This transcript is automatically generated
It's going to be interesting to see where -- ago what do you think says does he make.
I don't think -- makes it I think unfortunately Brennan makes it to me blind and still more troublesome of two if you can imagine that.
But it sounds like Brennan -- sales focus and didn't really give my very challenging time -- that -- And -- I think probably down but it by -- I think the bigger I agree -- -- the bigger one we should pay attention to is not much speeches cable made to which groups but Brennan.
Author of the drone wars we're now gonna be conducting an American.
Foreign policy and military policy on the basis of drums and -- I thought that -- true.
Let's take a look at those drone.
Strikes that it accelerated.
Markedly dramatically under President Obama from the bush years that we could put that up to show or it is grown.
There were 352.
Drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen under President Obama -- 352.
And in 63 and Yemen.
Strike under President Bush 289.
Strikes in Pakistan vs 45 under bush.
Brent unless we said we only take such actions is a last resort to save lives.
Any actions will be illegally grounded for early anchored and intelligence why does that sound like -- rehearsed line.
What are the implications for national security agreement is.
Confirm and I -- and one thing to this issue and that is a new.
Website at patients say it's anywhere it's -- -- me soft rock dot com -- opera.
-- so or EP dark com.
Are coming out of this report that.
That in fact a part of the problem.
There were there created.
Was the the CIA under David Petraeus moving toward special operations instead.
Carrying out what has been traditionally its responsibility that is intelligence gathering human intelligence.
Where does all of this place.
Well they've always had two sides of the house I mean they've had an operation side they've had an intelligence.
Analysis side you know look.
The the the strikes the drone strikes at this point to me or not.
But that offensive because frankly the one thing we know about al-Qaeda is we cannot allow it to have to set up a safe haven any place that was the problem we.
Had -- -- -- -- -- -- into question the use I'm not a -- that part of the issue here.
What I'm talking about is this administration has made.
-- such a dramatic increase in the number.
Of those strikes.
That there doesn't seem to be much room for.
You know this if you will -- it it almost -- It's -- highly questionable theory that.
Been that special operations were a big deal.
The drones are big deal because everyone in this administration has bought on to it including the Republican House oversight.
People there is no basis here for a loyal opposition and I'll stand up and say yeah.
Old you know we don't agree with drones body opposition OK -- regulatory -- congress -- -- -- -- -- and they -- and they should be.
But I'm African in bad guys I think it's great and -- not squeamish and I don't think it's in you know mr.
Hambrecht -- here's a problem I have with the drones burn out.
Using drugs we're now getting not just the top guys we're getting down and down and down and we're having a lot of collateral damage are we creating.
A whole new generation people hate -- number two.
We've got a president who's doing that comes -- he comes to yeah I don't like.
I I don't I don't agree with that because I think the culture there is the problem in terms of -- tested -- everybody else anybody textual.
But what I don't like about the -- is the idea that the president can unilaterally broke them.
-- the war takes place under the authorization for the use of military force that's twelve years old now.
It's anchored in the -- that -- -- of nine elevenths but you have to have congressional -- congress needs to authorize what we're doing and and we're now getting a real questionable.
I think also lowering the bar it's not a good idea to go to war and it's easy for us to play a video game.
And go to war that way if -- on the receiving an -- that you think it's a war we think it's a video game.
And I do think we should think twice two and three and four times before we commit American -- just about ER.
I think the issue theories that we have raised the military that doesn't think in terms of victory.
But we've got a bunch of politicians who worry about going through sensitivity training program.
I would like to have somebody equate for -- the distinction in collateral damage.
Which -- in a military that goes hand in gets the job done as -- and military and intelligence services did.
Within the course of seven months and Afghanistan.
We screwed it up after absolutely we have persisted in Afghanistan for eleven years -- almost twelve years now.
To what about it and that's collateral damage when we should be pursuing the national interest and that means without reservation qualification.
-- nuclear agreement.
But if not we're out of time but I -- parliament over there -- -- coming -- here tomorrow.