tv Charlie Rose PBS September 11, 2014 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
y1iz>> rose: welcome to the program. the president of the united states tonight made an important speech on isis and what the united states and its partners are prepared to do. >> tonight i want to speak to you about what the united states will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorists group known as isis. >> rose: we'll have full announcement of the president's speech tomorrow. tonight dr. henry kissinger, his new book is called world order. he talks about many things including the threat of non-state actors. we talked to secretary kissinger before the president's speech. here is what he had to say. >> my concern is the achievement
of peace. but peace requires order that's two elements. it has to have enough of a balance of power that no single component of a nation. optimistically contaminated. and actual there's values which determine what is a just arrangement. because unless a system is accepted by most of its participants there's outbreak of war. this is an order i'm interested in and it doesn't mean order against idealism because idealism is a central component of it. but it does mean that power is also an essential component of it. >> rose: president obama, former secretary of state henry kissinger when we continue.
funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york
city, this is charlie rose. >> my fellow americans. tonight i want to speak to you about what the united states will do with our friends and allies, to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as isis. as commander in chief, my highest priority is the security of the american people. over the last several yearshavee fight to terrorists who threaten our country. we took out osama bin laden and much of the leadership in pakistan and afghanistan. we started yemen and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in somalia. we've done so by bringing more than some 140,000 american troops home from iraq and drawing down our forces in afghanistan where our combat mission will end later this year. thanks to our military and
counterterrorism professionals, american is safer. still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. we can't erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have capacity to do great harm. the case before 9/11 and that remains true today. that's why we must remain vigilant. at this moment the greatest threats come from the middle east and north africa for their own gain and one of those groups is isil which calls itself the islamic state. now let's make two things clear. isil is not islamic. no religion condone the killing of nins and vast majority isth muslims and isil is not a state. it's formally military in iraq and taken syrian industry and
taken over the iraq border. it's not erect nays -- recognized by any state. these terrorists are unique in the brutality. they execute captured prisoners, they kill children, they enslave, rape and force women into marriage. they threaten the religious minority with genocide, and in acts of barberrism, they took the lives of two american journalists, jim foley and steven sotloff. so isil poses a threat to the people of iraq and syria and broader middle east including american citizens, personnel and facilities. it's like left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a threat
beyond that region, including to the united states. we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, isil leaders have threatened america and our allies. intelligence communities believe that thousands of foreigners, including europeans and some americans have joined them in syria and iraq. trained and battle hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks. americans are concerned about these threats. tonight, i want you to know that the united states of america is meeting them with strength and resolve. last month i ordered our military to take targeted action against isil to stop its advances. since then, we conducted more than 150 successful air strikes in iraq. these strikes have protected american personnel and facilities, killed isil fighters, destroyed weapons and
given space for iraqi and kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. these strikes have also helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children. this is not our fight alone. american power can make a decisive difference. but we cannot due for iraqis what they must do for themselves. nor can we take the place of arab partners in securing their region. that's why i've insisted that additional u.s. action depended upon iraqis forming an inclusive government which they have now done in recent days. so tonight with new iraqi government in place and in consultations with allies abroad and congress at home, i can announce that america will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. our objective is clear. we will degrade and ultimately destroy isil, to a comprehensive
and sustained counterterrorism strategy. first, we will conduct a systematic campaign of air strikes against these terrorists. working with the iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions so that we're hitting isil targets as iraqi forces go on offense. moreover, i've made it clear that we will hunt town terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are. that means i will not hesitate to take action against isil in syria as well as iraq. it's the correspond principle of my presence here. if you threaten america, you will find no safe haven. second, we'll increase our support forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. in june i deployed several hundred american service members to iraq to assess how we can best support iraqi security forces. now that those teams have completed their work and iraq has formed a government, we will
send an additional 475 service members to iraq. as i've said before, these american forces will not have a combat commission. we will not get dragged into another ground war in iraq. but they are needed to support iraqi and kurdish forcing with training, intelligence and equipment. we'll also support iraq's efforts to stand up national guard units to help sunni communities secure their own freedom from isil's control. across the border in syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to syrian opposition. tonight i call on congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. the fight against isil, we cannot rely on the assad regime that terrorists its own people, a regime that will never rebegin legitimacy. we will counter extremists like
isil and a solution necessary to solve serious crises once and for all. third, we will continue to draw on our substantial are counterterrorism capabilities that prevent isil attacks. working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding, improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses, counter its warped ideology and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the middle east. and in two weeks, i will chair a meeting of the u.n. security council to further mobilize the international community around this effort. fourth, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by the terrorist organization. this includes sunni and shi'a muslims as well as tens of thousands of christians and other religious minorities. we cannot allow these communities to be driven from the ancient homelands.
so this is our strategy. each of these now parts of our strategy, america will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. already allies are flying planes with us over iraq, sending arms and assistance to iraqi security forces and the syrian opposition. sharing intelligence and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. secretary kerry was in iraq today, meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity. in the coming days, he will travel across the middle east and europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially arab nations who can help mobilize sunni communities in iraq and syria to drive these terrorists from their lands. this is american leadership at its best. we stand with people who fight for their own freedom and we rally other nations on behalf of our commune security and common humanity. the administration is also secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home.
i have the authority to address the threat from isil, but i believe we are strongest as a nation when the president and congress work together. so i welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that americans are united in confronting this danger. now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like isil. any time we take military action, there are risks involved, especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. i want the american people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it will not involve american combat troops fighting on foreign soil. this counterterrorism campaign will be waged to a steady relentless effort to take out isil using our air power and our support for partners' forces on the ground. this strategy on taking out terrorists who threaten us and
supporting partners on the front lines is one that we have successfully pursued in yemen and somalia for years and it is consistent with the approach i outlined earlier this year. the force against anyone who threatens america's core interest but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges and international order. my fellow americans, we live in a time of great change. tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked. next week marks six years since our economy suffered its worst set back since the depression. yet despite these shocks, through the pain we felt and the grueling war we bounce back. america is better positioned today to feed the future than any other nation on earth. our technology companies and universities are unmatched. our manufacturing, auto industries are thriving. energy independence is closer than it's been in decades.
for all the work that remains our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, i see the grip and determination and common goodness of the american people every single day. and that makes me more confident than ever about our country's future. abroad, american leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. it is america that has the capacity and the world to mobilize the world against terrorists. it is america that has rallied the world against russian aggression, and in support of the ukrainian people's right to determine their own destiny. it is america. our scientists, our doctors, our know-how that can help contain and cure the outbreak of ebola. it is america that helps and remove syria's declared chemical
weapon so they don't pose a threat to the people and the world again. and it is america helping muslim communities around the word not just in the fight against terrorism but in the fight for opportunity and tolerance and a more hopeful future. america have endless blessings bestow on enduring work. it is americans who welcome our responsibility to lead. from europe to asia, from the far reaches of africa to war torn capitals in the middle east, we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. these are values that have guided our nation since its founding. tonight, i ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. i do so as the commander in chief who could not be prouder than the men and women in uniform. pilots flying in the face of danger in the middle east and
service members who support our partners on the ground. when we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here's what one of them said. we owe our american friends our lives. our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people.d%7$ that is the difference we make in the world. our own safety, our own security depends upon our willingness to do what it makes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for. timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the earth. may god bless our troops. and may god bless the united states of america.
>> rose: henry kissinger is here. he's a diplomat, nobel peace prize recipient and author. he served as security of state and national security advisor under president clinton. his book is world order reflection on the character of nation in the course of history. in it he writes libya is in civil war fundamental list armies are billing a self declared against iraq and afghanistan young democracy is on the verge of draps to this trouble are added resurgants of tensions with russia and china divided between pledges of cooperation, the concept of order that is the modern era s over. i'm pleased to have henry kissinger to be here. >> thank you. it started on a very positive note. >> rose: this idea of order
has purpose nated your academic public and post public life. it's the concept that you seem to be at the core of how you see the world. >> i see my concern is the achievement of peace. but peace requires order that has two elements. it has to have enough of a balance of power that no single component or nation can optimistally dominate it. it has some values which determine what is an arrangement. because unless its system is accepted by most of its participants, there will be
outbreaks of war. this is the concept of order that i've been interested in. and it doesn't mean order against idealism because idealism is a central component of it. but it does mean that power is also an essential component of it. >> rose: how far back do you look to see the creation of nation states and balancing of power between them? order based on nation states. it's a peculiarly western evolution. rome certainly had ordered and dominated most of the known world and held peace within its boundaries. china certainly had a system of order but almost all previous orders and all the ones i know were variations of empires which
one dominating group or element in it. the west divided itself into a series of nations in the 17th century, to develop a concept of order based on balance of power and to some extent legitimacy. sometimes the balance of power was the dominant element, sometimes the legitimacy that all nations agreed on the nature of just arrangement. but it's the system that broke down and the western system spread around the world in the 19th century as a result of western imperialism. and it has emerged as nation states but the concept of order
based on the nation's state is a special western invention. >> rose: why did you decide to write this book now? >> actually ... >> rose: you describe how it came out of a conversation. >> it's pre occupied me. the conversation was i really, i had actually sort of writing a book before key personalities in international affairs. and when i set down with a friend, he said why write about the past. write about the problem that mostly occupies you at the moment. and that has preoccupied you all your life and see if you can synthesize that. and that actually, that got me started. and it's been implicit in what i've been writing, as you say. but this is a way of summing it up. >> rose: is there an absence
of order when you look around the world. >> it is one of the most chaotic periods that i know about. because every part of the world, almost every part of the world is in the process of redefining itself. some internally to some extent like china, some externally the european system has dominated the world have been abandoned in europe and the united states is moving into a new period in which the dominant is enjoyed in the immediate post period economically is not only there but on the other hand, we are still the essential element in creating a new order. >> rose: a powerful single nation. >> most powerful single nation.
and without our participation, it is very difficult to see how a new system can emerge in most parts of the world. >> rose: but new systems do e -- emerge when there's a vacuum. >> it happens in a vacuum which happens to be in afghanistan, for example. surrounding countries. and then there is some sort of a contest and out of this sometimes a new order emerges. so then the question is whether you can create that order before the contact has taken place. >> rose: some people have talked about the fact that we trend, during the bush era we moved two four in one direction. then in the obama era we moved
two far in the other direction and haven't found a balance between the two. >> it is an extremely difficult problem. we were attacked. we had to reestablish our credibility in the region which we were attacked. and we establish respect. we were bound to unleash a number of latent forces in each of these countries. now bush 43 showed some order and he attempted to bring about a democratic system on the western model in a relatively brief period of time by means of military occupation. >> rose: i think you believe that's not a smart thing to do. >> it was, it was a noble thing
to try but it went beyond the capacity of our system and be perhaps because of our strength because it involved the quarrels between sunnis and shiites and all of the attending forces in the region. but in regards to bush if i ask myself what's our alternatives once he was in iraq, that wasn't so, i thought what we should do is let some government emerge and then not make ourselves the arbiter of the evolution of the era. i understood what he was attempting to do and i have respect for him. obama, went too far in the other
direction. and he seemed to think that confessions of american guilt would gain so much public support abroad, that this could substitute for the military efforts. and probably the long term outcome is in between these two. >> rose: particulate what that is. >> if we cannot make ourselves the major factor in the domestic evolution of every country, particularly by the use of military power. on the other hand, if we take no
interest, then we have the situation that we are now seeing or when we appeared, then we have the situation that was developed enough. if you look at the crises in the middle east, we had indicated, for example. it was clear it was coming to the end of his ability to manage affairs. it was not obvious that we had to be the visible agent of his. >> rose: what would have been the alternative. >> a gradual evolution towards which actually was embodied in one american concept which was in abandoned under the pressure
of events. but i am not saying that i am outlining resolution for every country in the world. i'm saying that the united states has to find a balance between what it must do militarily and what it must do logically. and to understand that some countries have a totally different perception of order and peace than we do so we cannot always act like school masters that we know all the answers and the appropriateness of other countries is measured by the degree to which they follow prescriptions. >> rose: let's talk about putin specifically. what is his intent and what should be the american response?
>> one cannot always get to the question -- i have thought and to some extent still think but i have thought that putin, what putin wanted was an understanding with the united states that recognized the vulnerability of russia's position with long frontiers, with china, the middle: some respect for historic memories. that wasjfoutside. he considered after a period of
humiliation during the olympics and entering ukraine by members i cannot testify on the basis of the analysis that i have made. and a country that -- in another country because its historical views have not been appropriately treated. i was hoping there was a discussion on the highest level between the, between the whitehouse and the kremlin where the future of at least asia would be discussed.
we have been drawn now into a series of tactical decisions step by step which i'm putting emphasis on the military outcome on the russian side. and we cannot accept the proposition that russia can dictate. the outcome of its bordered nations by the constant use of military. >> rose: what do we do now? >> we should keep open the possibility of a fundamental negotiation with russia. >> rose: when you say we. >> the government of the united states. i mean the europeans have made it very clear that they will not engage, run any risk of war. but at the same time, we should also make clear that a
continuation of military operations may risk the fundamental relationship with the united states. and not just in imposing sanctions but what may be prolonged. >> rose: do you think putting that at risk will influence putin? >> i think yes. >> rose: and do you think sanctions will influence him? >> not the way they're being conducted. >> rose: let's talk about this president and how you think he's proceed and do you think putin is motivated by what he perceives to be a weak president. >> i think putin is motivated by a perception that he cannot get through to this administration and that we talk about, we keep offering solutions to outside problems and he's trying to talk about the overall situation. >> rose: you seem to suggest
that putin is more interested in the strategic result here, a diplomatic strategic and he's much more of a deeper thinker about these things than the united states. >> it's a deep world. they play chess we play poker. they lived in a different environment and they have to think about the relationship of societies to each other. we have lived in a relatively secured environment and therefore any disturbance of that environment we believe has some practical solution that can be implemented in a short period of time. let me take syria as an example. we begin by saying that assad has to be overthrown.
the concern with syria is the concern that these extremists groups is against the west. so any solutions in quotation marx to resolving a existing regime and therefore it's likely or could be produce libyan conditions in which suddenly a struggle of each group develop some of which or maybe all of it's become radical. >> rose: you want to avoid destabilize. >> i think the best approach would have been to begin with an agreement on the nature of the outcome in syria. rather than the personality of an individual. and i'm mentioning this only as an example. and i'm not saying that what i
have suggested would have worked. i believe it might have. actually my observation having seen on a strictally strategic basis for 15 years, bush 43 people made a lot of fun of him when he said he looked into the eyes of putin and he discovered a soul. it was not a phrase, an american phrase frequently used, but it gave putin the sense that he was being treated as a respected individual. the three years as i saw it from where i could observe both sides there was a beginning of a
conceivable dialogue. then it started falling apart again over the ukraine. so the challenge we have now which may not be fulfilled is can there be a russian state that works cooperatively with the west but whose special necessities are respected. and one of them is that ukraine can never be a totally foreign country. the russians have famous dissense like -- i think it should be an independent state with existing borders that should be flee to conduct its affairs internationally but in which the if possible some of it should be based on cooperation between the west and russia.
can that be done in any short term negotiation? i don't know. >> rose: do you think it's acceptable to putin. >> i think it's very early in the game because he has exceeded what could have been i expectations when this crises started. >> rose: i want to come to non-nation states and what the threat is to world order. some people have written about this book that is part history part lecture part memoir. they have also said maybe it didn't pay enough attention to non-state actors some have said and some said you don't pay attention to latin america or africa. but beyond all that, we now have a crises that's been created partly by the disarray in syria. partly by a capacity of a non-state actor to get both
finance and funding and create an organizational structure and motivated to try to create a califate and try to create an islamic state. what's the response and what's essential to the states and europe to say and do at this moment because that's what the president has on his plate right now. knowing he has to do things that he does not have to revisit. >> it covers non-state actors. it's discussing the collapse of the state but i won't get into that issue. what we have in the middle east now is a confluence of the series of revolutions that are partly overlapping and partly
competitive. evolution against a state authority within the state of which the up right against mubarak is an example. there is a conflict between brands of islam of which the shi'ite sunni can take within the iraqi state as an example. it's a collapse of the state borders that were drawn in the 1920's by britain and france as an expression of the european balance of power. which did not reflect the actual divisions and realities. so all of these issues are coming together. the administration attended first withdrawals and then to
rely on the secular democratic evolution most similar to that of the west and therefore took the position it took vis-a-vis mubarak expected the same thing to happen in libya. and it led to the demand for assad's withdrawal. which then that's a practical consequence to accentuate all the internal issues in a country in which there is thought one coherent national plug. so in order to have the democratic system separate, you need a minority that can become a majority. now we have a movement that is attempting to resurrect the caliphate which is that the uniform government of all the
islamic people and proceed with extreme exbrutallity to define the world and impetus of the outside countries like the united states. i mention there are three levels the strategic understanding the united states needs. one, what actions does it seek to prevent. even if it has to do it unilaterally because states have our perception of world order or world rife . secondly what actions can be do only together with allies. and third what actions can we undertake at all. the isis issue reflects at least two of those. the first is when the throat of
a man is cut on international television and decapitated, innocent bystanders who were picked as victims, the united states fundamental values are insulted. and that must have some retaliation. and for that we do not need allies. that we can do on our own, without necessarily solving the problem. >> rose: with air strikes. >> i would have thought with air strikes. >> rose: but not troops on the ground. >> not troops. this is not a final solution of the isis problem. >> rose: this is to retaliate for what happened. >> it's to teach isis that there is a heavy price to be paid by seeking to humiliate america and by assaulting.
>> rose: isn't that what the president's doing. >> i think he's doing it. he is doing it not as retaliation. the president is doing, he began to do it as a kind of prevent isis from moving more closely, accompanied with more limitations. and it's now merging, my impression is, in the speech the president will move very close to that position with a different direction because he will find very difficult to express unilateral american action. the second is how can one overcome isis and that requires some strategic assessment. because for example, the room we have chosen is to strengthen the
baghdad government, to have the baghdad government appeal to the sunnis and to speak to the united arab but by arming the kurds, the consequences say they will move out of the iraq defacto way. if a shi'a army is created and it goes into sunni areas, this will present the problems that create crises. so but it's a strategy that makes sense but it will take some time. >> rose: if you need boots on the ground so to speak -- >> not ours. >> rose: but not ours, you've got to find those boots somewhere. you get them where you can find them and clearly you got them from the kurds or the iraqi army
and some militia groups. >> militia groups were trying to create in syria. never quite managed to. would find the most hugeful employment if they were used against isis. >> rose: in syria. >> in syria and maybe in whatever areas the sunnis then decide among themselves to establish. in syria if present borders are considered but at any rate for the immediate future this would be the most useful improvement or huge of the moderate element. >> rose: pre syrian army. >> like the pre syrian army.
and that is, and i would think that saudis and even the qataris would understand the strategic purpose. >> rose: the saudis and the emirates will support it will they not. >> yes. i believe after we have to remember, we're dealing with 20,000 fanatics. but it's a small, it's a relatively small group which has had astonishing successes because of the weakness of the opposition. but if we put together these various elements that we've discussed here, i think they should be, we should be able to fragment them into various groups which one should then defeat with intelligence operation.
but the fundamental problems in the region of the sunni and shi'a have presented by saudis will continue. and it is possible to create a system of order in the region, that will be the next challenge. isis alone, destroying isis will not be the only issue. because at the end of november, we will be facing the deadline of the nuclear negotiations of iran. and that outcome will determine the relative position of many of the countries. >> rose: what do you think that outcome will be?
>> it defends whether it defend the nuclear program or a way to legitimize it with a little delay in it. i would prefer as a successful negotiation that leads to iran joining the international but i don't see how that can be done unless that is a significant impairment of the nuclear military capability of iran. >> rose: and you think the supreme leaders are prepared to accept that? >> i think that's what they're debating in tehran right now. >> rose: you have an interesting phrase about iran. it has to decide whether it wants to be a nation state or a movement. decide whether it wants to be a nation state and fully participate in the community of nations or it wants to be some theocratic in its history.
>> iran has been a nation state, it's been a great empire and it is the center of a jihadist movement. for the last decade they tried to merge the empire and the jihadists. if they can decide to become a nation state, they can have a major impact. >> rose: we've talked about russia, we've talked about the middle east and clearly the imperative of doing something about isis. now china before you leave this evening. there's a clear sense of china's place that is different and has built from whatever's gone in the past. and he seems to want china to be more aggressive. you don't think that's true? >> no. >> rose: but you seem also to believe that china can be accommodating. >> it think the fundamental
effort of it at this moment is to engage in a formal chinese society of americans that we have not seen for 30 years. >> rose: that involves corruption. >> that involves corruption, changing the economic system which means that many people in the bureaucracy have threatened simultaneously because of either because of the potential confident informantion -- corruption and probably because they don't know what is being said. so it creates that. now nationalism is a kind of unifying element in the period. and i think she feels when something is perceived either by him or by the public, it is said
the evolution of sovereignty that he must take a very strong stand. but i don't believe that there is the same impulse as there was in the case of putin of having to demonstrate to his people that he is the protector of historical matrimony. and therefore, it's not a question too much of accommodating. he has said that relationship with the united states and china should set a new example for the relationship between potential adversaries. president obama said the same thing. the only thing that's lacking is some complete program to express it. and that is what to which we pay attention. i think 15 years from now when
china has reached the level of a large middle class, how it will then perceive the international situation. i'm not predicting, i'm saying if we're lucky, it could be that at the end of that period, we have fallen into a pattern that we have found in our interests to continue. but i also think that a military conflict between potential powers will destroy the world. we've seen what happened in world war i. it's not just physical deception, it is the sides on global pages that would be very hard to repair. that is my concern, it's not to accommodate. >> rose: you're worried that there could be a conflict between china and the united
states or china -- in which people will be forced to choose sides. >> well people, there's a lot of discussion about world war i and the legends of world war. one. one of the experiences is nobody threatened to go to war and a number of people took positions that sounded reasonable, it sounded prudent. over a week they suddenly found themselves at war based on mobilization. i think we should try to avoid gradual calculations if we can and avoid the challenge. but in all of this, when you speak about order, i start with the united states and i look at it from the point of view of
what long term environment is most conducive to our values and to our security. >> rose: you also say that u.s. must find a point between introspection and dealing with the rest of the world. >> we have to as a society, and think in historic terms that we're part of a process. we're not part of a pragmatic solution that will then end history. in 1990, a book that was written called the end of history was a lot of attention at the time and justifiably so. we won't see the end of history, we will be part of a process, what we have seen around the world. we continue to go along. we should be in a position one of protecting our security and
secondly of a world in which our values are preserved to the greatest extent and which there are know upheavals of the nature that we put everything at risk. that's a big order. >> rose: the book is called world order. henry kissinger. thank you. always good to see you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this problem and early episodes visit us on-line at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
>> announcer: the following kqed production was produced in high definition. >> the beef torta was out of this world. >> i actually don't discriminate against pizza. >> this is a temple to -- >> we couldn't see it, and we couldn't hear it. >> right. >> whoa! i'm actually in san francisco? >> this is amazing! [ laughter ] >> bring me more.