assassination. something caught our attention in the interview that was we thought was a mixed message than we heard from the director of national intelligence. here s what the president had to say yesterday. when you talk about the security of the united states, iran has had a long time to contemplate how they might respond to such an attack. do you fear that they will wage attacks within the united states on american soil? we don t see any evidence that they have those intentions or capabilities right now. jenna: so the president says he doesn t see any evidence, but then we have this from mr. clapper, some iranian officials, probably including the supreme leader , ali khamenei, have changed their calculus and are now will to go conduct an attack in the united states, that was a strategic national adviser and those are different messages. what s the truth? as somebody who looks at all that intelligence, it s my job to do that, i don t know how you can come to the conclusion tha
nuclear weapon program. remember, this is an existential threat to israel. they do believe if they get a nuclear weapon it is so de stablizing to the middle east it threatens their very existence. they believe they have to do something. and where it s gotten i think a little askew here is that the message is coming out of the administration and where israel are a little different, so they re worried. they re worried they may have to do this by themselves. jenna: the president sounds confident though in the relationship. he gave the 67 border speech, which i think was damaging to our relationship. he has announced the iraq fullout, the afghan-escalated pullout, all those things send messages to the iranians that are not helpful to the israelis, so all of that, you don t get to do each one in a vacuum, they all work together, so the message that the administration i think is confusing to israel and by that, that s how you hear this talk about maybe they re going to do something. jenna:
yeah, well, first of all, look, the president says he deserves it? i think that s up to the american people to decide whether or not he does. the second point i d make is this. this is a sign of what happens when you have the government getting in bed with big businesslike the bailout of the auto companies. they begin to the leadership of the auto companies feel they need to do something to repay their political patrons. remember, we lost $1.8 billion as taxpayers on the government bailout of chrysler, and we re going lose $14 billion in the bailout of chrysler and general motors. and you got to bet in the boardrooms and management suites of these two big car companies, they re saying to themselves look, the president bailed us out, rather than making us go through the normal bankruptcy, he bailed us out, week, not going to have to pay this back to taxpayers. we re going we lose a million dollars a job. that s pretty damned
absolutely, yes. the technological changes that are in the horizon are very, very hard to predict where things will go. in 1990 i sent one of my first emails, i continue have imagined what could have happened with the internet. there are things that already here and the three things that we mentioned, big data, i mean, every hour it processes more information, manufacturing which gives you the ability if you have something storing a computer you can build it. this has now been used to customize even medical devicess and things like that. and also the fact that there are one billion transistors for every person on the planet. and these things can talk to each other. there are those things and they are in the horizon.