, either you adhere to yet another u.n. resolution or in this case there will be consequences. and i never understood why he department believe my words. in other words, let the weapons inspectors in or you'll face serious consequences like the u.n. resolution stated. >> rose: some argue-- and i think karl rove said this, if there had been no wppedz of mass destruction probably the decision would not have been made. >> it's hard to tell. >> rose: but it might not have been. >> it's hard to tell. it certainly would have been a different set of facts. but i-- it's-- these hypotheticals are hard for me to answer because that's not-- that's not what was entoday in the decision-making process. >> rose: today, the president faces decisions on syria, iran, north korea. >> yeah. that's what happens when you're president. there's a-- when you're the president of the united states and these problems arise around th pe rlple look to the united states to-- for guidance and/or for support. and the nature of the presidency is such that you can't isolate yourself from -- >> but freedom is at stake.
later did the president of the united states continue at the u.n. to talk about hateful videos and spontaneous demonstrations? why is it we didn't have the assets in the region to be there in a 7.5 hour fight when the last two were killed in the last hour. there are so many questions that still haven't been answered. hopefully this hearing will clear some of this up. but the administration has stonewalled on this issue as far as information is concerned. >> rose: why do you think they're stone walling? >> i think at the time we were in a presidential campaign, the narrative of the obama campaign was obama -- osama bin laden is dead, al qaeda is on the run, they've been decimated, that's what susan rice said that morning, al qaeda has been says mated. we know full well they're on their way back all over the maghreb. so it fit into the narrative of the presidential campaign that this was just read by a hateful video rather than al qaeda involvement and that -- how these talking points pwhar nip lated is still something that's not clear but one thing is clear they left out reference t
Fetching more results