tv Charlie Rose PBS August 9, 2016 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. most of our time this evening is about a conversation with michael morell, former deputy director and acting director of the c.i.a. who wrote a scathing editorial in the "new york times" attacking donald trump and supporting hillary clinton. we'll get to that in just a moment. but first donald trump made an important economic speech today in detroit and be debrief jim tankersley about that speech. >> he tried to do two really important things. the first was to reach back out to republicans many of who have been turned off by the events of the last week that you mentioned. and reassure them had that they wants to cut back, he wants to cut regulations. he has a traditional conservative plan for the economy. then he reached out with that populist arm that we've seen him wield so well and really hit on the pain that many americans have felt from free trade.
he hit and-a-halfity, tpp and he tried to paint hillary clinton as on the wrong side of both those issues. >> rose: we continue for most of our program with a conversation with mike morell. >> hears what i would like to see him do. i would like to see him stand off tomorrow and denounce putin encouragement into ukraine and denounce annexation of crimea. i would like to see him denounce putin's assistance to the rebels in the assistance of the shoot down of the air liner and denounce supporting a butcher and dictator. i would like to see him just stand up and denounce putin. and i'll tell you that at the end of the day putin would have more respect for him than he does now. >> rose: tankersley and
morell next. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> 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. >> rose: we begin then with a look at donald trump's economic plan, the republican presidential nominee delivered a major policy address today in detroit, michigan. he stressed his ability to create new jobs and bring prosperity to those who have the very least. in contrast he cast his opponent hillary clinton as a candidate of the past. >> in short, the city of detroit is the living, breathing example
of my opponent's failed economic agenda. i am proposing an
across the board income tax reduction, especially for middle income americans. this will lead to millions of new and really good paying jobs. the rich will pay their fair share, but no one will pay so much that it destroys jobs or undermines our ability as a nation to compete. >> rose: trump's speech comes on the heels of bruising weeks of missteps causing the numbers to drop. joining me from washington tim tankersley of "the washington post." welcome, jim. >> thank you for having me. >> tell me what you think drum did today? terms of casting a sense of him and his economic views. >> well, he tried to lay out a vision, he tried to do two
really important things. the first was, was to reach back out to republicans, many of whom have been turned off by the events of the last week you mentioned and reassure them he wants to cut taxes, he wants to cut regulations. he has a traditional conservative plan for the economy. at the same time he reached out with that populist arm that we've seen him wield so well and really hit on the pain many of the americans have felt from free trade. he hit nafta, he hit tpp and he tried to paint hillary clinton as on the wrong side of both those issues, of the conservative tax and regs issues and on the trade issue that he really sees as his reach out to the middle. >> rose: is trade a winning issue for donald trump. >> he obviously believes it is. it worked for him in the plierms and believes it will work in states like michigan and states like ohio. he believes that it is an issue that even if you rp are aren't a factory worker who lost a job
due to nafta or trade relations with china he believes it resonates with america first chord as he calls it, that it speaks to this idea that we are losing on a global stage and that only he can make us win again. >> rose: on the one hand he reached back to republican orthodoxy. on the other, he is casting himself as somebody very different. he suggested in some cases he may be to the left of hillary clinton for example on how much will be prepared to spend on infrastructure. what do you make of that. >> i think it's fascinating. he really is trying to outflanker on the left to two issues. one might be on what you just talked about. he spent half trillion dollars on intra structure. the other is child care oddly enough. he said today this is an issue that's very important to his daughter ivanka and talk board of director making it deductible. the average cost of child care
for a family. that's a big outreach and potentially very expensive proposal that would put it possibly to the left of hillary clinton. >> rose: how would he change it. >> he would make it so right now you can deduct a certain amount of your child care expenses for some families. you can't deduct all of them. he would let you deduct what appears to be, there's no details yet but what appears to be all of or the average cost as he put it in the speech of your child care costs will be deductible from your taxes. now there is one thing though that democrats have pounced on right away which is because it's a deduction and not a tax credit, that means low income family who don't take itemized deductions on their taxes they won't get to benefit from it. this would help middle class and upper middle class families than the poor. >> rose: more people believe what the economy needs is a stimulating growth. how do we create more growth. >> we absolutely do need more growth. i think economists across the scale would agree on that. trump is a very supply side
classic conservative plan which is you reduce taxes particularly taxes for businesses. and he would cut the corporate tax rate from one of the highest rates in the developed world to 15% as an actual rate, which is a huge cut. and then deregulation. he'd stop any new regulations on wall street from the dodd-frank bill. >> rose: finally there's this. you wrote in "the washington post" trump's team includes no prominent economist from the past, several gop campaigns or senior economic officials from previous republican administrations. there's only one academic economist in the group and only one well-known tax policy expert. what does this say to you that in fact here's a guy who wants to change the way things are so he's listening to a new group of advisors. >> yes. that's one way to look at it. another way to look at it is he has a very small center circle. most of those advisors he's called upon are people he's either done business with or knows through circles. they are fund raisers for him.
some experts align with him. economist peter novarro from university of california irvine for example. you see the establishment this is an anti-establishment move by trump. the establishment economists don't particularly want to be advising him and he doesn't appear to particularly want their advice. >> rose: remind me if this is accurate. the polls suggest that americans today trust donald trump running economy more than hillary clinton. >> that has been true throughout the campaign. what we've seen in the very most recent batch of polls is narrow ongoing where she's tied sore she's up a little bit. he had a hugh lead on the economy. one reason to think he was well positioned for november and that huge lead is at best a small one now. >> rose: jim, thank you so much for joining us. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> rose: jim tankersley from "the washington post." back in a moment. >> mike morell is here.
he's a former acting and deepity director of the cia who is also a contributor to cbs news but recently resigned in order to publicly endorse hillary clinton. on friday, he wrote a scathing up said where he called trump a poor and dangerous comarpd in chief. donald trump, morell writes is not only unqualified for the job but may well pose a threat to our national security. i am pleased to welcome mike morell back to this table. welcome. >> good to be here, charlie. great to be here. >> rose: tell me why you felt compelled to change where you were, contributor to cbs on public boards. former acting director and deputy director of the cia, a man who gained increasing respect for his voice because of access to media. just to say i'm going in a
different direction. >> so charlie, this was not surprisingly a very difficult decision for me. being non-partisan, being apolitical, was in my dna, you know. it was put there by 33 years of being an intelligence professional. >> rose: your responsibility was simply to tell people what the facts were. >> exactly, and to be objective about it. and any hint of politics would under cut the credibility of what you were saying, right. so intelligence officers, they have to be, they have to be aplate cull. so this was me number one stepping outside of that lifetime role so that was a big deal. i was also concerned, charlie, that i would damage the agency
that i love so much. that i would not only become somebody who was attacked, and i knew i would be attacked, right, and i have been. but i feared that the agency would also be attacked. governor pence republican vice presidential nominee actually attacked the c.i.a. the other day in attacking me. he said this is the same agency that told, this guy ran the same agency that told barack obama that isis was the jv team. he attacked the men and women that go to work every day with one goal, to protect the country. that's what happened. and that's another reason why this was a big big deal. but charlie, two things, two things, i think, brought me to the decision to write the op ed. one was a growing belief that
donald trump, mr. trump, i want to be respectful here, that mr. trump would be a threat to our national security as commander in chief. he has said things on the campaign trail that have assisted our adversary ease, have assisted vladimir putin, have assisted isis. we can talk about that later if you want. he has said things that led our varies to endorse him. kim jong-un has endorsed him. growing increasingly concern board of director this man being the president of the united states and being the commander in chief. and then the second one, i've known hillary clinton a long time. and i felt that the perceptions that some of the perceptions that are out there about her are
just not true. and so putting both of those reasons together, i decided to speak out. and one of the things, charlie, that struck me as i was going through this and i was actually writing the op ed and talking to people about my views, is that there are many people who share my views. there are many people who share what i wrote in that up said. but they're afraid to speak out. they're afraid of being attacked. they're afraid of the republican party not being with them down the road, right. i felt afraid of not speaking out. i felt afraid of the consequences of not speaking out. i think that serious republicans of which there are many think about the consequences of not speaking out. >> rose: do you think they
would attack somebody else in the c.i.a. -- resign for public board and thirdly you were a contributor at cbs and you'll be perceived now as a partisan. >> i did. >> rose: what you say will be measured different. >> so you know, two issues here. one was unfortunately i needed to resign from cbs for obvious reasons, right. i took a leave of absence from the public board, right. because i didn't want this linked to them in any way. and it's not linked to them in any way. it's not linked to cbs in any way. those were sacrifices that i was willing to make to do this. i loved, i love cbs, absolutely loved it. and you know hopefully i can go back to it some day. so that's one issue, right. those are sacrifices. the other is what you said,
right. i've been perceived as straight down the middle, call it like it is. willing to criticize president bush, willing to criticize president obama, willing to be supportive of it, call it as i see it. >> rose: question number one. you have endorsed her. will you be out working for her, will you becoming part of the national security team advising hillary clinton. >> yes. so i said in the op ed that not only am i endorsing her but i will do whatever it takes to ensure that she wins and he loses. so i will be open to anything that the campaign asks me to do. >> rose: and giving her advice as well as speaking to the public about it. >> yes, yes. >> rose: the other question that often comes up is, is there ambition here. are you looking for a job in the clinton administration. >> you know, i love my time in
government, absolutely love my time in government. i've been out for three years. i've loved my time outside of government. my focus right now is totally totally getting her elected and not getting him elected. you know, what job may come of this, what job may not come of this because either the secretary chooses not to or i choose not to or more importantly my wife chooses not to, that is so far down the road that i'm not focused on that at all. >> rose: was it at all a consideration. >> no. in fact, i may have hurt myself a little bit, right. because now i've taken this, this intelligence officer who had a completely independent view right who is respected on both sides of the aisle and i moved to one side of the aisle here. i may have actually hurt myself. >> rose: when you were carefully considering this, i want to now talk about the views that are expressed by it from. give us the indictment because i want to talk about hillary
clinton and donald trump barack obama. what is it about donald trump that disqualifies him to be president in your eyes, dangerous, unfit. >> here's the list in my mind, right. and then i'll get to what i think is absolutely the key issue. so, you know, his ego is larger than any i've ever seen before. they've called him narcissistic i called him narcissistic in the op ed. and that narcissism, that ego requires constant feeding, right. and that's what putin played to him, we'll come down and talk about that, right. others in the world will use that against him, right. so that ego becomes dangerous. he makes decisions not based on his intellect, he makes
decisions based on his intuition. and he is careless with the facts. and even when the facts are shown to be corrected, right, he doesn't correct them. he continues with the old facts. that's dangerous for a policy maker. he has incredibly thin skin, right. and he reacts sharply to critiques. when you're the president of the united states world leaders are critiquing you all the time. you have to react to those in a measured way, not the overreactions we've seen time and time and time again. this is a guy, i still want to come back to the most important. this is a guy, this is a guy who encouraged nations to acquire nuclear weapons, right. this is a guy who said it was okay that putin went in to ukraine and took crimea. this is a guy who said you know,
i'll have to think about whether i'll come to the defense of the baltics if putin attacks them. it's all of those things that led me to say my god, this is the last person you want in the oval office making these decisions. now we come to i think the absolutely critical issue. okay. so he makes decisions with his gut, you know. he's prone to overreact to attacks. he needs his ego fed, right. all of those can be dealt with, right, if you've got the right advisors around you and if you listen to them. and i don't think he listens. i've seen absolutely no evidence, no indication that he listens to anybody. when he was asked, when he was asked who do you listen to on
national security, he actually said himself. >> rose: do you talk to people who interact with him. >> in all fairness i never met him. i spend a lot of time with hillary clinton, i never met donald trump but i've gone out of my way to talk to know donald. >> rose: people who advise him. >> people who have known him for a long period of time, right. >> rose: they do nothing to allay your fears. >> no. in fact, they say, they say that two of their biggest concerns, right, is his narcissism and constant need to feed it. and two, that he doesn't listen. he doesn't listen to anybody. and when that don't listen to anybody scares the heck out of me. you're not going to change when you become the president of the united states. i didn't see the entire speech today. what i did see were references to isolation, right, references to we got to take care of ourselves rather than the rest of our world. references to trade, bad trade
deals. that all concerns me. here's what i would like to see him do. i would like to see him stand up tomorrow and denounce putin's military incursion into ukraine. i would like to see him denounce putin's annexation of crimea. i'd like to see him denounce putin's assistance to the rebels in eastern ukraine that resulted in the shoot down of the malaysian airliner. i want him to renounce what putin is doing in syria as a butcher and dictator. i would like to see him stand up and denounce putin. i'll tell you at the end of the day putin would have more respect for him than he does now. >> rose: why do you think he doesn't do that? some of those things come at different ways, for example why he doesn't denounce putin in ukraine. do you think it's believe putin did the right thing or he believes it's okay or he
believes it's okay for them to take over crimea. >> no. >> rose: or because he just doesn't understand the consequences of providing leadership of a country that's the word's greatest power. >> the single thing in my up said that got more attention was this guy is recruited. >> rose: unwitnessing. >> unwitnessing has been recruited by putin. that's the reason he's taking the position he's taken. >> rose: and by the way putin played to his ego. >> putin is a trained intelligence officer. he was a very talented kgb officer, right. he's trained to look at an individual and play to them and to get them to do what he wants them to do, right. and that's what an agent is. >> rose: you really think vladimir putin sat there, watched american politics and said i would be better off with
my objectives per russia is if donald trump is elected and make him an agent to my wishes. support him to become an agent of my wishes. >> i think there's two things going on. one i wrote about and one i didn't. >> rose: okay, go ahead. you're now talking about speculation, you do not know. >> i do not know this. >> rose: what putin thinks, what he's trying to do. >> look. i happen to know something about how you recruit people, okay. so i've got a lot of experience with that. it is my professional assessment that this is what putin has done. >> rose: all those schools you learned -- >> yes. but i think putin was thinking two things. one, putin does not like secretary clinton. >> rose: people who i talk to know putin that it is more that than it is donald trump as an agent. >> i think it's both, right. you and i have had a conversation, have had many conversations around this table about russia and putin, right.
and said around this table that there's one thing but all else that vladimir putin fears and that is an arab spring green revolution-style uprising in the streets. and that's what happened after the parliamentary elections during barack obama's first term, right. russian middle class in the streets. he blamed that on secretary clinton. he believed that secretary clinton was behind that. she wasn't. >> rose: it's part of an overyou'll -- overall view of chaos. >> part of it he's afraid of her. >> rose: it's more than secretary clinton. that doesn't sound like a wise intelligence agent to say that was all about hillary clinton. >> there are a lot of things are not true. >> rose: it comes from the whitehouse more than it does from the state department.
she was an implementer of the policy of barack obama. >> there's a lot of things he believes that simply aren't true, right. he believes, he really believes, right, that the united states was behind the democratic movement in ukraine. >> rose: he does. >> he believes that. deep in his heart. he's not making it up, right. he believes this. >> rose: the c.i.a. >> right. that's one thing. the other thing is i do believe absolutely that he looked at trump and said this is the guy who i can play, right. all i have to do is compliment him, tell him how great it is and he'll come to my side of the fence. >> rose: you got to prove, what's your best exhibit of where he has done that and he's once again doing it again. >> here's my best exhibit. my best exhibit is give me another reason why donald trump would have said all of the incredibly positive things he has said about putin as a person and about russian policy. that is at odds with the united
states of america in a campaign where nobody's really focused on russia. why would he have done that. >> rose: one example that's donald trump being donald trump. in other words, donald trump, this guy says certain things so he responded to it by intuition, by instinct, all that kind of stuff without putting it in an international conflict context. you see what i mean. >> yes, yes. you're making my point. >> rose: he spends his time on tweets, he spends his time watching television as all -- doesn't mean he doesn't get the job done on the campaign trail. he obviously won the nomination. >> you're making my point. you're absolutely making my point that his personality, right, gets him to react in these ways that are inconsistent with american interests. >> rose: and because, but to react i would argue, i'm now argue the other side. i don't use the term devil's advocate but to react that way, does not make him, it makes him,
it doesn't make him a tool of the russian federation. it doesn't make him an unwitnessing agent because he -- unwitting agent because he doesn't -- >> i disagree but go ahead. >> rose: you disagree. why. what has he done or said some things. >> he has undermined u.s. policy, western policy, with regard to russia, right. he has told all of those people who follow him, right, the low 40% of the people who follow him and believe his every word, that putin is a good guy and putin is a good leader, right. that undermines what the united states is trying to do. putin, you know, has intelligence agencies, right, try to get that kind of propaganda. this has been free propaganda for vladimir putin in the united states of america. no doubt.
and charlie, putin would never ever say this, of course, but i believe putin sees trump as a tool of his now and that's why i said what i said. >> rose: he thinks he can elect trump. >> he wants trump to be elected. and there's some evidence that he's trying to help that along. >> rose: but president obama says i don't trust vladimir putin. that's an opinion about vladimir putin. >> right. >> rose: donald trump says whatever, he likes him. >> he says he's a great leader. he's a great leader, he's a guy i can work with. >> rose: hold on a second about great leader. take a look at what he has done with respect to russia as president. has he been a terrible leader. >> yes. >> rose: has he been a good leader. >> yes, terrible. >> rose: has he made russia more of a player in the world than it was. >> so this is a conversation you
had with the vice president, right. so yes, he's made russia more of a player, but i will tell you that i believe at significant cost to russia. think about it this way. think about it this way, charlie. who is, just think about ukraine for a second and we'll come back to syria. if you look at syria, if you look at the ukraine and you ask who is the big loser, with ukraine, right. well, first of all, ukrainian people, who had their aspirations crushed. second, the united states and the west which were shown to be unable to stop putin, right. so we lost something. but the biggest loser in my view, the absolute biggest loser in my view was the russian's economy, the russian middle class and the future, not only sanctions, not only sanctions,
right which have crippled the economy. but russia's only future is to be integrated with the west. and because of what putin did in ukraine, he made sure that's not going to happen for at least a decade. so russia's the big loser. this guy is not a great leader, he's a horrible leader. he's undermining the future of his own country by trying to be seen as a greater power. he's not benefiting, russia's not benefiting from being seen as a great power it's actually being undermined. >> rose: the "new york times" today, today made the point, i'm sure you read i can't see it on the front page but it made the point that what putin had done in syria had changed the dynamic. >> true. >> rose: and was a net plus for vladimir putin. this is the "new york times" reporting today. >> yes. for vladimir putin. >> rose: and for russia. you think it just putin as a
leader and not for russia. >> yes. >> rose: because he represents russia. >> right. so i agree, the vice president told you, right, that putin would like to get the hell out of there. >> rose: the president told me that too both in interviews. >> yes. i think that's right because he understands he's paying a rice.- paying a price. this is a price. there are russian soldiers coming home dead. there's a political cost to him as well. this is not this brilliant strategic stroke on vladimir putin's part. >> rose: when you look at hillary clinton, tell me how you think she is different in looking at the world from barack obama. >> here's the way that i think about her. and then maybe we can get to the differences which is hard. you know -- >> rose: it seems to me
important if you want to know where he wants to take the country and it's simply a third term for the obama administration. >> a lot of time it's her, a lot of time in the situation room, time with her in the state department, time with her with foreign visitors visiting washington, foreign leaders visiting washington, time with her overseas meeting with foreign leaders. a lot of time with her. i'll tell you the first thing that always struck me in the situation room, and this is going to sound small but it's not. it's not small at all and compare it to trump. she was always prepared, you know. there are big thick books, right, that people have to go through, you know. and i would spend hours going through these books for these meetings. it was absolutely clear to me that she had read through these books, she was prepared, she
knew what she was talking about, right. that's unusual for principles. i simply don't see donald trump doing that. she asked really good questions. she was not locked into her view. she would change her view if somebody made a compelling argument. she was, she was one of the few cabinet members who came into the situation room and didn't automatically take the bureaucratic view of her department. i mean, leon panetta was this way, bob gates was this way, right. >> rose: they were different than the bureaucratic bureau, state or defense. >> it impressed me, right they would go to what they thought was the best thing for their countryn't if it was at odds with the bureaucratic view of their own, their own department. >> rose: bob gates said the other day that one of the central qualities of president
he respected was a temperament and b they listened. every good president he knew was a good listener. >> i saw that over and over again and i saw it in just the questions that she asked and how carefully she answered them and how those answers reflected in her views as the conversation moved forward, right. and she was calm and she was collected. and she was tough. i thought she was the toughest person in the room. in terms of -- >> rose: in terms of what she advocated. >> yes, yes. toughest in terms of, toughest in terms of -- >> rose: her analysis. >> no, no. toughest in terms of understanding that, and i put this in the up said. toughest in terms of understanding that for diplomacy to be effective, that there had to be a belief on the part of the adversary that you were willing and able to use force if necessary. right? she understands that.
she understands that diplomacy without that cannot be effective. >> rose: let me just stop you there. we're talking about what it is to be president day to day and to be head of the c.i.a. and recommend things to the president. it is the idea of when you use force. it is argued that the president who will proudly claim rightly show that he uses force, he uses force with drones, he uses force against osama bin laden he used force a number of times. but often people make a sharp distinction between when she's prepared to use force whether it's syria or libya or somewhere else than the president. that's one way you try to understand where she stands and how she's different from barack obama and you've been in the room about both of them, how they talk and how they argue. and made the point what you argue is not necessarily what you believe. you can make an argument to try to understand the problem. >> so she was pushing
aggressively, quite frankly along with leon panetta and dave petraeus for us to be more supportive of the moderate opposition in syria, in late 2012, early 2013 when assad was on his heels, right. and there were many people who thought he was about ready to go. and, and not only to push him, right, but also to give diplomacy some leverage. right. >> rose: sure. that's what the diplomats argued diplomats need leverage to best represent the country they represent. >> in the conversation in the sit room she thought that significant assistance to the moderate opposition, that you could do that without going down a slippery slope to u.s.
military involvement. >> rose: which is what the president thought. >> which is what the president fears, i think. i think that was the difference between the two at the end of the day, right. so i believe that she, i believe she understands that you can, that you can go a certain distance, right, without having to go the rest of the way. that each step in the process can be a specific decision and just because you take one step doesn't mean that you have to take all of them. >> rose: the conversation is about why you couldn't trust donald trump but admired hillary clinton and believed she would be an effective force. let's go down the lines in terms of important points. how would she be different, what is her position on isis and what is about it that recommendsate self to you that has not been done. >> yes. so, she's very supportive of what the president's done. she'll go a little bit further is what she said, right. so she would, more special
forces, consider no-fly zone. >> rose: the president been doing that gradually. >> gradually. he'sing moving down the line. she would just just do more of that. you said something really important earlier charlie what was for this to end, right, these got to be. russia and the united states and quite frankly iranians, that there's got to be an agreement on a trancision to a new government, are right. i think she understands that for us to have leverage in that conversation, that we got to have more skin in the game from the military perspective. not u.s. troops on on the groud but no-fly zone. that's why she understands special forces. she understands that's necessary for the leverage you need in those political discussions. >> rose: is that possible because it looks like russia's moving away from that kind of agreement. >> i don't know if it's
possible, right. i don't know if it's possible. >> rose: maybe they're waiting for the next president. >> now we switch to michael morell's view. you said you want to touch on all these, right. i switch to michael morell's view for a second. i think that given where we are because i don't think, i think it's possible to squeeze isis down to almost nothing in iraq and syria. but i fear without a resolution to the syrian civil war that other jihadist groups are going to pop up in its place. alness raw which is the al-qaeda group in europe is growing in strength. >> rose: that's derefining itself. >> syrian civil war has to be resolved and you have to be able to convince the russians and iranians it's in their interest. here's quite frankly what i would recommend. i would recommend that we, that -- let me back up a second. the outcome we want is a transition from assad to a
government that can represent all the syrian people. but we want to do it without destroying the institutions of the syrian government. >> rose: which is what we did in iraq. >> which is what happened in iraq and what happened on its own in libya. we want to make that trankeeping the syrian military, keeping them in tack as possible as we want to do he. >> exactly what putin says he wants to do. >> you don't want to destroy those things, right. here's what i think you want to do. i think you want to covertly not openly but covertly, but you want them to know, you want to covertly tell the opposition you are supporting to go after the russians and iranians. they've got to pay a price for what they're to go. just like we made the russians pay a price in afghanistan for what they're doing. we have to make them pay a
price. we have to make them -- >> rose: by supporting -- >> we have to make them to want to make a deal. >> rose: how do we do that. >> give the moderation reference. >> rose: what do they want that we have. >> you have to ask petraeus. give them the things to go after -- to have the iranians and russians pay a little price. when we were in iraq, the iranians were giving weapons to the shi'a militia who were killing american soldiers. the iranians were making us pay a price. we need to make the iranians pay a price in syria. we need to make the russians pay a price. >> rose: we make them pay the price by killing russians. >> yes. >> rose: killing iranians. >> yes.
covertly. you don't tell the world about it, right. you don't stand up in the pentagon and say we did this. here's another thing, i want to go after, i want to go after those things that assad sees as his personal power base, right. i want to scare assad. so i want to, i want to go after his presidential guard. i want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night. >> rose: that happened about two years ago as you remember when his brother in law -- >> i want to destroy his presidential aircraft on the ground i want to destroy his presidential helicopters. i wanted him to think we're canning after him. i'm not advocating assassinating him, i'm not advocating that. i'm advocating going after what he thinks is his power base and what he needs to survive. i want him to think about this is not going to end well for me, right. i want to put pressure on him, i want to put pressure on the iranians, i want to put pressure
on the russians. to come to that diplomatic -- >> rose: that's the only thing that will achieve it if they feel they're hurting. >> this is me talking here. >> rose: well do you think hillary clinton believes as you do -- >> i do not, i have not talked to her about this. i do believe she believes we need more diplomatic leverage. >> rose: why did you come to this conclusion? because there was a failure of everything else and it wasn't happening. it wasn't moving towards that agreement, away from it. >> moving away from it. that's what the "new york times" article said. that's what i believe. >> rose: the "new york times" article also said the saudis stopped supplying weapons to te opposition too. >> yes. >> rose: let me talk about people in the region. >> this is a if one. >> rose: what do we need to do. >> our allies in the region, a
couple things. they believe in the united states of america, they believe the obama administration is not listening to them, right. that they've got points of view, they feel strongly about, another thing they believe is that the united states does not have their back, particularly with regard to -- they believe we don't understand they see iran as their soviet union, right. so there's two things i'd say about secretary clinton here. one is they do believe that secretary clinton listens. and i think where secretary clinton is on iran, based on what i've heard her say and based on what i've read is look the nuclear deal is a really good thing, i think. i think that too borrow at t he -- but at the same time based on what she says, she believes we need to push back harder against iran and malign
behavior in the region, right. >> rose: should we be doing that. >> let me give you an example and i think we've talked about this around the take. they provide money and assist instance to terrorist groups, hamas and hezbollah. they could not exist without support. they supply money and weapons to shi'a groups in the region who are trying to overthrow governments. best example is yemen where they provided weapons and money who actually overthrew the government there. >> rose: they are competing with the saudis. >> where they're competing with the saudis. so a very good example, right. ships leave iran filled with weapons. i believe the u.s. navy should board those ships and there's winnens on them they should turn them around and send them back. that's pushing back against iranian back behavior. >> rose: is that what
secretary clinton believes needs to do to be more aggressive in terms of iranian behave. >> yes. >> rose: which is not part of the deal. >> use the nuclear agreement, use the nuclear agreement to try to forge a more positive relationship at the same time while you push back, right, against their bad behavior. >> rose: north korea, secretary clinton said it's a real risk, north korea. what should we do. what should donald trump do. >> donald trump said he knew what he would do, he would sit down and talk to kim jong-un, he would invited kim kim kim jon. >> rose: to give him credibility. >> because what he wants foreanything else is for the united states to acknowledge he is a nuclear power. it's important for the united states of america and i don't think mr. trump understands any of this, it is the policy of the
united states of america for north korea to get rid of its nuclear weapons. that is our policy. >> rose: as a condition to talking get rid of your weapons. >> as a condition, yes, yes. we're not going to recognize, we're hot going to normalize relations with you until you agree to get rid of your weapons, right. what donald trump said is come talk to me. he would give him incredible credibility. >> rose: china and the south china sea. what should we be doing with respect to chinese aggression in the south china sea potentially building bases there. >> so, can i back up a second and then take the 25,000 foot view and then come back to the south china sea. here i think, i think president obama and secretary clinton understand this perfectly. the most important bilateral
relationship for the future of east asia, for the future of the world i think is the relationship between washington and -- there are two things, a strong statement but i believe it to be true. there are two things that are pulling us together in a good way and two things that are pulling us apart. two things pulling us together, charlie, are one, we both have an interest, we both have an interest and success with the chinese economy particularly a reforming chinese economy. >> rose: because of its impact on the global economy. >> yes. >> rose: and the confidence it gives them. >> absolutely, absolutely. and the disincentive it gives them for messing around, right. two is, and i base this on my own conversations with chinese officials. my counterparts, base this with my counterparts in china. i believe there are places in the world where our national security interests overlap than
actually where they are in conflict. i believe there's potential for us to cooperate together. >> rose: do the chinese believe that. >> >> rose: do they want to do that. >> yes. i think they believe it and increasingly they come to understand will be in your interest. that's potentially pulling us together. two positive things. what are the two negative things. the two negative things are we both have large militaries on the same place on the planet, right. >> rose: the pacific. >> the pacific. so that means you have, what does that mean. it means you have to play for war gnls -- against each ought which we do. it means have you to exercise those forces against each other and both of us do. all three see those things that leads to a national tension in the relationship. that pulls you apart. >> rose: also, they are very upset about the fact that seem to be increasing our relationship with india and vietnam and philippines and drawing a circle around them.
>> that's the final thing pulling us the part. you're absolutely right. we are the power in east asia. and we're established co-power. they are a rising power. they don't have a lot of say. they want more say in the world around them as they gain strength, right. they want more say, we have it. how does that get resolved, right? i think there's an answer to that that president obama understands and that secretary clinton understands and that is we give china more room to exercise influence if they play by the rules of the international order. so what does that mean, right. what does that mean? it means for example that i think it was a mistake for the united states of america to push back when china want to create a regional development. >> rose: they broke rank
right away. >> the brits broke rank immediately. so you don't push back on stuff like that where they're actually trying to play by the rules of rules, right. you mewshaw back on the south china sea stuff. >> rose: tear down those islands. >> i think president obama understands that. he's taken us down the road towards a better illusion to this relationship long term and i think she will continue in that direction. >> rose: i've got to close this. is it fair to say that two since you were there although they were there at the, osama bin laden and all that but the two changes that are apparent today, one is fiber and the other is in a sense the rise of non-state actions. >> i agree a hundred percent, agree a hundred percent. i'd still list, well, put it this way. i'd list terrorist attacks
against the united states of america including the homeland as the number one threat. >> rose: with that potential they might somehow acquire or buy some weapon of mass destruction whatever it might be. >> yes. that's a serious issue, right. and then i think the second, the fastest growing threat, and number two on the list is fiber in all of its dimensions from what nation states do to criminal groups to hacktavists bringing this together. >> rose: and what's not of that nag to do is the rise to -- magnitude is the rise to populism. >> and the united states. >> rose: and the united states. >> i was asked, charlie, i was asked by with an australian think tank, an australian think tank came to me and they said, they said you've analyzed the politics of other countries for
30 years. would you analyze your own and write something for us. and i did. in this piece i wrote which is published a couple weeks ago, i said there are three big dynamics here in the united states. one is what i call income insecurity, right. there's been a whole bunch of people that have been left behind by globalization and technology. >> rose: they are attracted to the candidacy of donald trump. >> they were attracted to the candidacy of bernie sanders who said i will fix this with income redistribution and they are attracted to the candidacy of donald trump who simply says i'll fix it. >> rose: all about trade. >> i'll fix it by tearing up trade deals and making better deals. i'll fix it by telling ford motor company you cannot move to mexico, right. how do you do that. so that's one, right. second, right, is the belief, that first one is not a small
percentage of the population because real incomes for american households for the majority of american households that have been going down for the last generation. this is real. i think it's a failure of our education system not to keep up with changes in globalization and technology but that's a whole different issue. the second is belief among a lot of people, right, that establishment candidates, establishment politicians can't get anything done. a lot of people believe that. >> rose: gauze -- boddçw -- to the presidency.
and they are attacked to donald trump's xenophobia. and i think those are the three dynamics that launched him, right. and you know, the first one -- all three of them need to be addressed, right. all three of those things need to be addressed. i happen to believe that she will do a much better job addressing those issues than he will and that's why i did what i did. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> always great to be with you, charlie. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time.
kacyra: it kind of was, like, the bang that set off the night. rogers: that is the funkiest restaurant. thomas: the honey-walnut prawns will make your insides smile. [ laughter ] klugman: more tortillas, please! khazar: what is comfort food if it isn't gluten and grease? braff: i love crème brûlée. sobel: the octopus should have been, like, quadripus, because it was really small. sbrocco: and you know that when you split something, all the calories evaporate, and then there's none. whalen: that's right.