Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And we're back now to continue our conversation with former Vice President Dick Cheney out the White House announced like this week that it has reversed policy and that is going to start sending.
The Syrian rebels small arms and possibly anti tank weapons but they also might make clear what they won't -- -- We don't at this thing at this point believe that the US has national interest not in pursuing very intense.
Open ended military engagement there are no fly -- In Syria at this at this juncture.
Is that why is for the president to get involved at all and Syria at this point is this enough and and generally speaking looking back how do you think this president has handled Syria.
Over the two years of the civil war.
I don't think it's been well handled I'll be the first to admit it's a complex difficult situation.
I frankly I think John -- -- -- arrive John and I don't always agree on everything -- -- -- debates over the years but I think I think -- pretty well now.
And now we're to the point where.
It's it's hard to understand.
That it's the use a chemical weapons that is triggered this results Johnson the other day.
Well there were 93000 people killed that weren't affected like.
That was the concern that.
It's not clear to me what the mission is here that they understand what is it -- strictly humanitarian.
Is it to -- geo strategic does the United States have a vested interest in the outcome.
And are we in fact potentially involved in some kind of proxy war -- Soviets and Russians -- me you're supporting -- side.
I think it's important the sun go down.
My instinct would've been to support the opposition sooner he had an opportunity if you cared about it that wasn't that actually get an opportunity earlier.
To provide support.
Without having to get American forces directly involved and they took a pass now they're gonna do it but the question is what -- -- -- day late dollar short.
And what about no fly zones what about standoff strikes on Syrian air -- and things to.
Reduce there -- eliminate -- air superiority.
Well as Jack Keane said the other day on this network Carter and former general former general index close friend of mine a great guy.
That from a military standpoint of being able accomplish something objectively.
Might well provides access the no fly zone.
-- what he would would recommend.
That's not without potential costs obviously Syria as a fairly sophisticated.
And I air capability.
And a sophisticated.
Ground to air missiles and done so it's it's.
Problem and again I think it's important for the administration -- -- -- specified what is the US national interest here.
And it seems to be if the only reason you're going is because now you have evidence that used chemical weapons and -- 150 people chemical weapons.
Is that our national interest.
And I'm not sure that that they've got to straighten her own much -- objective it.
Let's talk about -- guys who would you raised in the last segment visit.
A general principle in the military no one left behind but back after -- policy.
Then secretary of defense Leon now that said that that wasn't possible during.
Given that specific circumstances during the terror attack -- -- -- let's take -- Basic principle is that you don't deploy forces.
Into harm's way.
What's going -- without having some real time information.
About what's taking place.
Given the circumstances that night and what we've been told about the deployment of forces was the decision by the president and the Pentagon not to send US forces.
During -- seven hours try to rescue our people on the ground was not an appropriate decision or not.
I don't think it was.
My experience was especially on 9/11 Chris especially in that part of the world.
All were we anticipated that al-Qaeda.
Might well try to to mark the anniversary if you will of 9/11 attack especially location where they had an enormous amount of intelligence that said.
The the consulates in danger and you've got to -- to broadcast the first thing that comes out of the embassies ambassadors and were under attack.
-- should have been on the step before that ever happened we were always prepared and groups and organizations teams.
Ready to go operate at the drop of app and practice exactly that kind of operation.
I found it difficult to.
Reconcile Leon and I like he was good man but it two reconcile his statement that we could have done anything.
They could've been ready before the crisis ever developed so they could respond short Mexican -- them our way.
That's airbase on Sicily -- tomato base and they've got it if you should not going to be ready and Libya of all places.
Then where are you going to be reform the military has the capability and apparently didn't use it.
And I think that it was a bad call.
What do you think of the president's decision to name Susan Rice to be isn't a national security -- well.
She appears to have been part of the cover up that one of the things here that would that concern -- is really a political issue the the whole notion that this was a terrorist attack which it was.
Undermined American that they solve the terrorism problem and got -- glossy Ben laden.
Terrorism problem solved.
And so she went out -- the party line that had been put together I guess so it's State Department.
But I think -- was a huge mistake.
What she did was a huge mistake I think she lacks credibility.
And and she doesn't need to be confirmed she can go and there's -- national security advisor.
I just questioned whether or not somebody's judgement was so flawed that they took way.
Who was apparently very bad information penalties aggressively she did.
Let's turn to the I arrests targeting of conservatives that groups with a name Tea Party or patriot or 912 in their name.
In the Cincinnati office -- been interviewed by a house committee are telling conflicting stories.
As to whether this was generated in Cincinnati -- whether it came from higher ups.
In the IRS and watch and there's so far no evidence.
No are hard evidence of any involvement by treasury or the White House.
-- so far up as someone who's been around this town awhile what do you make of the -- scandal.
I think it's that it's -- one of the worst abuses of power -- and when you think the power the -- And it clearly was used for political purposes to go after a particular category of organization.
-- to be conservative my side the political spectrum.
But regardless of who want us that is kind of gross abuse of power that everybody's legitimately concerned about.
I think that I have trouble believing in two guys in Cincinnati.
Dreamed this schema I just don't think that's true I wants.
I don't often talk about it but I was involved wage -- control program back to the Nixon years.
I was a director of operations with -- when we got.
And no one -- things I had over -- were 3000 IRS agents who are trying to enforce wage price controls.
The very professional organization.
They worked hard to take -- rules and regulations written by the cost of living councilman policy types and implement amount field.
I have trouble it was a long time ago but I have troubled lenient that the professionalism and I had observed and in that organization who would be doing that at some guys on their own pick -- -- -- political class -- To go after.
That they would do that with how that without doing mrs.
Cheney is giving you -- -- -- I was the first final botnet that's -- -- but that they would do.
We've seen here with respect -- the way they've operated.
I had and I think I'd I personally believe I cannot conceive of -- situation which it didn't come from.
The other scandal now is the Justice Department raising the possibility of prosecuting Fox -- is James Rosen.
For his role in revealing what seems to have been national security classified information back in 2006.
There he loved the way you're talking to six.
April and turn off of I think we're at it as it was -- -- make sure that back -- again how it's not and I thought I'd show up or no problem.
Back in 2006 there were reports that that you'll raise the possibility of prosecuting.
In New York Times reporter James -- not roles -- the James rise and for breaking the story -- -- Bush Administration had ordered -- was engaged in warrantless wiretaps first.
Is that true did you consider the prosecution of James horizon of the New York Times and secondly what is your general philosophy about whether or not reporters.
Are liable for -- criminal prosecution for exposing national security secrets.
I was not advocating prosecuting crimes and I did think that the New York Times.
Violated the law because there is indeed a provisional loss assistance a felony offense.
To publish information about communications intelligence in the United States it's never been.
But it's a felony calling for a sentence of ten years to do that now.
Nobody prosecuted the New York Times.
I urge that we ought to investigate and either the laws the large -- that's never been in force nobody ever had the nerve to actually go after.
The New York Times and but it's on the books.
And I thought in this case obviously.
Not admittedly I'm -- hard rock and some of these things and and it's probably wise another said -- now we don't want to prosecute the New York Times.
But there is a provision of law it's very clear its publication of communications intelligence.
And it's never -- report.
But today today.
Quietly -- that are taken off the books.
But it wasn't aimed at the reporter.
It was specifically.
The New York Times have been asked by the -- in the United States.
With the publisher and the editor at the Washington bureau chief in the Oval Office.
As the -- -- please not to publish this it's going to be enormous damage to our national security.
And they went ahead and.
Your house you got a heart transplant fifteen months ago -- a couple of questions one what are you able to do.
Now that you were not able to do before the transplant and secondly and I guess and it.
I don't expected to get warm and Fuzzy about -- -- try to put you on the psychiatrist's couch for a moment.
What does it mean to you and a deeper sense to have this new lease on life literally.
Well it it is nothing short of America Chris.
Obviously our deep debt to the donor donor family -- I was near death through -- three years ago it was an end stage heart failure liver and kidneys shutting down.
And on an emergency basis that it went -- and planet -- pomp and my chest.
With battery operated.
That kept me alive for twenty months and that got me to the transplant.
And I wake up every morning now with a smile on my face thankful for the gift of another day I never expected to city.
There's vice president it's always a pleasure to talk -- use our kids.
Filter by section