This transcript is automatically generated
The big announcement from former speaker of the house and GOP current front runner Newt Gingrich he says he knows -- one person he wants in his cabinet that is if he's elected president.
If -- will accept that I will ask John Bolton to be secretary of state.
So when the story nice isn't bastion of the UN except the cabinet post best and John Bolton joins us.
Good evening Sarah and so they've -- that's the big question about wants to know if pres if does speaker Gingrich is elected president he turns to you and says -- like his my sectors -- you're answer would be.
Well he hasn't talked to me yet so we'll wait and see what happens I think it's obviously very flattering I am I'm honored that anybody would would say that.
But I think it's it's really presumptuous for people and in that position.
To be accepting or not the focus has to be on -- nominating the best candidate we can and replacing present Obama and I think once.
That objective is achieved.
Then then we can play the game of who's going to be in the cabin who's gonna have senior positions I think there's some advantage to candidates talking about.
Who they might have in there cabinet that governor Romney for example was asked a question whether he would consider Rudy Giuliani is attorney general he said yes he would consider him.
Among others it helps the candidate show what their priorities are and the direction of their thinking it's a political call for them to make.
But it it seems to me it does help of the dialogue a little bit.
But is that you said that when he you know consider some unlike.
Bad range as a little bit different -- I think here's speaker Gingrich actually said this is a person I would ask.
-- -- -- it was much more specific than that I'm sort of curious.
Is you know of the that we is that a -- is there any reason why you wouldn't accept that job.
Well again -- I think it's presumptuous to be to be measuring the drapes in in any of the -- is one when you're asked to serve in a position like that it is a high honor and and I've been very privileged to have some senior positions.
In the Justice Department and the State Department so so obviously that crosses your mind but again I think you've got to keep your eyes on the prize here all of this bill.
And the prize is the 2012 election because of the threats that the United States face is that that's.
What something I've been talking about for quite some time I don't think.
We've had an adequate debate under President Obama about.
The national security threats we face so those are the issues I think we need to concentrate on the personnel decisions.
Are quite important obviously but I think their secondary.
To the first personnel decision which is getting a new president.
In terms so about national security risk which of the candidates.
It do you that they his seized the strongest on national security at least stem from that thing that you could sort of work whether you think would be that -- -- the best job for national security for your perspective.
But I knew -- had a pretty good insight in that and that one comment but honestly I I haven't endorsed anybody I'm still.
Happy to be talking to a number of the candidates and happy to provide whatever support I tend all of them at this point I I really have -- my basic objective having a more intense discussion of the national security challenges we face.
President Obama appears to be poised to make his his principal argument that.
Under his administration a number of terrorists have been killed and that that ends the foreign policy debate.
I certainly congratulate him on those successes but that doesn't make the foreign policy and the challenges.
That we face in our friends and allies face around the world are growing and we are not responding to them adequately whoever our nominee is.
Has to be prepared to engage in that today.
Try that have you had considered thought about perhaps running for president -- decided that's events that are curious if your president.
What would you be doing in about two things one is Iraq with that which has ourselves drone that's -- first -- in and secondly.
The added what I what appears to be a very deteriorating situation relationship between.
The United States and Pakistan a relation that was already -- Particularly -- and well on the -- there have been reports at least by -- -- the news media that the president was given a number of options for for destroying that -- before the Iranians the Chinese the Russians could exploit its technology.
And that he rejected them all because it would be considered an act of war to do that.
I don't think that's an accurate analysis obviously we can't judge the pros and cons of tough decision to go in and destroy that -- but it bothers me that that the decision appears to have been made on on what I would consider.
-- kind of fatuous -- I think the president still looking to negotiate with Iran over the nuclear weapons program I think that's a big mistake.
On -- -- you know it is a it is a very difficult.
-- friend of mine in the State Department once said Pakistan's the only government that's composed simultaneously.
An arsonist and firefighters.
People who have supported terrorists like Taliban and al-Qaeda the same time they're supposed to be on our side.
I just think we have to work more with the civilian leadership with the military leadership.
To convince them of what should be obvious that if they don't help us suppress terrorism.
I just in Afghanistan but in their own country they're going to be eaten by the alligators next than men they they really dangerous -- com.
-- of Pakistan's.
Nuclear weapons fall into the hands of radicals which becomes an immediate global threat.
-- actors and left -- a huge Alice in discussion we had but out of work more of the civilian -- government they already have a weak civilian government in terms of the military the military -- -- military is enraged because.
We went in and and took out Osama bin -- -- -- -- -- we have a lot to work where there.
No it's a very difficult relationship and I understand why people are frustrated but I think you just got to grit your teeth you can't.
Throw them under the bus and say we're gonna cut off.
All -- as long as they've got the nuclear weapons they've got leverage we've got a lot of leverage do we need to use it more effectively and bear down on it.
And that's -- thank you sir thank you.