Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
vice president welcome once consenting to it fits you again -- Along we're getting word that -- -- -- -- -- up to potentially 2000.
Pictures are going to be released by the White House -- in various interrogation.
-- it's up to two -- -- -- Well I guess what I think it's important is that there be some.
Balanced the what's been released the fact of the matter is the administration appears to be committed to.
Putting that information that sort of favors their point of view.
In terms of being opposed to for example enhanced interrogation techniques but so far they've refused to put out.
Memos that were done by the CIA and -- requested be declassified.
That show the positive results of the detainee program and on information and intelligence we were able to garner.
From these high value detainees can you say -- -- at least two such C -- -- point 22 specifically that are requested to be enhanced interrogation and that it did yield results haven't specifically talked about detainees.
About the contributions.
-- the -- got Toro for all intelligence picture publicly.
General Hayden used to be directed the -- -- latest 2006.
A majority of the intelligence -- gotten about al-Qaeda came from detainees from high value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohamed like albums -- beta.
People who we captured during the course -- our campaign against al-Qaeda and they of course were obviously also the people that the debates focused on the -- pants interrogation techniques so I spoke but I want to White House lately about this did they give -- a heads up we're gonna release.
All of these -- what I did was make a formal request for reclassification.
Through that National Archives which is the way you do it -- goes up.
Agency responsible in this case the CIA.
And I'm still awaiting the formal.
Answer from them.
-- your daughter Liz was on a rival news network this morning to us and -- -- the comment that the way I should have called my dad I'm paraphrasing -- -- vice president.
But it was clearly the difference is that that did not happen.
What happened what went when then this whole dust up sort happened on interrogation and then eliminating waterboarding.
Did anyone from the White House give you -- President Bush -- heads up that this policy was about to be reversed.
And I didn't discuss it with anybody in the administration -- I'm not offended.
They campaigned all across the country from from one end of the country to the other against.
Enhanced interrogation techniques and made it very clear they were posted that they called torture I don't believe it was torture we had attorneys.
Who gave us a clear guidance as to what was appropriate -- one wasn't.
The no reason we've gotten into this debate at all is because the administration saw fit to go back.
Oh well see opinions opinions out of the office of legal counsel and Justice Department the -- classified.
Program and that's very were current you don't ordinarily release those opinions especially when it deals with classified program.
They did it in a way that that.
Sort of but has blocked so far any real discussion of the results of the program and instead focused on the techniques themselves.
And they really began the debate -- with suggestions that perhaps people should be prosecuted for having participated in the program more.
The warriors to gave us these opinion should be disbarred.
Now I think it's an outrage I think the proposition that a new administration can command.
And and in effect launch an attack on their predecessor because they disagreed with the legal advice that was given by the Justice Department.
Or because they find that they don't like policies were pursued by prior administrations wanting to come -- and change of policy.
It's an entirely different proposition -- and say that -- somehow gonna go after the lawyers in the Justice Department.
Or the agents to carried out that policy interest I think that's outrageous and that's why.
I have spoken out as I have to defend the policy image and what happened under President Bush has not.
That went -- your critics is that as a sign of his statesmanship than your lack of -- him well.
-- I don't pay a lot of attention but critics obviously I think from my standpoint.
The notion that I should remain silent.
Well they go public.
That I shouldn't say anything while -- threatened to this -- the lawyers who gave us the advice was crucial in terms of this program.
That I shouldn't say anything when they go out and release information that they believe -- critical of the program and critical of our policies but refuse.
To put out information that shows the results were able to -- -- Bottom line is we successfully defended the nation for seven and a half years against a follow on attack -- nine elevenths.
That was a remarkable achievement nobody would've thought that was possible but it was.
I believe it was possible because of the policies we have in place which they're not dismantling.
I think what that -- is -- -- win more likely to be attacked browser -- and I think that we are.
Stripping ourselves of some of the capabilities that we use.
In order to.
And to block if you will or disrupt activities by al-Qaeda who would have led to additional attacks.
I think that's -- important debate to have I don't think we should just roll over when the new administration says.
He accuses us.
Committing torture which we did not or somehow violating the law which we did not.
I think you need to stand up and respond and that's what I've done.
Have you raised this with President Bush who talked with him and said look I'm gonna go out I'm going to be talking about -- going to be talking -- Let the world know I feel.
-- and I've had a number of conversations.
On the telephone since -- January 20.
And recently and those are all it's been a couple weeks but we're room however those conversations -- -- well those -- -- those were private when we were in the lineup and they remain so -- so you're not gonna talk.
Okay my arm all right.
We're getting words -- -- the Jerusalem Post mr.
vice president that Iran has deployed.
Mobile ground air and ground to -- missiles.
Along the strait of -- and perhaps beyond in the Persian gulf.
-- -- -- -- Well I haven't seen the reports.
I think it's important.
Did be aware of -- recognize the straits of Hormuz obviously here.
Not just from the standpoint of the United States but that about.
These numbers are rough but about 20% of the world's oil supply passes -- those streets every day but some close at 1819 million barrels.
Come out of the golf about a Saudi Arabia Iran Kuwait and so forth that's the major.
Export -- well and that's so funny thing.
That potentially threatens.
The free flow of that traffic obviously would be of concern -- what they're obviously doing I was saying you attack us.
I mean we responded -- and then the whole world is stealing 10200.
Dollar a barrel I well I don't know what they're doing obviously I can't.
Speak for what the Iranians are up today.
They're good difficult enough to follow when you're talking -- we're not talking to them and haven't for all time.
But I do think.
What we are making overtures to the -- -- -- did the president is trying.
And and that but at the time for that type of behavior as well is opening up more to folks like Hugo Chavez -- -- The time is now for that because we got nowhere this administrations -- doing.
What you did it which was effectively to isolate these guys what do you make of the Iranians have a track record.
We tried to resolve the issue diplomatically we worked with our European friends and allies.
We try to persuade them that they did not need to enrich uranium to weapons grade.
And that the Russians for example prepared to sell -- fuel for the reactor and then take the spent fuel back after.
The fuel and then used them a lot of ways for them acquire nuclear power generating capabilities.
Without producing weapons they clearly seem to be in the business of wanting to produce weapons we were unable.
To talk them out of -- previously -- and there wasn't very serious effort diplomatically working through the United Nations and with him EU three and where we were -- in the British and the Germans and French.
The fact is that -- as far as we know they're still in the business of trying to produce that that capability.
And that would be a fundamental threat not only to -- the folks in the immediate region and potentially others around the world including the United States -- Working on missile technology and and they can marry up.
And you weapon with food the missile and they become -- formidable power.
President Obama is going to be in Egypt next month tours and Italy -- which he will use that nation as an address to the Muslim world.
He is not stopping by Israel when he is in the neighborhood so to speak.
What do you make of I.
But I don't know that as -- significance.
Obviously -- haven't been part of scheduling for the new administration so I don't know what.
Considerations going to that but I don't think I can attribute to.
Motors one or theatre so to Israelis who are concerned that maybe this administration again with a vested interest of for the whole region of heart.
It is more inclined to engage.
Muslim nations maybe even some radical nations.
It's it's getting some Israelis thoughts.
-- it well I think it's it's giving not only Israelis -- it's also -- excuse me.
Creating concerns on the part nearly everybody in the region and I would put in that category although I haven't talked to him recently.
The saudis the gulf states -- emirates and so forth.
Because they have been more concerned in recent years about developments in Iran and anything else than any other issue in the area -- in the region.
And that's because they believe if you -- Iran acquires nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the dynamic -- that part of the world how close -- -- by the way -- well.
You can get all kinds investments they -- they clearly have installed thousands of centrifuges.
That's their -- but there have been.
Inspections by the international atomic energy agency that could give us fairly precise information on how many centrifuges installed and so forth.
Home in terms of how -- they are.
You know there there are estimates but I can't.
Can't get via the site -- with the US policies being mr.
vice president if we -- Wouldn't see Benjamin Netanyahu that.
To take out those centrifuge -- well.
I can't speak for the administration obviously and that's that's where you need to go to what would you -- find out I would find it.
It would be a reflection of the fact that the Israelis believe this is an existential threat to the State of Israel.
That Iran has taken the position supported over the years that.
Should cease to exist should go out of business and Iran remains -- -- prime sponsors of terror in the world.
And that all things considered.
I think the Israelis look at developments in Iran and they.
Have stated publicly that they believe.
A nuclear armed Iran is something that fundamentally threatens their existence so I would expect them to try to do something about.
Soon I can't predict that I know.
I obviously don't know in the end can't predict what -- -- -- do it on Defense Secretary Robert Gates that was fired general David -- and in in Afghanistan.
It's a -- whatever we were doing a paraphrasing answer wasn't working.
And and that we need more of a special operations -- that was supposedly now.
And saying that the battle game and plan for Afghanistan has changed.
But I think there's been -- been a significant.
Increase obviously in the focus on Afghanistan which I think is good.
We had them completed a review of our policy in Afghanistan shortly before we left office and then.
Decided that we would not put it out at that point that -- -- and a whatever the Obama administration wanted to do and might help.
One of the things they've done that I think makes good sense to send more troops I also believe the decision yesterday.
Send them Stan McChrystal.
To take over in Afghanistan as a very government stands absolutely outstanding officer I'm not saying anything critical of general -- here and and who's leaving.
But Stan McChrystal was that joint special operations command he's been -- superb officer -- support that choice I think the choice is excellent and -- to -- Hard put to find anybody better than Stan McChrystal take on an assignment.
If you don't want sort of to go back to terror for second Nancy Pelosi.
Has been caught up and and and when did she know when and how much did -- know.
As far as the waterboarding issue elevated.
And and says she was -- -- 2003.
That the way it's been characterized that.
It -- and she was well aware of all the details.
Is wrong and and that that painting or any other way it is wrong.
-- -- -- -- I don't know the specifics of what sessions she was -- she was listed.
Memorandum I've -- Timeline that.
Talks about when various members were briefed that the agency's produced in the last few days public document when he's a great who briefed on specifically waterboarding briefed on the enhanced interrogation included waterboarding I don't know I wasn't in the meetings and I can't speak to the the content of the -- -- I know what the intention was.
I know that the CIA basically.
Took the responsibility.
Of briefing members of congress a few -- chairman ranking member.
Intelligence Committees about this program -- Jane Harman was among those.
Did write a letter protests I don't know about that -- feet past no longer concerned and Nancy Pelosi but I guess went through the legislative channels -- want to disrupt the legislative tunnels.
To let her do the speaking if -- interpreted correctly.
You what what you're you're down in the weeds and I guess I'm generally obviously aware of the program -- more that you're saying more people knew them are saying so.
Interrogation technique I think it paralleled.
The surveillance program for example that the terrorist surveillance program that we ran -- -- in the briefings.
And we briefed every every.
Few months chairman and ranking member and one point.
The big nine the speaker in and majority minority leaders in the house and senate.
On the substance the program and what we were doing and how we were doing then sought their advice and guidance on whether we should continue it.
Do you have -- -- restaurants and whoa whoa whoa this is a little too far for our tests we don't know if this terrorist surveillance program after we've given the brief in the situation room in the basement and presided over.
I want around the table and ask if they felt we should contender -- continue the program -- -- unanimous.
And I ask you for that they felt we -- who was you know that's speaker and the majority and minority leader of the house and senate as well as the chairman and ranking member of the intelligence -- and everything and instability including recent Turkish unknown terrorist surveillance for action comes give an example.
And -- I ask -- they thought we should go back and get additional congressional authority in this and absolutely not that would reveal the existence the program I think what happened with respect to enhanced interrogation techniques it is.
The CIA did go up they did brief -- relevant people and I think what often happens in these circumstances -- once controversy develops.
And some of the people that were briefed him forget.
-- But let me just -- on one -- -- foreign policy issue before we get Sony dollars and you can stay on gitmo.
The administration's intelligence director -- said that.
-- Who are just misplaced.
And are here.
Have a right to among other things and could get welfare for example.
-- -- -- I think it's terrible idea.
While we were running things at Guantanamo.
There were several hundred people that process through there that were held there for a period of time.
Who were ultimately sent back to their home countries.
And the ones that are remaining about 245.
The hard -- the worst of the worst their cases have been reviewed -- We're given an annual review done at Guantanamo and they were kept.
In custody because we believe that constituted a threat -- the United States today at some continuing value.
Of those who were released we had about a 12%.
So this -- 12% to went back into the terrorism business I think the recidivism rate on the ones that are -- would be far higher.
And includes people like college -- Mohammed the mastermind of nine elevenths.
I think they're -- -- very hard time finding anybody around the world wants to take these folks I know when we tried to place a few weeks yours turning terrorist.
And while we were still in office ultimately the only country that would take them so Albania everybody else reject them.
Home but we have given and well idea I think they need to keep Guantanamo open I think it's a mistake to try to close.
And the -- didn't have -- have to invent.
If you bring those people of the United States.
I don't know a single congressman who's gonna stand up and say.
-- send me some terrorist I'd like to have some al-Qaeda types -- in my district that's not gonna happen.
So I think they're gonna have great difficulty trying to find someplace where they can locate these folks Guantanamo is a great facility it's very well around these people -- very well treated.
To open to inspection by the International Red Cross in the press and so forth.
It's it's a good facility it's an important program and we've got to continue it.
Filter by section