tv Charlie Rose The Week PBS July 29, 2017 5:30am-6:01am PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. i'm charlie rose. the program is "charlie rose: the week." just ahead, joe scarborough goes to war with the west wing. is time running out for stopping north korea's nukes. and the sound of singer/songwriter conner obrist ♪ you know i saw spectacle when you go to tack a bow ♪ you always did get nervous in a crowd ♪ but if you need some company i'd gladly step around ♪ >> rose: we have those stories and more on what happened and what might ma happen.
>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications >> is it luck at all or something else? >> precise specifications. >> what's the object lesson here? >> we can't live like this anymore. >> tell me the significance of the moment. >> rose: this was the week republicans in the senate failed to repeal and replace obamacare. the new white house communications director stirred up much controversy. and british open champion jordan spieth became only the second golfer in history to win three majors before his 24th birthday. here are the sights and sound of the past seven days. a deadly human trafficking operation in texas. >> authorities found the victims
in the back of a sweltering tractor trailer. >> the president's son-in-law, jared kushner, will testify behind closed doors in the russia investigation. >investigation. >> president trump issues a transgender military ban. the u.s. senate has just approved that new round of sanctions against russia, iran, and north korea. an overwhelming majority voted in favor of the bill. >> senator mccain returns fair crucial vote on health care. >> we been spinning our wheels and keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. we are getting nothing done, my friends. we're getting nothing done. >> who the hell wants to speak about politics when i'm in front of the boy scouts? >> congratulations to you and everybody over at "cbs this morning." you personally was nominated for two news emmys. >> it's a collaborative art-- i know, not for you. >> the cameras, it's just you and me, folks
♪ give me your, give me your attention, baby ♪ >> this cute baby minding his own business. >> we can stop this horrible bill! >> i would plead one last time-- turn back now before it's too late. >> i'm going to fight with every ounce of my being to stop this. >> anthony scaramucci is the new white house communications chief. >> the incoming white house communications director unleashing on white house staff in a profanity-laced tirade ♪ scaramuch >> the incoming white house communications director, anthony scaramucci. what happens to leakers on your watch. >> we're as strong as our weakest leak. if you're going to keep leaking, i'm going to fire everybody. >> rose: as we were putting this broadcast together, late news came that white house chief of staff r&b had resigned and
was being replaced by the secretary of homeland security general john kelly. i just spoke with jonathan karl, the wheef white house correspondent for abc news. >> there's no question he was fired. the president had made it clear-- actually, even before scaramucci came, in the president had made it clearly internally that he was getting ready to make a change, not necessarily on this exact date, the scaramucci fiasco, the back-and-forth between the two of them accelerated this, but the president made it clear he was getting ready to make a change. and, charlie, this comes as-- this is an incredibly chaotic six months when you think about it because not only do you have a chief of staff, one of the shortest serving chief of staffs in history, and i believe the shortest serving first chief of staff we have seen, but you have the national security adviser who last the barely a month. you have the white house press secretary who left last week, a communications director who only lasted a couple of weeks.
six months of turmoil. now he is bringing a military man. he is bringin bringing in genere tow try to impose some order on that west wing. >> rose: it is said the president doesn't like people he considers weak, and that he considered reince priebus weak. >> and i believe that priebus proved that to him over the last several days as scaramucci had gone out and repeatedly undermined him, most outrageously so with that "new yorker" interview. i know that there were people close to the president that were urging priebus to take a stand, to go in and to tell the president that he needed to fire scaramucci for what he said in that interview. one person close to the president even said to me that what priebus needed to do was to call scaramucci into his office, and to fire him himself, to have the secret service take away his credentials and escort him out of the building, you know, to kind of force the issue like that. of course, scaramucci made it clear on day one that he was
reporting directly to the president. and it seemed that priebus was simply unwilling to force the issue, to take a stand. and that's why ultimately the president decided today was the day to push him out. >> reporter: what is interesting is reince priebus have people that admire him, people like the speaker of the house, paul ryan, but they did not rush to his defense. >> certainly not within the white house. therthere was absolutely nobodye ago this struck me, charlie, being at the white house all week, seeing the way priebus was undermined at first, you know, more subtly, and then finally with that "new yorker" interview. and you could find nobody in the white house who would step up and defend him. >> rose: there were fireworks in washington this wikileaks from the reaction to another north korean muscle test to the late-night failure of the republican efforts to repeal the
affordable care act, two of the early missteps of president trump's new communications director anthony scaramucci. also, there was the effort to criticize the man he appointed attorney general. all of that and more now from the anchor of "face the nation" john dickerson of cbs news. i am pleased to have him here. it's been a while, and i welcome you with great enthusiasm. >> i am so happy to be back, charlie. >> rose: let me begin with health care, which you have followed very closely. help us understand what happened. >> well, i think what happened is essentially you have an insoluble problem within the republican ranks. in the senate they could only afford to lose two vote. that's a very, very hard thing to do. and finally, they kept trying to move it from venue to venue and the last stab at this was to pass something that was so inmalthat it had nothing in it that was specifically objectionable to senators and move it to the conference committee, where both the house and senate would work it together. they couldn't even do that. and so now it has collapsed, and
everybody for the moment seems to be suggesting they're going to move on. >> rose: the conclusion is obamacare, or the affordable care act, surviestles. >> it survives but in a greatly weakened stayed state, and something need to be done if for no other reason than to give some assurances to people who are vulnerable, who are on the affordable care act, and who are worried about their future. so that will cause some other round of this. but it's not a priority, it doesn't seem, for the moment for republicans running congress because they've got a lot of other work to do. >> rose: it was never a possibility that the republicans would say, "we have a lot of problems with the affordable care act, but let's repair it and let's fix it and let's get some democrats involved, and we can do something that will be for us a victory and at the same time not destroy the people who had come to depend on it." >> there were some republicans who would have liked that. and the number, it's hard to know how many in number.
but the leadership of the republicans in the house and the senate did not want to do that. this was a republican-only operation. there were little talks about negotiation and bipartisanship, but really-- and also from the president-- the thrust of the leadership message was we're going to do this on our own as republicans, and just not invite democrats to this process. >> rose: this republican president appoint aid republican senator from alabama, jeff sessions, as his attorney general. he has spent a good part of this week criticizing him, and you now have republican senators standing up and say, "watch out. we like jeff sessions. we believe he's a good man. hands off." is that intending a split, a division between the president and the republicans? >> well, in a sense it is, although, i don't know how that plays out. it is-- i was on the hill reporting this week, and you talk to republicans, and this is the kind of thing they bring up. and it's just head scratching. >> rose: we're six months in,
three and a half years to go. is there any reason to believe it will be different? >> well, it's hard to see how. i mean, so the hiring of anthony scaramucci was a-- you know, a bold move by the president to try to reorient things, like many properties before him, he felt like communications was the thing that needed to be fixed. presidents always think they're doing everything fine but they just need to communicate a little better. but what we've seen in the last week is a bit of a chaotic-- there was the interview in "the new yorker." anthony scaramucci called ryan rizza of "the new yorker." there was language and descriptions of behavior that was titillating and sent around a lot on social media. but what i thought the explicit argument in the interview from anthony scaramucci, was the white house chief of staff and senior adviser steve bannon, there is just dripping contempt in the way he talks about them
and the white house staff. so shot through this whole interview is the idea that it's basically chaotic, and that everybody is out for themselves, and that the white house is a mess, only to be fixed by anthony scaramucci. if the savior, who has been brought in from the outside, can talk about two of the key advisers in that kind of contemptible way, it suggests real problems within the administration, and those are very hard to fix under any circumstances. but the road map that scaramucci has put forward seems to be a pretty rough-and-tumble thing. i'm not sure if a white house can operate under those circumstances. >> rose: north korea tested another ballistic missile early friday. for the past 11 years, the united states and the international community have imposed a series of sanctions trying to stop or slow north
korea's nuclear weapons program. david sanger of "the new york times" says time is running out. >> when the united states goes out to build a nuclear weapon, it's to highly precise specifications. these guys do not plan to be in the nuclear exchange. this missile is for one thing-- it's to guarantee that kim jong-un stays in office. so they're not actually thinking operationally about how they might do this and launch missiles on the united states. they know that's the end of their reseem. >> rose: end of everything. >> it's the end of everything. this entire weapons program is all about survival for kim jong-un. he looks out at the landscape and what does he see? he sees somebody like gaddafi in libya, who had a nascent nuclear program, no place close to what the north koreans or even iranians had and gave it up in 2003. and we said don't worry, give it
up. we'll integrate you with the west. come on in. the integration was pretty poor. and then when his teem pooem turned against him, the united states, you're, and the arab states came in and bombed him until somebody pulled him out of a dish dich and shot him. kim jong-un looks at that and says, "not me." we're going full speed with the program. and the big difference between him and his father is he really is going full speed. >> rose: you have to give the devil his due-- he's shown a sense of urgency that paid off. >> urgency, determination. i mean, some day, when somebody writes a history of this, it's going to be the history of a dead-broke country with, you know, no silicon valley to fall back on that figured out how to steal, beg, hire, and bribe people to build a nuclear arsenal. >> rose: some have said to me, who know something about what america's strategy is, that they are already faced with this question: we either are going
to have to do one of two things. sanctions are not going to work. the chinese are obviously not going to do what we hoped they were going to do. so it's either we're going to have to live with north koreans having the weapons potential or else we're going to have to attack them, and the president is going to have to make that very hard decision, knowing that if they attack them, there will be a counter-attack against south korea, which will kill at least 200,000 people. is that wrong? >> well, it's probably right. there are some off ramps from that. and, you know, here you have to have a little bit of sympathy for donald trump because every american president of the past four or five has kicked this problem down the road. every time they saw an incremental north korean advance, they looked at just the two options you just described, and they said, "look, we're not going to attack these guys and lose seoul. so let's put up with it and try
some more increments--" it's 10 to 14 million people depending how you define the city limits. it's one of the great economic powers of asia and the world. and most importantly, it's a close american ally. so that's really not an option, unless you've got an attack plan that the south koreans agree to, and that seems unlikely. so every american president has decided we can't go what tha route. but they also don't want to give in. so they end up with some kind of, "we're going to increase sanctions. we're going to isolate them more." i mean, it almost became a joke, you would go to these briefings and they'd have to try to convince you the sanctions they are going to do this week are more super-duper wonderful and effective than the ones they tried three months before.
>> rose: we turn now to the persian gulf and the dispute among some of america's allies in the region. last month, saudi arabia, egypt, bahrain, and the united arab emirates all severed ties with the country of qatar. qatar is the home of america's largest military presence in the region. but the gulf states and american intelligence say it is also active support of radical groups across the middle east. michael morell is a former deputy director of the c.i.a. >> what we've seen qatar do for last 10 to 15 years is support groups like the muslim brotherhood, hamas, taliban, islamist militias in syria, islamist militias in libya, exactly the opposite direction we think our region needs to go. so our disagreement is about what the future of the middle east should look like, and that's not something that we have been able to square with qatar for a long time.
>> rose: what do they want the middle east to look like? >> i think they want more groups lieb the muslim brotherhood and hamas and the taliban. i don't think it's a coincidence that you have the hamas leadership, taliban embassy, the muslum brotherhood leadership, and groups going on jazeera promoting, encouraging and justifying suicide bombs. >> rose: what are the core demands? how could this be negotiated? >> this is a great question. the core demands, if you step back and look at what we went through with qatar in 2014, just to put some context behind what's happening today. 2014, saudi, uae, and bahrain pulled their ambassadors over the same issues -- support for terrorism, meddling in our internal affairs and incitement and provocation. november 2014, the late king adbullah hosted a meet and invited all the leaders and had a very, very open conversation-- we'll call it a very honest airing of his leadership with
the qatari leaders. and at the end there was a document signed. and we called it the riyadh graiment. and i brought a copy with me. and it was over the exact same set of issues. and qatar promised to stop supporting the groups and the individuals that were giving us a hard time. unfortunately, everything that has been signed into this ageement has been violated for the last three years. so the collective frustration with the four countries today is at a new level. so the demands, while they're more specific, they are still in line with exactly what the qataris signed up to in 2014. >> rose: so this didn't just happen because of the visit of president trump to riyadh and the arab summit conference. >> absolutely not. this has been-- this is leak a pot that has been sitting on the stove for a really long time and it's finally boiled over, except it boiled over twice. once three years ago, it was resolved, but these commitments were never lived up to.
and today it's actually gotten worse. we have gotten to a point, charlie, where we've said we can't live like this anymore. you can't sit around the table with us and support the groups that are threatening to kill us and kill our children. you can't sitting inside the tent supporting the groups that are trying to undermine our security. if you want to continue that foreign policy and support the hamas and brotherhood and islamist militias, you're more than welcome to. they have every right to come back tomorrow and say, "we reject these demands and we don't want to negotiate." and we are also within our -- >> what happens if they do that? >> we're within our right to say, "we don't want to have a relationship with you." it's very hard for to you come and force upon any country having a relationship with a country where they don't think that relationship is in their best interest. and you have four countries who feel qatar has been supporting groups that undermine them. it's not one or two-- and like i said this has been going on for a very long time. >> rose: what's the u.s. attitude about this? on the one hand you have the
president saying he's all in. and then you have the secretary of state saying he's trying to negotiate? >> look, i think youseff is absolutely right. this has been going on for a long time. i think what happened here is that qatar, small country, small population, significant wealth from natural gasmented to play a bigger role in the region. they wanted to have a foreign policy that was out-sized for itself. and they looked around, they looked around and said, "okay, where can we make a difference?" and one of the areas that was open was talking to these groups that the rest of us won't talk to and won't interact with. and they saw an opportunity to play a role with that. and as they became closer and closer to these groups over time, they started supporting
them. >> rose: supporting them financially? >> supporting them in many ways. as youseff said, for example, groups that the united states of america considers to be international terrorist organizations that we have designated as such-- hamas and the taliban-- have offices in doha. and also supporting them, them and others with money. and arms, including al-nusra, another disig naipted terrorist organization of the united states and syria. so, you know, clear support of terrorist groups. ♪ every building damaged only one last standing ♪ it was frank lloyd wright imperial hotel ♪ a rumor nation in my mind
wandering around back the guggenheim ♪ i'm not there yet but i'm feeling comfor confideno build something that's secretive >> rose: connor obest is a singer/songwriter as the front man for the indy ban brie eyes. his latest album is "salutations." >> i never got that famous or that situation, of course, there were some pressures. we started off with our own record label and we did that for years and kind of always done stuff like yerch little milestone was sort of celebrated like, "this is great!" you know, it was the obz of an overnight success. so i felt like-- i'm lucky that i feel like i have, because it's
been so slow and even if it kind of plateaus into just, like, i can keep touring-- to me, like, longevity is more important at this point for sure than record sales or anything else. i hope to still be writing songs and making records and playing for people. >> rose: you are also well known because of the fact you don't hide your politics. >> i don't think as an artist you should feel obligated to put your politics into your music. but if you're compelled to as a-- i just-- you know, i think people get a lot of grief, like "oh, it's the hollywood elite telling us what to do." or "who is this musician? what does his opinion matter?" i thought if you're an artist that doesn't mean you surrender your rights as a citizen. and if you have a platform to express yourself, do it, if you're compeld to. you don't have to. >> rose: what do you think they're trying to express? is it your voice?
is it the songwriting when they say it's the new dillon. >> i thought it was shorthand for "you have a lot of words in your song, and the poetry aspect of it is as important as the musical aspect." i feel like the more i can find something universal. obviously, you're expressing yourself, but finding something that-- i don't know, just, like, human experience, i guess. can you-- if someone listens to a song that i write, can they relate to it as being, like, a fellow human being, like, on this planet and, like -- >> are you saying what they feel? >> i don't know. i'm saying what i feel. but the hope, of course, is-- i think all art is a communication. you're kind of, like, you're putting it on the little balloon and throwing it into the air and you don't know if anyone is going to, like, receive it on the other side. but that's hope. it's out of my control once i put it out there.
now here's a look at your weekend. >> the climate change documentary "an inconconvenient sequel" is out in theaters nationwide. >> watch the water splash off the city. this is global warming. >> arcade fire has a new album out "everything now." and charlize theron stars in the action thriller "atomic blond." ♪ ♪ and here's a look at the week ahead: sunday is the induction of the class of 2017 at the baseball hall of fame in cooperstown, new york. monday is author j.k. rowling's 52nd birthday. ed it is the day north korean and south korean negotiators are scheduled to meet in north korea. wednesday is major league
soccer's all-star game at chicago's soldier field. thursday is professional football's hall of fame game in canton, ohio. friday is the first day of the edinborough international festival in scotland. saturday is the day the television critics awards are presented in beverly hills, california. >> rose: that's "charlie rose: the week" for this week. on behalf of all of us here, thanks for watching. i'm charlie rose. we'll see you next time. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: funding for "charlie
[whistle tootsts] [bouncy music] - ♪ they're two, they're four, they're six, they're eight ♪ ♪ shunting trucks and hauling freight ♪ ♪ red and green and brown and blue ♪ ♪ they're the really useful crew ♪ ♪ all with different roles to play ♪ ♪ round tidmouth sheds or far away ♪ ♪ down the hills and round the bends ♪ ♪ thomas and his friends male narrator: thomas & friends is made possible in part by: all-inclusive experience is a proud sponsor of thomas & friends. providing families a place to play, share, and learn through kid clubs found at hard rock hotel cancun, punta cana, and riviera maya. male narrator: and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you.