tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg January 31, 2017 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with continuing coverage of the trump administration's opening week. we talk tonight about the executive order on immigration, the order restricting citizens from seven muslim majority countries from coming to the united states for at least eight -- at least 90 days. he signed several controversial orders last week but this one has had the most explosive repercussions. protesters flooded the nation's airport in over 100 state officials signed a dissenting memo. mike morrell served as deputy director for the cia and the agencies acting director.
he supported hillary clinton during the presidential campaign. i'm pleased to have him at the table. it's always good to be here. charlie: let's take immigration. what are the repercussions of what he wants to do and the way he and the administration have done it. michael: i think that is a good way to frame it. first, is the impact of what the administration has done here. they say they are trying to make america safer. i really believe what they have done is going to make us less safe. let me walk through that. first of all, there was already significant, i would not say extreme, but significant vetting of individuals from these countries. individuals from these countries who wanted to travel to the united states, had to go to a u.s. embassy or consulate and
apply for a visa. their names were run through every possible database you can think of. there were multiple interviews with u.s. consular officials before they were given the green light to come to the united states. there has been over the past x number of years no individual that has come from one of these countries that has committed an attack in the united states. so the system that was already very wellas working in keeping terrorists out. there is little to be gained by the ban that has been put in place. second, there are three huge downsides that will, i think, make us less safe when put together with the fact that there are not a lot of gains here. those three factors are, number one, this is going to be a recruiting boon for isis.
this plays into the isis narrative that the united states of america is at war with islam, the religion, and not extremism. as far as i know -- charlie: they will say they are not just banning us, they're banning all muslims. michael: right. charlie: even though it's not 100%. michael: and it doesn't really matter what the administration says whether it is a ban on muslims are not. the way it is perceived in the world, the way it is perceived in the muslim world and arab world is as a muslim ban and isis will play to that. charlie: right. michael: isis itself, as far as i know, has not said anything yet, but the media people around isis that amplify its message that sometimes speaks on their behalf are already talking about that this proves their point about what the united states is all about as far as the religion of islam. so a recruiting boon for isis.
second, we need the cooperation of those countries in the war in the extremism, counterterrorism war. we make it politically more difficult for them to do that when we create the perception among their population that we are banning all muslims from coming to the united states. we make it more difficult on the government of iraq to cooperate with us. third, we create disincentives for individuals in those countries to work with the u.s. military directly or to work with u.s. intelligence directly because one of the reasons they do that now is on the hope of coming to the united states when that work is completed. charlie: right. michael: there are lots of stories about people who are on their way here and now, we've created a disincentive for them to do that. charlie: the story has spread at home? michael: absolutely.
when you add all of that up, we are not safer. we are, in my view, less safe. that is the substance of what happened here. that's the first point you raise. charlie, the second point you raise is how they did this. there are the right ways to do things in government and there are the wrong ways to do things. the right way is an administration puts together policy change or a new policy, they put it on paper, they send it, physically send it to the relevant departments and agencies. they get written responses and they make any changes they deem necessary. then they get everyone around the table, first at the deputies level than the principals level and with the president to hash it out and have a conversation, to come to an agreement. doing it that way sometimes leads to a slower process and that was one of the criticisms of president obama, that he was slow, but that is the consequence of doing this the
right way. when you do that, you get their views of everybody and the expertise of everybody in government brought to bear. you get better decisions. that's not what happened here. a small group of people making the decision, quickly made, reporting i believe it to be true, the secretary of homeland security was just being briefed on what this executive order was all about when he saw on television the president signing it. so clearly, there was not the interagency discussion that there needed to be. that is not the way you make decisions. charlie: and one of the consequences is they had to change some things on the fly, whether it's green cards or whatever it might be. things they said it when we -- that they said in the end we think this through, that's not quite what we want to do right now. michael: there's a lesson for them charlie: -- the countries are iran, iraq,
syria, sudan, yemen. others have stepped forward to say what about saudi arabia or the united arab emirates ? michael: sean spicer said this is about the president getting ahead of threats. this is about dealing not only with the threats we know about but potential threats. if that is the case, why'd you not ban travel from all of those countries? charlie: let me ask this question -- do we need to do a better job in terms of -- you say it has then working, it worked during the obama administration. we did not have someone come in under that process and do something terrible. but you also have to look forward -- is it a good idea to have a better system? michael: there is not a process inside government or outside government that cannot be improved. a much better approach here would have been let's review the
vetting process. for all individuals coming to the united states. it is actually more likely that a german muslim or french muslim who has been radicalized is likely to try to come to the united states and commit an attack than it is someone from yemen because it is much more difficult for the person from yemen to get here that a person from france or germany. so, the whole system should be looked at and reviewed. that's what new administrations do. but you don't jar the system and create the negative consequences we talked about while you do that review charlie:. -- review. charlie: what is your assessment of the national security team at the white house? michael: jim mattis, i know well. he is at the pentagon. torlie: somebody who seem have the respect of the president, and everyone else by the way. michael: and me. he has a remarkable life story and a great soldier.
i think he will do well. i think he will stand up to the president when necessary. the one caution i would have on the secretary of defense is that when he was the commander of central command and had that responsibility for the entire middle east, he often argued that we should be, that we should respond disproportionately to an iranian provocation. that if they fired on a ship or grabbed a group of sailors, or run a number of small boats at a u.s. naval vessel, we should respond disproportionately to send a message. charlie: there are others that would think that's a good idea, like chicago rules. michael: i believe you respond proportionately. charlie: always proportionately. michael: he argues for disproportionally. that is the one issue i would
have with jim. at cia, i have not gotten to know mike pompeo very well in the last month. charlie: you have? michael: i have. i only knew him before from our relationship when i was the deputy acting director and he was on the house intelligence committee. those were not great interactions because they were over benghazi. right. i saw him in that light. i saw him is very partisan, i saw him as political, i saw him as attacking the agency in me. but, he reached out to me after he was nominated and we had a number of very good conversations. charlie: what did you tell him about the cia? michael: the first thing i told him is that the men and women of the cia are the most dedicated and committed people he will ever run into. and that they will follow him anywhere. and that they care about one thing and one thing only and that is keeping the country safe
and he was being handed a national treasure. i told him that his ultimate responsibility is when he walks out the door, whatever it is, to leave it as a national treasure. then, we had long talks about the senior officers there might make a good beauty. -- deputy. i gave him my views and we talked about how to deal with the perception created by his partisanship over benghazi. how does he handle this? -- that when he walks into the building? i told him that he should be honest about it. you are a politician then. it was politics and you are in a different place now and you did not bring politics with you down the beltway when you came to the agency. you did not bring it into the building. ♪
a, b and c. michael: the cia does not do the options part. the cia does not do policy options. what cia does is they collect information about threats facing the united states. what we like to say is collect information on the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries, whether they be al qaeda or whether they be vladimir putin. then, we take all of that information and put together an assessment for the president on how to think about threats, why it exists, how might evolve and what factors might advance it -- might influence it for the good and the bad. then, the policymakers take all that have been together policy. charlie: and that would in this case be the national security council? security'se national
counsel. the deputies of the national security council and the executives of the national security council. charlie: is there often disagreements among the agencies or is that a rare occurrence? michael: there are often small differences of opinion. it is very rare there's a difference of opinion that matters to the president. that is the dni's job. to say this is what the intelligence committee thinks. mr. president you need to know everyone in my community thinks that except dia or cia. charlie: where is the fbi in this? michael: the fbi is a member of the intelligence community. in its intelligence function. charlie: is it a member of the principles communities? michael: i don't know if it is formal or not but jim comey would comment on issues of relevance. so demoting, as was done over the weekend, degrading to some degree -- i'm sorry, i forgot
chairman of the joint chiefs -- the chairman of the joint chiefs is a member. degrading the chairman of the joint chiefs and the dni and saying they will only be invited when there's issue of relevance to them. charlie, i never sat in a principles meeting or a meeting where the dni and chairman of the joint chiefs did not add considerable value. no matter what the subject was. charlie: people forget the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the man who reports to the president. michael: yes. charlie: he's not running the military, he is the president possibility officer. michael: yes, military advisor. charlie: he is there to advise the president on military matters. michael: right. that is the team. at the center of the team is mike flynn. charlie: the national security advisor. who runs the security meetings generally? michael: he runs the principles
meeting and he would sit to the president's left and mike flynn runs those principals meetings. it is his job not to have an opinion at the meeting. it is his job to lead the discussion in a way that gets everyone's opinions on the table to see if they can find consensus on a policy recommendation to the president, and if so, take that recommendation to the president , to get approval, and if there are differences of opinion, take those differences. tom donlon was exceptional in that. charlie: in that he would? michael: lead the conversation in a way that everyone got an opportunity and not guide the discussion in one direction or another. you don't want a national security adviser who comes into the room and says here is my view, i'm going to drive the discussion. charlie: let's just remember for
a moment -- starting with kissinger. bush 41 was brent. michael: tony lake and sandy berger. 43 had condoleezza rice. michael: exceptional people. charlie: president obama tom donlon and then susan rice. michael: yes. charlie: now it is michael flynn. michael: yes, i don't think he compares. charlie: because? michael: i don't think mike is a strategic thinker. charlie: he is an intelligence officer. mike was a brilliant tactical intelligence officer. charlie: what does that mean? michael: mike worked for stanley crystal in iraq thing
-- putting together targeting packages to go after individuals every night. literally, multiple individuals every night. he was masterful at that. that's a very tactical job. he was very good at that. strategically, i don't think he compares to condoleezza rice. charlie: washington gossip is mike flynn has lost some of his -- underlying washington gossip, i'm not sure anyone in the administration has said this except maybe in conversations inh reporters outside and and off the record manner. that the reason steve bannon, a political advisor and strategist and someone who seems to be inside donald trump's head and crucial to him -- he made him president or chairman of the campaign when kellyanne conway became manager of the campaign
and has been put on the principals committee. there is always resistance to that because they don't think political people belong in national security discussions. michael: there are two issues i , think. one is politics should not be in that room. politics should not drive national security decisions. i was never in a deputies meeting, a principals meeting or nsc meeting where politics entered the discussion, never, not a single time. charlie: it seems to me that it's up to the president to say there's not going to be politics in this room. michael: that comes later. that's in the oval office. the political discussion. charlie: the political discussion comes later. michael: i see steve bannon, and i think many people do, as a political guy. so he doesn't belong there. that is issue number one. issue number two is if you have two senior advisers to the
president in the room, the national security adviser, mike flynn, and steve bannon, who is very close, then, you have competing channels of advice to a president of the united states. that is not a healthy thing. that is not a healthy thing. charlie: suppose the president of the united states says i see him as a security guy because he has been invaluable to me. should a be the president's call to make that decision? michael: of course it is the president's call. that's what happened here. if the president were to ask me, and of course he would not, i would advise him against it. charlie: if you are national security advisor, you would have argued it. clearly. let's talk about some of the other issues because i think it's important to understand how
it works and you have an insight view. obviously it was respected by the incoming cia director. now we have a discussion about torture again. where are you on torture and where are cia people whose consideration is the national security of the united states, where were they in this argument that gain some conversation last where are cia people whose week about black sites, about waterboarding, and about extreme measures? john mccain jumped in with both feet. michael: i would say two things. on this very show, i would have talked about what was done after 9/11 with regard to secret prisons and interrogations and tried to put it in context for the viewers.
the first point i would make is those were unique times. we knew very, very little about the enemy. it felt like a ticking time bomb scenario where you have an individual who you think knows about an attack that is just about ready to happen and they won't talk to you. when the secret prisons were set up, there was no other place to take these individuals. guantanamo was not open yet. and it was legal. all the techniques at that time were deemed by the justice department to be legal. charlie: but they are not anymore? some are, some aren't. michael: the ones that everybody talks about are not. the situation is completely different today. you don't need to do it today. there are mechanisms in place when you capture an individual
to interrogate them, there's a whole interagency team that has been created to do that. so you just don't need to do it anymore. that is the first point. the second point is there is nobody that i know at the cia or any former senior cia official i know who would ever want to go down this road again. and the reason is we were left to hang out and dry. we were told this was legal. we need you to do this. people follow those orders. they did what they were told, then all of a sudden, people said this is wrong and we and we are going to investigate you. they don't want to go down this road again. charlie: no cia agent wants to do that again without knowing his government is behind him. michael: no. so my mentor, mike hayden often
jokes if the president wants the cia to do waterboarding again, he will have to bring his own bucket. charlie: let me talk about two other issues here. north korea. michael: yeah. i think this is going to be the president's first test. and i think it is coming soon. the one significant achievement i would say the obama administration made with north korea is that they stopped the process of the north korean leadership doing a provocation, something against the south, a missile test, a nuclear test, as a way to get us to sit down at the negotiating table and buy something from them, literally buy something from them, give them fuel oil, give them food aid, they would do something nasty, we would run to the negotiating table and say please
stop, and they would sell us something. then a year later, they would be doing that same thing again. the obama administration said we are going to stop buying. if you want to do all this provocations, we are not biting. jong-un is going to want to get back to that old style, that i do a provocation and you come running to the negotiating table. i think that is what kim jong un has in mind in terms of the discussion that is now underway about north korea possibly testing and intercontinental ballistic missile. charlie: let's assume the cia and everybody else tells the president they have it, they have a deliverable icbm that can deliver a nuclear warhead. to california. can we live with that? michael: so, this is kind of
where we are and this is not new. we know they have nuclear weapons. they have tested the multiple times. charlie: but we don't know they are small enough to put on an icbm that's powerful enough to reach the united states. do we? michael: we know that they have deployed missiles capable of hitting -- that are designed to be capable of hitting the continental united states. they have never tested one. we think they have had enough time to take a nuclear warhead and make it small enough to put on one of these. so, you have to assume, presumed that they have that capability. that is where you have to start. the trump administration will face two big discussions. one is if they test icbm, we are going to see it. our satellites will see it.
the president will have the option of doing something about it before they test it. charlie: what options does he have? michael: you've got the option of taking it out. and as crazy as that sounds, few -- if you are the president and you say to the director of the cia, can you guarantee me there's not a nuclear warhead on the missile and the answer is no, i can't. so it is a discussion. it is a discussion. more importantly, what do you do afterwards? they test an icbm and let's say it's successful. what do you do? do you run to the negotiating table like previous administrations did and have a discussion with them?
do you take obama's approach which is basically it doesn't matter to us at the end of the day? don't ever, ever even think about it. charlie: you are getting nothing from us. michael: right. or do you overreact? do you take some sort of military action? against north korea. michael: right. since the very beginning of this presidential campaign, i have been concerned about the president's temperament. i've been concerned about his thin skin. i've been concerned about his ego. i'm concerned about how he might feel in relation to kim jong un if kim jong un is successful testing and icbm. so i worry about his reaction. i worry about an overreaction. charlie: he may view this as an opportunity to show his stuff. here's my final question -- this is why the relationship between the intelligence agencies and the president of the united
states of the united states and his closest advisers are so crucial. they have to have trust in each other. they have to believe they are getting the best possible information that is not clinically motivated, that is not served for any and other than the shared national security. and if it doesn't exist, you have a problem. this is no time not to have everything you need to make the smartest decision. michael: yes. and intelligence is the first piece of that. charlie, just to finish i saying i did not find it surprising that donald trump's first butting heads with his new administration was with the intelligence community. charlie: why? michael: because the fundamental
job of the cia, of the intelligence community is to put fact on the table. for a guy who fundamentally doesn't like facts, they interfere with his opinion, it is a relationship -- charlie: or will define the facts as he sees them. michael: it is a difficult relationship. charlie: i suppose you told the new cia director that he had to deal with that problem right away? thank you for coming. mike morrell. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪ charlie: george osborne is
here. he served as chancellor of the exchequer from 2010 through 2016. his term ended after the vote to exit the european union, also known as brexit. he remains a member of parliament and has served there since 2001. president trump met with theresa may at the white house. among the issues discussed was creating a bilateral trade deal between britain and the united states. i'm pleased to have george osborne back at the table.
good to have you here when your premise or has just been in town. two things -- number one, how you size up donald trump? you are seen politicians. this has been as fast raised a week to open a presidential term as any of us have seen. george: the bottom line is donald trump is unpredictable. he would say because he is shaking up the clinical establishment and reaching out to the people who supported him that for the rest of the world, britain included, it makes a challenge because the united states is a bit more unpredictable and we don't exactly know what the view of the u.s. is going to be toward nato or russia or syria. that's going to be something that i think is going to concern the world until we hear more from this administration. people want the administration to succeed and want president
trump to be an important leader of the world and we are just going to have to wait and see. charlie: what can we say about the visits that prime minister may made? george: the most important thing was a speech she to the republican chief. there, she said what i think britain needs to say and other countries to say which is we will be your candid friend. we are not going to seller sells out on attitudes toward russian aggression or free trade. we will tell you where you think you are making your mistake, but we are also your great friend and ally. to have a joint responsibility to fight for the things we care about in the world, freedom, democracy, free trade and enterprise. so let's do that together.
charlie: let's go back to brexit. written is leaving the european union. is it article 50? george: unlike the united states constitution which did not provide for the state to leave, the european union does allow a member country to leave and you have to trigger what is called article 50. that's going to start happening this week. we will start having the debate and the vote on whether to trigger our goal -- article 50 and the truth is the great majority of harlan, myself included, that is a bad idea for britain to leave the european union. we will respect the wishes of the referendum. was close, but it is decisive. there are holes of new questions which is what is our trading
relationship? else set of new questions now need to be answered. charlie: she has triggered article 50 to start. so it will begin. george: the authority to trigger will happen and that is the timetable she said. charlie: her desire is to get out as quickly as possible george: the problem is for 45 years or so, britain's lawmaking and domestic security has been entangled with the european union for good or ill. disentangling that is a hell of a job. the problem for britain is going to be if, after two years, we have not sorted out a new trade relationship, we go from one day having those relationship to the next day not in that the problem for companies.
the government will need a transition arrangement, and offramp from the european union and that will be at the core of the negotiations. charlie: one of the arguments president obama use and made clear his preference known -- you have to get at the end of the queue. it seems that donald trump is saying as soon as you get -- this is used. -- as soon as you start operating as a sovereign, we will make a deal. george: i'm about the most pro-free trade person you can find. i'm all about trade with asia and the like, but it should not come at the cost of the important trading relations we have with germany, france and so
forth. i want both. i don't want it to be a choice. i want to make sure and other members of parliament in to make sure that as we leave the european union, we are not directing enormous trade barriers with these neighbors any search of a potential trade deal. i want that trade deal but i also want the trade deal with the european union. it's important for britain, it's important for trade around the world that this is not a great act of protectionism. in the end, why did people vote to leave the eu charlie:? does donald trump object to free trade or does he object to what he considers bad trade deals? george: he's as you want a trade agreement with the u.k.. speaker ryan says they want a trade arrangement with the u.k.. we should grab that opportunity.
i suspect with all these trade deals, the devil will be in the details. american farmers, wall street, and the city of london, there are tough issues. someone who believes in free trade and enterprise, i believe the maximum market asset delivers the maximum benefit to general public. that not always easy to get that message across in the world of vested interests and those who think their interest lies in protecting industry. charlie: when you were campaigning for the budget you had constructed as chancellor of the exchequer under the prime minister shape of david cameron, you called for what some people like to call austerity and you believe austerity helped produce strong economic growth for great britain.
also, you were campaigning against brexit and argued it would cause all hell to break loose and would be terrible for the economy of great britain. your critics say it hasn't happened. george: first of all, when i became the chancellor six years ago, written was in an economic mess. we were spending more than we could afford. britain had the strongest of the major economies in the world. it was about making u.k. a great place again. charlie: is it the same thing donald trump wants to do george: in the united states? i think it is great that they want to do things like tax reform and the regulation -- i think regulation has probably gone too far. and we should be with him on that. american corporate pursuit takeovers of european countries solely because they want to get
around the repatriation of foreign earnings and tax rules. there are lots of things we could work with a trump administration on. his broad pro-business approach is when i would support, but it should not come at the cost and expense of less trade. britain positive exit from date eu led to a valuation of our currency. our country is collectively poorer because our currency is worth less. there are benefits for exporters -- charlie: donald trump has talked about that here. he's said he thinks the dollar is too strong. george: it does mean your import costs go up. the country has been made poor eye the devaluation. we have not seen is a shock to consumer confidence.
what is crucial now is to get these decisions right on the future relationship between britain and the united states and britain and the european union. half of our exports go to the european union. britain is an international financial center and will remain so. but i wanted to remain a european financial center going forward. there's a set of decisions and get those wrong and the economy will suffer. get them right and the economy will be strong. if the economy is about people's living standards and about people feeling they are getting something out, then you're getting to what is widely said to be the problem, which is people feel alienated from the
system. they don't think the system is stacked in their favor. i don't think having a weak gdp and higher unemployment is an answer to those questions. charlie: when you were chancellor of the exchequer, you had a union leader come in crazy. george: i don't think i can remember the exact location, but that has happened. that's on the banner on the building -- charlie: but the emphasis is on jobs. george: if you can bring the jobs, great. the u.s. has very low unemployment, but the u.s. has a problem which is the participation rate. of course, if donald trump can keep jobs in michigan or bring jobs to michigan, that's great. the big challenge for the u.s. and for the u.k. is a whole generation that will need skills they don't currently have to work in a world were a lot of jobs currently people do will be taken over by robots and artificial intelligence and the like. that big task is not about what you're trade tariff is with mexico or china.
that's a challenge for all these western democracies. i don't at the moment see anyone who's got a convincing plan to deal with that. charlie: what is the call of populism in europe? george: the call is there's a simple answer to your problem. if you feel alienated after income hasn't gone up enough, i'm going to direct barriers and ban people from coming to the country, i'm going to put my country first. those are all very alluring things, at least superficially. but are they the answer to those people's problems? i suspect they are not and there are some basic things we have learned -- the more you trade, the better off the countries are. open, diverse societies are stronger and ones where people get more individual human settlement. democracy is the best system of
government, despite how messy it is. international alliances are complicated but it's better than the alternative. when you say to people what have you got to lose, i would say peace, stability and security and a tough hell of a lot. charlie: did we miss the boat on syria by not acting sooner and stronger george: there were repeated opportunities to intervene in syria and i understand why people did not want to get involved. charlie: parliament voted against it. george: in 2011, when the civil war started, week could have aggressively armed what was known as the moderate opposition and we did not. charlie: and at a time he was very weak. george: the british house of commons voted against action once.
the action might have enforced the red line, all sorts of things were done that since the signal that syria is not our problem. the vacuum was created and russia moved in in force with tens of thousands of soldiers and now, while we are talking, there's a peace conference going on because extend. iran, russia and turkey, the united states is not even at the table of the syrian peace talks. charlie: taking action against isis but not against the regime. george: in the theater where there are american and british forces deployed, there is a peace conference going on where we are not even at the table. my generation, i came in to parliament in 2001. the iraq war was a big issue and we all know the price of getting involved. the loss of life, the brave servicemen who lose their lives to the financial costs, the division in our societies, --
charlie: and the sense in some quarters that it's one more example of the west coming over to try to solve the problems of the middle east. george: but now we know the price of not getting involved. key allies like jordan and lebanon to stabilize. russia into the middle east for the first time since henry kissinger kick them out. a terrorist state with land and resources in the form of isis. mass migration that has destabilized european democracies giving rise to extremist properties. we do now realize that you properties. we do now realize that you cannot just sit back and think western values, western
interests are going to be promoted. charlie: we tried to find a way and we couldn't do it without a massive amount of american troops but we could not find a way to do that. that is his argument. he says they sat back but not that they did not wake up every morning. george: there was an option to more aggressively armed the rebels -- charlie: safe zones and everything. you are criticizing your government and our government. george: there are all the reasons you don't want to get involved, but i'm pointing out the price of not getting involved is a high one. charlie: and getting higher.
george: and i see a world where western interests are in retreat, western values are in retreat, not just abroad but in our own countries and, in the end, peace, security, stability, freedom, free enterprise are not in a legal rights -- in alienable rights. they have to be fought for and established. they have to be created. a don't just exist and we have lived in a world class for they have not. we have to get our act together. charlie: because you are part of the national security and the closest partner david cameron had, you saw the relationship with america up close. what is your relationship for the u.s. cia? george: i have nothing but respect for the intelligence agencies. -- first of all, they work seamlessly with the british intelligence agencies.
it has to be to closest partnership in the world and they are every day saving lives and it is a real. it's not just the stuff of movies. i don't want to get into domestic arguments here. it's a bit odd that some of the stuff leaked out and the administration needs to work with these intelligence agencies. i do best thing to do -- >> -- charlie: what would be your advice to the president? george: you will need the intelligence agencies because they are literally your eyes and ears. where i disagree with them, and this is the part about being a candid friend, i don't think it's going to serve anyone's
interest to reintroduce waterboarding and the like. those are things that actually did reputations to our countries and honest damage. it is -- it has certainly besmirched our reputation and why return there? i don't think i hear experienced intelligence officers -- they say it did not give us information we couldn't otherwise got. in the end, it is difficult because it's tempting to use everything in your armory against the evildoers the part of being a democracy and beacon of freedom is showing restraint and not resorting to your opponent's tactics and methods. at the moment, this argument about the ban on refugees and opponent's tactics and methods. people coming from these muslim countries, the statue of liberty stood in new york harbor as a beacon of hope not just for the
united days before the whole world. the statue of liberty should not turn its back on the world and that is absolutely fundamental to people's conception of the united states and it's also fundamental to our western values. that we are open and that we oppose persecution and we stand up to enemy regimes and those who would do us harm. but we don't do that by punishing or penalizing individual citizens who may be trying to get away from that regime. charlie: so you let them in the country? george: you check the people are as they come in but i don't think the ban is a good idea. i dig is deeply counter production. charlie: you just received the kissinger fellowship. i assume that allows you to
surround the table and learn smart things. george: from the john mccain -- i will be in london as a member of parliament and henry kissinger and john mccain are two american heroes, but also people who can teach us that force and the assertion of western values is sometimes necessary to keep the peace and keep us safe and secure. charlie: thank you for coming. george osborne, thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ >> setting up for a showdown.