving across europe declare war -- >> the country wasn't willing to accept the civil rights act. >> schieffer: the country wasn't ready and johnson broke it into two part. you had the '64 civil rights bill and the '65. he knew you couldn't do it all at once. was the president's health care law just too much at one time? >> well, i mean, that would be the rahm emanuel argument back in time. remember, there was an argumented in the white house to

do this smaller because the country is not ready to do it in a pig way, like you talked about. that was rejected by the president and a few of his closest advisers. then the bill was passed along party lines. i think that's another lesson. when you're gog pass huge legislation like this, if it's done exclusively with one-party vote it gets really hard to win public support for it until it fully kicks in and people see an appreciable difference in their life. >> schieffer: i almost forgot about this, the president was asked as an interview if he thought the washington redskins ought to change their name. here's what he said. >> i don't, there are any redskins fan that mean offense. i've got to say if i were the owner of the team and i knew that there was a name of my team even if it had a storied history that was offending a sizable group of people, i'd think-- i'm think about changing it.

>> schieffer: what's your reaction to that gidon't cover-up sports so i can say i call it the washington football team. i don't use the name anymore because i think it's unnecessarily offense and i have what's the point. i have a lot of friends who are big washington football team fans who are not happy with me about this. i just don't understand what the point is. i know it's a nickname. what's the point. >> needless to say he's on the front page of my newspaper with those thrarkz morning. i think it's a fine point that the president should not be making in the middleave crisis. >> it was the last question in an interview. >> as long as the packers remain the packers and beat the redskins every year, i'm a happy man. >> schieffer: thank you all very much for coming. [ male announcer ] at northrop grumman,

we've always been on the forefront of innovation. when the world called for speed... ♪ ...when the world called for stealth... ♪ ...intelligence... endurance... affordability... adaptability... and when the world asked for the future. staying ahead in a constantly evolving world. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman. us today. we hope you tune into "cbs this morning" tomorrow for the latest on the government shutdown, on the two terror raids, and for us we'll be back next week right here on "face the nation."

so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger.

no! you don't even get football. [ male announcer ] when you've got 100% fiber optic fios, you get it. america's fastest, most reliable internet. it's the ultimate for downloading, streaming, and chatting. -- that guy all over the football field. thanks, joe. if the running backs don't start picking up the blitz, the quarterback is going to have a long night. is that your sister? look, are you trying to take my job? maybe. technology that lets you play with the big boys. call the verizon center for customers with disabilities that's powerful. at 800-974-6006 tty/v. captioning sponsored by cbs

captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

we wwhen we realized we'd ome left gear behind. rain we were up the creek without a paddle. we were up the creek without a paddle. i mean, we literally needed paddles. next time we'll remember the paddles. seriously? and forget campbell. 4 million members. 4 million stories. navy federal credit union. see what's blowing up online. come home to the new wusa9 news.

hello and welcome to game on. i'm kristen berset, it's week 5 in the nfl. teams are starting to separate. we figured out who probably the worst division is. former power houses have struggling and the reigning champs sitting at 500. the baltimore ravens look to bounce back today in miami after the bills handed joe flacco one of the worst games of his career. that highly paid qb through a -- threw a five career high five interceptions. the miami dolphins are playing on a short week after a bad loss to new orleans. the washington redskins finally got their first victory of the season just in time for the bye week. now they have some