tv Charlie Rose PBS July 18, 2014 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
program. tonight, part one, a conversation with hillary clinton, former secretary of state and the author of her new book, hard choices. >> the first question is what does europe do. i think the united states has been very clear in both its criticism of russia and putin.ñ it's support for poronshenko and a new round that the president has announced. the european have tried to figure out the best way forward. i was recently in europe, a lot of questions about whether or not russia was really the aggressor, whether or not putin
was created. i have the benefit of not being in the government. if there is evidence linking russia to this that should inspire the europeans to do much more. >> rose: hillary clinton, part one, next. >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up toh-u them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. >> rose: additional funding provided by:
>> 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. yd >> rose: hillary clinton is here, her new book is titled hard choices. some people liked it, some have some criticisms, others fret about what she did not say. it is the story of her time as secretary of state, in the administration of president obama. the book takes the reader from the campaign trail from bermur to benghazi. people have spent few in the public eye. she's the first lady, united states senator and then secretary of state. henry kissinger has said when i call mrs. clinton hillary, i do
not to indicate family but what the whole world uses. she shows what she's exseeded in her people to people work. the late maya an gelu wrote if you're born a girl grow up and live long enough, you can become an old female but to become a woman is a serious matter, a woman takes responsibility for the times she takes up and the space she occupies. hillary clinton is a woman. some say she may be the first woman in the whitehouse. i am pleased to have hillary clinton backtpb1ñ at this table. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: it's a pleasure to have you. >> it is great to be back#you. thank you. i consider hillary clinton a friend and i have the best conversations with her and the best questions i have to add. let me begin with the news a
plane shot down over eastern ukraine. what questions would you be asking at this moment. >> the questions i would be asking number one who could have shot it down, who had the equipment. it's obviously an anti-aircraft missile. who could have had the expertise to do that, because commercial airlines are big targets, but by the time they got over that part of ukraine, they should have been high. so it takes some planning. and the ukrainian government has been quick to blame it on terrorists which is, you know, their name for the russian insurgents. how we determine that will require some forensics but then if there is evidence pointing in that direction, the equipment had to have come from russia.
what more the russians may have or not done i don't know. i rushed in today to talk with you. the russian stock market hasdropped. there's a great deal of concern that not only with the civilian plane shot down but what this means about the continuing conflict in eastern ukraine and the role that russia is playing. >> rose: what does the united states do if there's a clear indication and clear evidence it was russia perhaps using weapons from russia? >> i think the first question is what does europe do. i think the united states has been very clear in both its criticism of russia and putin, its support for poroshenko in the new ukrainian government. and let's just been a new round of sanctions that president obama himself has announced. inthe europeans have tried to
figure out the best way forward. i was just in europe. a lot of questions whether or not russia was really the aggressor, whether or not putin was really dangerous, how could that be evaluated. from my perspective inand i have the benefit of not being in the government. if there's evidence linking russia to this, that should inspire the europeans to do more on three counts. one toughen their own sanctions. there's a price to pay. number two, immediately accelerate efforts and announce they are doing so to find alteratives to gas. russia has not deverse fide its
the sanctions are an important piece of that and there's itched it's having effect but sanctions alone will not necessarily restrain him or change his calculus. that's why i would like to see the europeans do what i urge them to do and i write in the3ç book going back to march 2009, come up with an alternative energy strategy that does not leave you to the mercy of putin and gas prom. they've made some steps but not nearly enough in my estimation. >> rose: any clue the new president of ukraine showing wanting to lean to europe. >> yes. >> rose: unlike the previous. >> well the previous president
yanukovych has given indications he to would fine. >> rose: in the beginning. >> in the beginning. putin came to ukraine last summer and basically threatened ukrainian politicians and ukrainian business leaders, the so-called oligarch. he unilaterally imposed sanctions. in fact one of them affected one of poroshenko's businesses, his chocolate business the i was in yalta and i met with a lot of ukrainians. he has other bu[but putin basicd told yanukovych and told other ukrainians don't you dare. this is not acceptable in the 21st century. this is not to be in any way encouraged or idly treated with indifference or hoping it goes away. there has to be a united effort. and i think that the obama administration has brought together the europeans in the sanctions, but i think we have to go further on the energy front. we need to do everything we can
to try to avoid the sort of -- (w>> rose: dependence.>> the ds with it the political intimidation. when putin made his threats, yanukovych backed off, creating the uprising, that's right. and unfortunately, putin is number one terrified of any kind of demonstrations or protests inside russia or in russia's so call near abroad, the alleged fear of influence he claims for russia. number two, he considers ukraine to be his stand against further encroachment by the eu or by nato. and therefore ukraine is really under heavy pressure from him. and he is attempting to create alternative institutions, so-called eurasian union that he's been talking about with
kazakhstan and bellaruse. he will not be totally reckless, he will take stock what's happening with sanctions and energy and perhaps begin to negotiate some kind of withdrawal. >> rose: but so far, what he's done has been popular at home even though people in the west say he's making significant missteps. >> well, it is like any leader who plays the nationalist card. it's going to be popular in the short run. the problem with that kindh9popf russia that are third world status. they have not developed the way thatpetersburg and a few otherr. i was recently at a conference with putin. i write about some of the stories he told me. you could see how undeveloped that part of far eastern russia
is. so at some point the russian people themselves are going to say wait a minute, are you spending money in crimea that could be spent here at home, stabling ukraine instead of providing more support for what we need at home. it mate be a short term spike in popularity but it doesn't change the underlying fundamentals that here's an autocrat making life difficult for many groups inside russia, deliberately stirring up all kind of antagonism toward minorities including the lbgt community. it's a government that has not diversified the economy and therefore all of this short term spike doesn't have in my view long term legs. >> rose: let me turn to this book and more foreign policy. why did you write this? what did you hope to achieve? >> well, i wrote it for primary
, primarily an american audience to understand hard choices in our lives. we face them on a personal level. i obviously have had my share of them and how do you get through them and how do you think aboute your own choices. and i write about my losing the 2008 election, deciding to work with president obama, what that felt like and what it moved into which was a real partnership and friendship. but i also think it's important for americans not to lose sight that our country faces hard choices. we face hard choices at home and abroad. i wanted to give an inside account some of what i experienced, some of what i saw happening. obviously the bin laden, i was one of the small members of the cabinet advising the president on that. but also, making hard choices about standing up for human rights when it may not be popular and may carry costs.
making hard choices about iran because of the work i had to do to get the sanctions in place and then sending the first feelers out to oman to see whether or not there was any responsiveness. so it's really a personal book and maybe it can help some people on the personal level with hard choices that they face, how they evaluate them, how they think about them. and it's also a book about why america matters to the world and why the world still matters to america. because i know there's a debate going on inside our own country about how involved we should be what kind of leadership we should show. >> rose: that's exactly the conversation i want to have here about that debate. but in terms of choices and hard choices, why did you find the strength at these difficult moments in your personal life. whetherfor whatever it might be. was it people? was it an inspiration from religion? was it something else that gave you the courage to keep moving
ahead? >>s a great question and it's really at the heart of this book. it was my faith and i reference that very early in the book. i was born into the methodist faith and was grateful for that. it was a combination of sort of personal faith that was nurtured but also a sense of service and social obligation. and for me, getting up every day and thinking about the blessings that i have despite the hardships sometimes keeps me going. and i also write about my mother who i lost when i was secretary of state. she had been living with us and she was my real inspiration because of her very -- >> rose: what she sacrifice the for you. >> and the miserable life that she had as a child and how she showed resilience. every time i face a hard choice, i think to myself, my mother was basically abandoned, abused and
neglected as a child. she was put on a train in chicago, and i recount this, with her younger sister alone. sent to live with paternal grandparents she never met and basically lived on her ownç desire to get out of that home at the age of 13. works in someone else's home. finishes high school because the family she was working for understood how important education was and made a deal with her, you can have room and board you get our kids up, you get them off to school and you get yourself to high school and you get back in the afternoon and take care on our kids. if you can do all that then we will give you this place in our home. whenever things get hard for me i sit there and think my mother went through more than i can imagine and came out with the type of resilience that enabled her to make hard choices. part of what i tried to do as
secretary of state was to plate diplomacy from the top because you have to meet with the presidents, the kings, the prime ministers and foreign ministers but also from the bottom. i found so much reinforcement, reassurance in going to goma for heavens sakes in the eastern democratic, one of the worse places for any woman in the world. looking at the joy and the commitment of those women. nearly everywhere i turned because of my up bringing because of my family and because of my faith i've been able toçzo
>> no. others may have from time to i met real victims. i met women who have been raped and mutilated and left in the then weredie who.8uá rescued at great cost to -- rescuers. and they are sitting there telling me about what happened and they're telling me they want to get well enough so they can go back in the forest and rescue somebody else. i'm sitting there thinking, okay. >> rose: don't complain about anything. >> no. >> rose: let me read you this. this is page 595 of the book. we took another long walk this time with our three dogs near our home. it was a long winter but spring is finally speaking through the fall. we walked and talked continuing our conversations that began more than 40 years ago at yale law school, and has not stopped yet. we both know i have a big decision in front of me. a run for fred i understand exactly how challenging it is in every front not only a candidate but on their families as well.
and having walked in 2008 i know nothing is guaranteed, nothing can be taken for granted. also know the most important question anyone considers running must answer are not do you want to be president or can you win, they are what's your vision for america and can you lead us there. the challenge is to lead in a way that unites us again and renews the american1y dream. that's the bar, and it is a high one. stwhrees -- there's so much in that paragraph i want to talk about. of the people who criticize say that's not what you did in this book. you did not lay out some steps of where america has to go. did you intend to? >> well, what i laid out are the hard choices america's going to face. i haven't provided answers. >> rose: right. >> either domestically -- >> rose: because you hadn't come to conclusions about those answers or because you didn't want to share them yet? >> no. i think it was two-fold.
one, i really wanted to write a book about the hard choices that i faced and that our country faces under nationally first ank that we can't begin to make the right hard choices and demonstrate leadership if we don't get our own house in order here at home. that to me is another conversation, and it is a conversation that we have to have in this country and it's one -- >> rose: it's the debate that the country has to have about where it's going. >> a hundred percent. but i don't want us to lose sight of the fact when we have that debate whether it's in the midterm elections or the presidential election and whoever is in the midst of that debate. you can't lose sight of the fact that what we decide to do here at home has dramatic effects abroad. one of the stories is a financial story, i'm in hong kong in 2011 and i'm supposed to give a speech in front of business people to urge them to come invest in our country.
the congress is threatening toóx default on our debt. so what are these, they are all men, what do these men want to talk about. about their total bewilderment of the united states of america could be deliberately thinking of defaulting on our debt. so they lined up to ask me is this true, could this happen. i of course said it's politics. it will work its way out. and they saw that it did work its way out at that time. fast forward to the fall of 2013, the government shut down, there's another conversation about defaulting on american credit. and i followed the international press, and what has been bewilderment and confusion about our political system in july of 2011 had turned to contempt boy -- by the fall of 2013. the best example i cite in the book is a chinese finance
ministry official high up in the ministry basically saying it's time to deamericannize the world. and you can see what's happening as we speak there's a so-called brick conference, you know, brazil, russia, india, china, south africa. and one of china's initiatives -- >> rose: china's there at the conference. >> china's there at the conference. >> rose: the president of china. >> the president, and putin was there. one of their initiatives is to quote deamericannize the world. that means moving away from the dollar as a reserve currency, setting up alternative cbãthat have beeny'q2"tiq)vend . part of what i'm trying to do in this book is make sure we have a debate about the hard choices america must make, that we are very clear that what we decide here is watched very carefully abroad. it has implications for america's economic and strategic strength, and therefore we cannot just act like we can make these hard choices within our
own borders. >> rose: well as the president and historians have said, you cannot have and be a strong presence around the world if you're not a strong presence at home. if you do not have the economic strength. >> that's right. and i would argue that the united states are it's not only economic strength because we still have the strongest economy and obviously china is gaining but they have a huge population base. that's to be expected but in terms of any measures about percapita, income about research and development etcetera, we're still in the lead. but what we're not doing as well as we used to is making sure we have broad-based inclusive prosperity. so that we're not seeing the inequality increase that we're not watching growth go only in a few places. so our economic strength is not just the big gdp numbers, it's also how do people in our
country feel about their own futures. >> rose: i had right before i came to see you, i had a conversation with warren buffett and i said if there's one question you would ask hillary clinton in this conversation he said i want to know the big idea she wants to carry forward if she's in the political process and runs:g#or president. the one big idea and he said i know what it would be if it was me. it would be the unequal distribution of this country and how do we make sure more people participate in the greatness of the country. that raises the question and you agree with that. what would you do and how important would that be as the foremost idea of what you want to see done in this country. >> warren's also a friend of mine and i'm not surprised that is on his mind because he understands how critical it is. >> rose: and the country's
been good to him. >> absolutely and he knows that. well first of all, i'm not here to talk about a campaign. if i do make a decision, i will lay out a very extensive and specific agenda. but i will make two points in response to both you and to warren because it doesn't matter whether i run or not. >> rose: it is the priority for this country. >> it is. but with a -- we have an economic crises and political crises of our democracy and i think they are related. >> rose: what would you do? >> well, we have to make a campaign about what we would do. you have to run a very specific campaign that talks about the changes you want to make in order to tackle growth which is the hand maiden of inequality. if you look at two republican two term presidents, ronald5r reagan and george w. bush and two democratic two term presidents, bill clinton and now
barack obama and i compared reagan's eight years with bill's eight years, it's like night and day in terms of the effects. the numbers of jobs that were created, the number of people lifted out of poverty, a hundred times more when bill was president. and did policies have something to do with that? i would argue that they didn't. and did then the fact that with lifting 7.7 million people out of poverty with 23 million new jobs you ended up with a balanced budget and a surplus so you were handling both sides of the debates simultaneously. that makes -- >> rose: clearly he did not have the kind of congress that president obama had. the tea party was not powerful back but i remember there was the contact with america and newt gingrich and they did get control of the house of representatives. >> and they shut the government down twice. >> rose: which rebounded to the president's favor. >> you have to know going into
this that there is a deep divide between parties and between forces to support those parties about the right way to creategr. i'm not sure there is some tablet somewhere that can be brought down from on high but i think there are lessons to be learned about the best way7comed to run on those policies and to then do everything you can to implement them and to make it very clear who is on the other side. because when bill did, what i would argue was the beginning of the deficit reduction and contributed to the(pañ dramatic increase in jobs, he lost the congress. and it was the same thing that happened to president obama when he did affordable healthcare. he lost the congress. but those were singular historic achievements that will be down to the benefit of many millions of americans. part of our problem right now is
we're living in an evidence-free universe when it comes to making decisions. we still have people in positions of political leadership who argue that trickle down economics supply side economics worked. there is no convincing evidence of that. so what you need if you're going to run for president or run for any important position is to be absolutely clear about what you will do and to make the case relentlessly about that. >> rose: but i mean if you look at the experience over the last six years, was there a way to have avoided the kind of grid lock we have had that made those people you mentioned in asia, make the judgment they did about america. could it have been avoided with different leadership? >> well, personally i think that president obama was very engaged and very focused on trying to avoid that. but i would make a couple
arguments. >> rose: as to what might have been done. >> might have been done. firstaç of all, what finally pulled the republicans, the tea party republicans let us say back in the brink of the fall of 2013 was a very clear wake up call that came from their business supporters. i think a lot of business leaders in our country have been either indifferent or unaware of how serious the challenge is to our basic economic well being by the so-called tea party republicans. so when the business community became engaged and began calling the republicans and saying what are you guys thinking, you know, pull back, stop it. that at least gave enough support to the republican establishment to rein in those who were trying to make a name for themselves. that could have come earlier and
it needs to be held in waiting because unless the business community, if it's now doing the export import bank. there's a big move to kill the export import bank. that's find if the rest of the world -- >> rose: if that continues ted cochran would not be where he is having democratic support in the primary. >> but that's my point is that finally the republican establishment and their business supporters have woken up. now that doesn't mean they're left conservative. >> rose: and the city party has not gone to bed. >> no but they can beaten. that has been demonstrated. they can be beaten because their agenda is very radical. >> rose: so the only answeris r is defeat the people that are opposing you at the polls. >> well, there is, that's the fundamental answer and what i have told many audiences because i'm asked of this, i make three quick points. first of all don't vote for
anybody of any party anywhere in the country who proudly tells you they will never compromise. compromise is essential to any democratic decision-making because at least in the democracy i thought we lived in, i don't think any person or any party has all the truth. they don't have a divine channel so don't vote for these people. secondly don't give them money and that is a big part of the push by some of these very large institutional givers who somehow think that they can control what they want and they can't. at this stage of the political system that we're in, it's much more on the right. i'm not saying it hasn't been on the left side in the past but right now it's on the right. >> rose: many of us and i assume you perhaps obviously saw the film about lincoln. there's also a play here in new
york about lyndon johnson. >> all the way. >> rose: all the way. it is about the craftsmanship of legislation. >> absolutely. >> rose: is that something we have not had in the last six years in terms of the hard nosed politics in zjkind of legislati. clearly it happened with healthcare with the affordable care act but we've had a collapse in terms of these huge issues about debt ceiling and budget. >> well, the budget is a perennial problem as we know. i think that any fair reading of what president obama and the leadership, the democratic leadership did with the whitehouse, demonstrates a constant effort to try to bring people to some kind of understanding that could lead to decision-making. it is not easy. >> rose: at the end of the day the proof is in the pudding. >> and the affording care act is a huge historic accomplishment and it is already making a difference in the lives of
millions of americans to the point that i believe it will be much less of an issue which i important going into the mid terms than it had been up until now because people are actually seeing the results of what this new opportunity. >> rose: but here obviously in the book you talk about hard choices but that you will wait until you make a decision about whether you're going to run for president to lay out all of the ideas you see are necessary. >> yes, yes. if i decide to run, i will have a very specific agenda about what i think we should be doing. but right now we have a big election, mid terms 20could detf the senate i'm not going to jump the line and start talking about 2016 right now. >> what would make you not run for president? what would be a compelling influence. >> well, it would be wholly
personal. i'm about to have my first grandchild which i'm thrilled about, i can't wait. i want to see what that feels like. i'm not going to skip over it. i want to really be present as i meet this new person in our family. i like my life right now, i like the opportunity to do what i'm interested in, pursue very important issues to me like our foreign policy issues which isn't why the wrote the book. so i'm very keen on seeing how this feels personally. so it is a personal decision ultimately because i have seen it up close now for more than 20 years both with my husband and you know honestly with president bush after 9/11 he became a very good partner to us here in new york as we had to rebuild. >> rose: as he said it changed his preference as well. >> that's what i did my third term was trying to rebuild new york and help people who had
been affected. obviously being so close with president obama. so i have no illusions about how hard a campaign is but the campaigning as hard as it is is the easy part. once you get there and you face this full array problems. >> rose: i promise you i don't want to have a conversation about if you're running for president but i want to knowfor president and how one approaches that and how one gets to the point because it is not only because of the experience in the senate around the world, understanding what the power of office can do for better, for good, for bad. but at the same time you're looking at history. >> right, yes. >> rose: you are looking at history. >> that's true, charlie. >> rose: and you spent a lot of time talking about the power and the encouragement and the place of women in our society. >> yes, i have. >> rose: and this is a powerful signal. >> i feel that. i feel that very strongly.
and you know hard choices are not necessarily the same for everybody. for some people running for president seems like the next step on career. it's not hard at all because they want to do it, they feel compelled to do it and up until this point it's been you know predominantly men who have done it and they come to that choice with a lot of commitment and confidence. many of them run for reasons having to do with particular point of view or maybe to sort of finish off their own sense of identity, whatever it might be. because i know so much about the job and how hard it is, i am very struck by the historic nature of a campaign that i might in the future undertake because i could feel it[s and ai write, it was so historically unprecedented to have a campaign
about race and gender for the first time in our country, which you know was amazing and i think to our benefit. but i also know that the job has only gotten harder. the job is a all consuming commitment for obvious reasons. and when you think about it. >> rose: go ahead. >> when you think about it, in our country we don't have a head of state so all of the symbolic and sort of ritualistic aspects of a high level position as well as the hard work of politicking, lobbying, governing operating the united states of america is all in one person. we don't have a monarch, we don't have a president and a prime minister. so the job has gotten even bigger and more difficult. the government hasn't kept up with the changes technologically for example because you got to get the money from the congress to really improve what you're doing, personnel policies and all the risk. the job is as challenging as it's always been but i would say
to a degree of amplification that's hard to imagine. >> rose: i can't think of a moment that you would imagine the job is too big for one person or the job is too big for you. >> no. >> rose: you understand. >> i understand, i understand how the job is done and i understand what has to be prioritized. i just have to divide whether or not that's what i want to do at this point in my life. i mean that's why i go back. it's a very personal choice. >> rose: only one person can make that de. >> only i can make that decision. my hclose friends, you know they basically have said you want to talk we'll talk but it's your decision. and that's the way it should be. >> rose: my impression is that your husband has said it's her decision but i hope she does it. >> well my husband really is one of the most profoundly concerned people about our country that with you will meet. you talked about him. he spend countless hours every
day trying to think through what can we do to grow the economy, what can we do to improve healthcare and costs. he has never stopped studying and thinking about what can make america great. >> rose: therefore. >> he's feeling it very.h1< particularly with i think impending grand parenthood because this is all about the future when you have a child. but i know that's where he comes from and he has been a huge help to president obama and he has also when called upon helped president bush and he will help anybody to try to deal with the problems and make the hard choices that confront our country. and obviously he would with me but it's not exclusive to me. >> rose: would you say someone you thought a great title for him was first mate. >> yes. the i was asked that in 08 and i thought that was pretty cute. ha ha ha ha. >> rose: what's the nature, i mean the relationship between the two of you having seemed reasonably close.
beyond the moment at yale when you looked across and said you've been looking at me, introduce yourself, right. tb>> right.>> rose: 40 years a. >> long time ago. >> rose: what is it about the two of you? >> i don't know how you describe it. you certainly can't bottle it. you know, we just have this deep profound connection that is you know love and companionship and support and intellectual rapport. i mean it just is all of that rolled up into one. and we are two complicated people and we have a great deal that we're grateful for because of our marriage and because of our family. and it's just, it's a tremendously fulfilling and reinforcing experience all the time. and i just can't describe it any
better. >> rose: and it had what? >> it had love. i mean, it had really at bottom a very strong and consistent sense of love in a very deep way. >> rose: let me talk about foreign policy. across the board, people are asking what's the role of the united states today. how do we determine when to use force and why do so many of our friends wonder if we can be trusted. >> you know, the united states can't solve all the problems in the world. but there's not a problem that we face that can be solved without the united states. and i think the acceptance of that!:99z is universal, although chafing and questioning about it is also universal. >> rose: if those questions are being raised someone in the united states has to address them. >> that's right. >> rose: and hear them.
>> a hundred percent right. i think, and this is not about this particular time but i think that really since the collapse of the soviet union and the end of the bi-polar world, we have lost our ability to communicate as clearly as i would like(pañ o do about our narrative, about our values, about what we stand for and the context that we have operated in across the last hundred years. when i was in germany on my book tour just a week or so ago, i was on a live tv show and they said here is a recent survey about german attitudes towards the united states, what do you like what do you don't like. what people liked was our openness and innovation. what they don't like, our arrogance, our untrustworthiness. everything that you were just referring to. and they turned to me and said what do you think about. i said well i think it's
unfortunate that people feel that way but that is so out of context. germanw2united and at peace hadt been for the united states and for success fifthã -- successie leaders and our military making a commitment to a unified germany at some point in the future. the core of the issue is what are we willing to do and how, we willing to do it and what do we stand for and how do we convey that. we had an excellent outreach during the cold war. i hate to talk about ancient history where we were reaching into people's lives in so many different ways with alternative views about reality. which kept a lot of people going because he knew he could hear from the united states. >> rose: but is that the reality today? >> no, it's not. it is not the reality today because we have no real concerted effort to do that any longer.
and that is unfortunate that we have -- >> rose: can you change that. >> yes, of course we can change that. and we began to slowly change it when i was secretary of state but it requires much more attention. part of like what we don't go forthwith is a unified policy, a unified foreign policy that speaks to our values as well as our interests and our security. that is bipartisan which it used to be you know. we've lost that bipartisan consensus, and we have to rebuild that. that is part of the challenge of leadership in our country right now. but we also have to be much clearer in our communications around the world. and it's not just the president's responsibility because very often the president is saying something but people abroad are hearing something different%y from our congress or different from you know important officials. >> rose: perception of you is that you're a more than what
people imagine number one, more prepared to be aggressive, not talking about the aggression that led to say the iraqi war but you can use more force surprisingly so and you have similar positions to box gates about the use of force. is that a fair characterization. >> no, it's not for these reasons. i believe america has a full toolbox and we're often at our strongest moment of influence when we at least have in that box the potential for some kind of action. not that we necessarily will do it but that some need to think we should or that we could. and you know, bob and i were in disagreement on the bin laden raid. >> rose: you were foreand he was against. >> that's right. >> rose: what he wanted to do was to bomb them. >> well, he had a different approach. we were different on libya and we had a good back and forth on
that. but i think that we were together in trying to have a very careful process, deliberative and that's one of president obama's real strengths, toñr go through every piece of information and analyze it as best we could knowing at the end of the day you still had to make decisions with imperfect information. because you would never have the 360 degrees. >> rose: let's take syria for example. >> right. >> rose: you were at a different place than the president was but you were the same place with leon panetta ad other national figures. >> we were. and this was post assad's crack down and the protesters. my view at that time was that we should be trying to identify and work with moderate elements of the opposition because assad would have iran and russia and hezbollah, if there was a very
serious defeat of the moderate elements you would create vacuums for extremists. >> rose: is it too late to do that. it's more difficult. >> it is more difficult. >> rose: is there a larger proportion of the fighting. >> that's true it is more difficult but i think it should still be tried and from my understanding it is being tried. >> rose: this is from the president's west point speech. united states i don't military force when our people are threatened when our livelihoods are at stake when the security of art -- our allies are in dar and we have to ask whether our actions are proportional and effective. national opinion matters but america should never ask permission towk protect our peoe our homeland or our way of life. this is a global concern. do not pose a direct threat to the united states when crises arise to our conscious or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us then the threshold
for military action must be higher. in such circumstances we should not go it alone. do you totally agree with the president on that. >> i do. that is a very clear general statement.the problem comes whee specifics have to be analyzed. >> rose: and the definition. >> that's right. >> rose: threaten our national interests. >> exactly. and also with our partners and al allies because a partner and ally can feel threatened even though by any objective analysis we're not directly threatened. but we have mutual defense treaties, we have nato obligations, and so very often we have to look at a threat from the perspective of an ally or a partner. >> rose: i just heard, i mean this book talks about this in part, israel palestinian issues. we're now looking at a bloody conflict between israel and
hamas. israel has just announced an invasion of gaza. >> i was at the last cease-fire but to be fair it is november of 2012 rockets were training down on israel. we had an internal debate that i recount in the book about whether or not the united states should get so actively involved in trying to prevent what at that point was the calling up o4 reserves for a potential invasion of gaza. i thought we should, i made that case to the president. i flew from cambodia to israel. i met with the prime minister netanyahu, the internal security cabinet. and made the case and they were receptive to that case, that we wanted to head off an invasion. they were within 48 hours of invading. and we had a set of principles that the israelis wanted hamas
to agree to and it was the first test for morsi. so i did go to cairo, negotiated with him personally because we had to go word for word. >> rose: he had a general relationship with hamas and morsi didn't. >> no, he didn't but morsi had never done anything like this before and it was new territory for him. he had to persuade hamas leaders who he didn't know that well but who obviously they thought well he's a muslim brotherhood pretty he's closely connected. he was able to do that and we seat an arbitrary time for the cease-fire and it held until this month. in this case, there are big differences. obviously the leadership of egypt has changed and i think israel's assessment is that with these stock pile of weapons that are now in gaza that it would be difficult to get a! reliable
cease-fire. egypt did announce a cease-fire. israel immediately said yes, hamas said no, and so that's where the space is not being held. >> rose: do you support the israelis in invading gaza. >> i think that -- >> rose: it's an easy question. >> no it's not an easy question. i would prefer not that's why i flew from cambodia to prevent an invasion. >> rose: do you want to prevent an invasion. >> i don't have the answer of that because i'm not in the inside. i know there's a lot of phone calls and outreach and working with arabs and others to try to influence hamas and to try to get them to stand down. hamas may feel like they're totally cornered. they've got egypt under el-sisi on one side, they've got israel not willing to and i don't blame them at all for suffering missiles and so hamas may feel like they have nothing to lose. i think they have to be convinced. they do have something to lose. >> rose: who does convince.
>> i think qatar -- like they say in diplomacy i would look to. >> rose: i assume the president is having those conversations. >> i believe that's probably the case. >> rose: you would think because we have a relationship with qatar they would be using their influence in order. >> in the book when i write about the cease-fire and i write about the work that i did to bring netanyahu and abbas together three times, i have something inmj there about qatar even though qatar has changed leaders in the last year. >> rose: a new prime minister and new foreign minister. >> they play an outside role because they're willing to fund a lot of islamists groups including the muslim brotherhood hamas and others. >> rose: and others who are fighting against assad. >> yes. in that case i think it's more the saudis than the qataris but the qataris are very active in
gaza, in egypt, in libya. and i think that there needs to be a very clear line of communication with them about trying to head off an invasion. because of course it would be better if there were not an invasion. but on the other hand, you know, it's difficult for me sitting here talking to you to understand exactly all of the intelligence that the israelis are seeing about, leaving the rockets untouched could mean to them. and of course they now have el-sisi spelt -- upset because there was a cease-fire. and there was tunnels that come up and they just caught some people coming out tunnel. this is a terrible situation. >> rose: as syria did and we heard a lot about explode beyond the region, beyond the of gaza. >> hard to say at this point.
it hasn't in the past in part because uphm until now, the palestinian authority in the west bank has not thought it was in their interests to in any way support or cooperate with hamas, and the security forces of the palestinian authority have been effective. but if there's not a very clear agreement between isreal and the palestinian authority that they will have more autonomy, that they will be able to show that they get something for trying to keep the west bank quiet, then it does have the potential for an explosion. so clearly anything that can be done, should be done to try to prevent an invasion and in effect a reoccupation of gaza because that is not in anybody's interest in my opinion. >> rose: part one of two part conversation with former secretary of state hillary clinton, the author of a new book called hard choices.
the kqed television production. ♪ it is like old fisherman's wharf. it reminds me of old san francisco. >> and the calories, the cholesterol, and the heart attack you might have. >> it's like an adventure, putting on your miners helmet. >> it reminds me of oatmeal and a touch of wet dog. >> hi, welcome to check please bay area.