Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  Bloomberg  June 25, 2014 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT

10:00 pm
10:01 pm
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> dick cheney is here. he served two terms as vice president under president george w. bush from 2001-2009. he was a leading architect of the administration's war on terror in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and a strong
10:02 pm
supporter of enhanced interrogation and wiretapping, and the iraq invasion. proponents of the iraq war have returned in recent weeks with criticism of the obama administration's foreign-policy. the cheney has been a leading force in that effort. he and his daughter, liz, wrote an op-ed in "the wall street journal" criticizing the president's leadership. the subtitle reads, "rarely has a u.s. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many." i am pleased to have the vice president at this table. welcome. >> good to be here. >> let me start. why did you write the op-ed? >> my daughter and i did it together. liz gets most of the credit. she let me put my name on it. i wholeheartedly agree. >> you agree on most things. >> we do. we spent a lot of time together. it is one of life's pleasures. >> was she with you recently in march? >> she was. that was partly what triggered our thinking. we went, swung through the area, talk to a lot of my friends going back to the desert storm
10:03 pm
days. we were deeply disturbed by what we encountered in terms of the total lack of confidence in the administration by our former friends and allies, a belief that the obama administration supports the muslim brothers, the fact the relationship between egypt and the united states, one of our most important friends in that part of the world, had been severely strained. and, it was a general view that we came away with that we are in big trouble. that there is a very serious terrorist problem where the administration has claimed there isn't anything. bin laden, problem solved. the circumstances obviously most recently have been deeply disturbing. you have a sense of a withdraw from the region. that is exactly what osama bin laden said he was after when he hit us on 9/11. the president has announced we
10:04 pm
are going to pull out afghanistan in 2016 without stay behind forces. >> there will be in afghanistan. >> i would hope so. when he said the other day he did not mention that. and deep cut in the military. the series of things have come together and we don't mean to be disrespectful to the president, but i as did my co-author feel very strongly that we are headed in the wrong direction, and this administration is taking is taking us the opposite direction in which we ought to be headed. >> let's talk about iraq, first of all. you for this whole and what to do there. it is a very dangerous situation there as you and everyone else the matter how you do but the obama administration. what do you feel was right about the policies the administration you served with george w. bush?
10:05 pm
>> we can debate and spend an hour on the debate over that. i was a strong advocate of going into iraq. i think that was the right decision. i still believe that. when we left iraq, when we left the white house, iraq was in good shape. we have been through a lot. it took longer than we anticipated with a higher level of violence. without question there were things we had not anticipated in the run-up to iraq. what we found was the surge in 2007 and 2008, with a change in strategy, with dave petraeus the commander, iraq was in good shape. what was needed was to continue with a stay behind for so that they would have intelligence capabilities, air assets, and so
10:06 pm
forth that would allow them to maintain control. that is what did not happen obviously. >> do you give the president some credit for trying? >> not really. the history to it was the military recognized, recommended between 18,000 and 20,000 troops. the white house sign off on 3000. the follow-up was there was no success, the status of forces agreement. the agreement under which we have forces remain in the country and operate, it protects our soldiers. >> there was a negotiation. >> one brief negotiation.
10:07 pm
>> the iraqi set standards the united states not believe they could meet. having to do with immunity. >> we have 40 agreements around the world. there is always a debate over the degree of sovereignty, the extent to which u.s. forces are going to entrench upon the sovereignty of the host country often times is a key issue. it is it important political issue. you get it worked out. they have just worked enough with adriana people just sent over there. they have come to an understanding about those forces, our people will be treated in the country if problem should arise. it is not a difficult situation. what was difficult was the president didn't want to have any stay behind forces in iraq. i don't think it was consistent on the campaign he had run. he promised to bring them out.
10:08 pm
i don't think he wanted to. >> the reason i asked my question early by mistakes, there are a lot of people who look at the iraq war now and believe that you are out there trying to speak to the legacy. and number two, they believe it is a patriotic concern about the country. the war turned out badly. until the surge came along, and was matched with the awakening. >> and the sunnis signed on. >> mistakes were made. >> it was not a flawless war. i've never seen one that was. heard this on every interview, here is the guy responsible for a lot of the bad things that went wrong in iraq. he wants to point the finger the obama administration for the situation we have in iraq today. one interview after another wants to make that point.
10:09 pm
they often say how dare he step forward to do that. >> you have no me a long time. -- have known me a long time. as far as being subject to criticism, that is part of the job description of a vice president. we were there under especially extraordinary circumstances. i took positions i still hold that generated criticism. enhanced interrogation techniques. i don't hesitate to defend what we did. with respect to whether or not we did the right thing going into iraq, i believe it. we can argue about it. the reason i'm concern now is because there was a relatively simple proposition in front of the administration am of the president as late as 2011 was talking about what great shape iraq was in in terms of being stable. >> because of the surge. even people who opposed it, like
10:10 pm
the president, and the senator from new york began to say this is surprising. >> it was, if there had been followthrough to stay behind with forces. >> this is the key point for you. if the force and stay back there we would not be looking at isis. it seems to me that is a stretch. >> let me state my opposition in -- my own position in terms of how i look at what is happening. we have a bigger problem. we have a problem that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of terrorist groups around the world. a dramatic increase in the number of terrorists. look at the rand corporation. 50% between 2010 and 2013. we have within the last couple
10:11 pm
of weeks a major raid at the karachi airport by the taliban. pakistan has somewhere between 50 and 100 nuclear weapons. the administration has consistently month in and month out said there is no problem, we have bin laden solved, there were no terrorists in benghazi. it is reaction to a video. the president has consistently refused to recognize or admit there is a huge problem out there with respect to the proliferation of terror. and, when you see what has happened in iraq, you have part of that, a refusal to recognize the nature of the problem we are faced with which is more serious than just iraq. >> some would suggest that there was a time in which the administration and bin laden, the discovery and killing of bin laden was part of a destination
10:12 pm
-- decimation of al qaeda as we knew in the leadership. a lot of that took place. which happened here, the spread of al qaeda affiliates. it has been pervasive, not just in the middle east but around the world. is that all because of the obama administration? the op-ed pointed to them as responsible. >> what i would blame them for is their refusal to recognize the spread. the refusal to recognize that there is this proliferation and terrorist groups, jihadist groups. they have similar objectives, similar religious beliefs. it is estimated to have doubled in a for your time.
10:13 pm
the state department caulks about core al qaeda. -- talks about core al qaeda. we have decimated core al qaeda. that is not true. there is this massive expansion of terrorism in that part of the world that coincides with the u.s. withdraw from that part of the world. with dramatic reductions in the u.s. defense budget. the administration acts like there is no problem. i think there is a huge problem. >> you say they act like there is no problem and the president has talked about terrorism. >> not much. >> he said he is more worried about a terrorist bombing new york. there have been drawn attacks -- drone attacks against terrorist leaders in africa and in other places, as you know. they have not been unmindful of the threat of terrorism. have they? >> not unmindful.
10:14 pm
they abuse the drone program. >> more than the previous administration. >> we are the ones who invented it. the problem you have, yes to come back to the proposition they talk about and think about. we are going have a pivot to asia and plot of the middle east. that hasn't worked out for us. we have had the whole proposition of what is happening to the united states military. instead of having a two war strategy which is in the bible for 40-50 years, we are going to go to a one more strategy. -- one war strategy. in the midst of the chaos developing in the middle east. the question with respect to the proliferation of nuclear weapons was on my mind five months before 9/11. there is a quote in "the new york magazine" worried about terrorists. 9/11 was a watershed in terms of going from having law-enforcement problems to having an act of war against the
10:15 pm
united states. we're back now where the proliferation problem on a nuclear front is every bit as serious as it proliferation with respect to terrorist. i am worried about pakistan. you have to be worried about pakistan. >> every president i have interviewed has had the ultimate worry they have is a terrorist anything troll a nuclear weapon. -- gaining control of a nuclear weapon. that is the thing they worry over the most. if the most likely to happen you believe is a developed along, or they get their hands on one that belonged to someone else like the pakistanis? >> we can come up with different scenarios, but we know different things about pakistan. the inventor of the pakistan program also was publicly, north
10:16 pm
koreans bribed the pakistani officials for nuclear weapons technology. we have group of americans who have been to north korea, the ones they bribe the pakistanis for. you have already got a history here of background, pakistan is potentially, because they have their weapons, they know they have them, they are sure of the technology, there is every reason to believe that going forward they may well share it with others. there is a serious terrorist problem in pakistan. the taliban. 3 or 4 attempts on musharraf's live. we just got new turning back of the top taliban prisoners back to the taliban. in exchange for bergdahl. >> are you posted that? -- opposed to that?
10:17 pm
>> i am. we are closer than we have ever been any time in the past to a situation where we have the remarkable growth in terrorism. part of the problem in syria and iraq is it has become a bang metaphor jihad he wannabes. >> you are calling for a strategy against terrorism. >> that is adequately funded. we have reversed course on the cutback in u.s. military. we admit that there is a hell of a problem out there. we rebuild our relationship with the egyptian military. >> this is a fact of life from africa all the way up to syria and into lebanon. >> it is growing much worse in the last four years. >> and has grown most worse -- much worse because? >> because of the rand report. it is partly religious based.
10:18 pm
it is partly because of al qaeda. when they are successful. now you have in syria, because we didn't do anything in syria, in my five who runs a -- mi5, who runs the counterterrorism program that says half the terrorist in the u.k. originate from syria. >> what do you think is going to happen there? on the one hand it looks like assad is a much better position than he was. there are those who argue not now but two years ago if you had had more support, for the moderate rebel forces, that you had assad on the run. that is no longer to because of the health he has received. >> there was a possibility there. >> where is syria today? >> today, because isis is so
10:19 pm
brutal and so bad, even al qaeda has tried to push them aside, assad hasn't opened a position where he is not the worst option. >> should we change our policy? >> i think we should have intervened earlier with a free syrian movement that wasn't related to al qaeda. the time to do that was three years ago. now it has gotten late. even today, i would try to beef up our efforts to train and equip some free syrian forces inside syria. it can create trouble for ice is back in the area they have conquered. we can then build a fire under them and make life more difficult for them. the president was going to do something in syria and then he never quite did it. it was one of the things when we traveled to the middle east in march that came up repeatedly. they were ready to go to support an effort and at the last minute they pulled out. >> the russians and u.s. made a deal and chemical weapons.
10:20 pm
and the prime minister of israel says that was a good idea. he is your friend. >> he is also relying on the administration to persuade the iranians to give up nuclear weapons. i am not sure he is comfortable with that. he will have to speak for himself. >> you now know he has said that deal that the saudis were upset about him and he supports it. he says it only supports chemical weapons. that is the reason the united states not attack. the deal was made with the russians and syrians. >> i don't know why. obama suddenly decided to go to the congress to get authority to do anything with respect to military force, which i don't think he had to do. it is a case where a strong leadership out of the administration am a we had a lot of folks out there ready to go
10:21 pm
to support the effort to take action with respect to serious, -- respect to syria, and they were left hanging out to dry when the president backed off and decided not to go there. one of the individuals i talked to, he he for the first time in the years i've known him, he said is going to be politically dangerous in my home country. now to be identified as a friend of the united states. things have gotten so difficult for him there was a price to be paid for somebody in his position to be so closely identified with the u.s. if you've noticed, the president has been to moscow. he can come to the united states for political reasons. it would be politically difficult in the streets were he to be seen coming to the united states.
10:22 pm
the attitude in egypt is the president backed the muslim brotherhood. >> after they were elected? they had a democratic election. your administration would've done the same thing if the muslim brotherhood had been elected. it wasn't just the obama administration. >> it was a big mistake. >> they later change their opinion. but it recognize them. >> the people of egypt were the ones who suffered under the rule. there is now an insurgency along the gaza border and problems with libya. the egyptian people are delighted the military stepped in. i think there is an overwhelming view and a consensus view today
10:23 pm
that the united states supported a very difficult set of circumstances under morsi who wanted to create another islamist republic such as iran. the point, the way we have operated out there has undermanned these relationships. >> clearly, there are those who have different political views that you they contribute to the problem that we didn't have american forces there. they may have had a moderating influence on maliki. he might not have been so willing to shut out the sunnis. which, created the problem and made some joint isis. -- join isis. >> if you had petraeus on a regular basis, they would have been able to moderate maliki's
10:24 pm
activities. >> let me bring this conversation. you are not only the vice president you were secretary of defense. you experience that war with saddam hussein. then it was the iraqi war. now, iraq is facing more difficult situation for both iraq and the united states. we've seen the former director of the cia who said, it must be the most difficult situation since the war. what would you do? david petraeus says no air power. i don't know what panetta says. i want to know what dick cheney would do now. >> the first thing i would say is recognize it for what it is.
10:25 pm
it is part of a much larger problem. we need a broader strategy and we need to reverse policy. >> that goes beyond iraq? >> i would start on the road because there are a lot of things you can do there need to be addressed. with respect to iraq itself, the things i found noteworthy in the last few days, the position the ayatollah has taken. a remarkable man. for the shia, he is the equivalent of the pope for catholics. a man of enormous respect and regard. he has always been cautious. he has called for maliki to step aside. very significant. >> did he actually say yes to
10:26 pm
-- say he has to step aside? >> he directed him to step aside. that is a major shot across the bow. it offers the possibility you may get a change in government. that may be the brightest spot. >> that is the obama administration position. to create some coalition government made up of shia and sunni that you can fight for it to stop isis. >> there is a consensus view that maliki has run out his strength, whether it is obama, or cheney, or whoever it is. let's everybody seems to agree that williams to do is have a government you can support there that will be attractive to all parties so they will not split out and they can have united force. >> that would be the ideal. >> what is the likelihood? >> i don't know. i feel better about it now.
10:27 pm
>> he has called these militias to come out. every shia and identified for iraq. that means he's back in the game in terms of these militias. he is a rearming and ready to go to battle to save shia iraq. >> it's very worrisome. it is one of those developments that could have been avoided. if the military been up to stuff, the military wasn't up to snuff because the leaky had run off the sunni commanders. that was many years ago. that was not anywhere close.
10:28 pm
>> there were still generals. >> in the past, possibly. when we were there during the surge, they were good commanders who fought alongside our guys. they would be a today if they hadn't been purged. >> hopefully maliki will step down. and have the ayatollah, being a strong voice there, for doing something. would you have the united states engage in airstrikes? >> it depends. i'm not sure you can make that charge right now. if you were going to do anything, just say airstrikes, especially, it is a hard proposition. you don't want to be the air force for the shia.
10:29 pm
some of the things we did, the way we operate we first went into afghanistan, made it applicable here. we have special forces going in, they speak the language. they signed with the locals and carried the capacity to call in and laser direct targets that ought to be taken now. but that is a different situation and involve putting some people on the ground. >> there is a risk that you have turned people against you if you use air power. >> you don't want to use it in a way, to use it at this stage when there is so much criticism of the maliki government, when he has decided, raises the specter to create problems with respect to the sunnis.
10:30 pm
a lot of our friends in the region are also sunni. the iranians. >> as you know, [indiscernible] would you, can we stop that? >> we shouldn't encourage it. i don't think some of the just and we have worked with the iranians. that bothers me. iran is a problem. one of the lines of argument with respect to the obama administration is that while they are out there trying to negotiate some kind of negotiation on new they don't have a lot of confidence it is going to produce anything. it is a paper to cover up the situation until the administration leaves town. they are concerned because they
10:31 pm
don't see anything being done the other ways iran tries to dominate the region. they are viewed as bad actors. >> what they have done as a friend to syria. >> we don't want to be perceived as in cahoots with the iranians. that would be a bad thing for the egyptians and the saudi's. >> to believe there is a great conflict for prominence in the gulf between them because of their wealth and religion. >> it's important to them. >> no airstrikes right now. you don't know where the targets are into you get people there.
10:32 pm
300 people there, special forces, no boots on the ground right now. other than what you have. >> in terms of putting a large u.s. injured into iraq, no. i don't see that happening. >> what else? >> you have to work closely with the other surrounding states where we have relationships. they're going to be vulnerable no matter what happens inside of iraq or syria. jordan comes immediately to mind. all the persian gulf states. iraq be a major effort to rebuild those relationships. those relationships are in terrible shape. we have a common enemy. the common enemy is radical islam. we need to be able to work with them so that if nothing else, we can keep it from spreading beyond where it is today. i also think it would make sense
10:33 pm
for us to get heavily involved in supporting the free iraq movement with weapons and training. >> you can do that without the risk of falling at the hands of all those radical groups? >> there is always the possibility. i think it is important to build a backfire where isis is concerned. they have moved a lot of them down into iraq. give them problems back in their home territory. >> they control the border between syria and iran. part of the border between jordan and iran. >> you have to do things with the turks, too. they have as much at stake as we do. ♪
10:34 pm
10:35 pm
>> should we have seen isis coming? they seem to have more strength. they going to mozilla and open the banks. they take the money.
10:36 pm
that can help a group like that. to buy weapons. should we have received it? -- have foreseen it? was is a failure of intelligence in the same way that weapons of mass destruction in iraq was a failure of intelligence? >> i don't know it was a failure of intelligence. i haven't seen the reporting. one way to look at isis in particular. one possibility is that our guys did in fact pick up on it but the policy level was never acted upon. >> meaning it recommended to the present we have problems with groups like ices and nobody did anything. >> i don't know. i don't assume our guys missed it. there is a rough possibility it didn't track into the narrative that we have the terrorist problem solved.
10:37 pm
>> isn't that a stretch, to say we have bin laden, therefore terrorism ended. i never heard anybody say that. i did hear them say we have wiped out a number of core al qaeda. they never said we have terrorism under control. i never had the president say that. you said that several times. that terrorism isn't a problem. >> when you have killed four of our guys, and you call it a video reaction of some kind, you do a political reasons. if you omit there had been a terrorist attack in benghazi, it might have cost them the election. it's that mindset i'm concerned about.
10:38 pm
it is a valid description of the way the administration has looked at the whole problem of terror. that's my view. and, i'm not running for anything. i get to say exactly what i think. >> there is a sense of you looking at the policies you want to defend, and iraq brings you four to say we had it right and they screwed it up. iraq was a troubled place even after. >> i look at having had a set of views about the dangers we face in that part of the world based on terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and weapons of mass destruction, and i have been consistent over the years. i have backed off that concern. >> peter baker wrote a book about you. he suggests in the book that, back to the first gulf war, you felt because of a variety of things, not going to baghdad,
10:39 pm
that haunted you. >> no. that is not the way i describe it. the way i would describe it is we don't believe that the drumming we administered to saddam as we ran them out of kuwait would cause his demise. that he would never survive. what happened instead he was able to turn that around. the fact that he had survived, the u.s. had done that and he was still standing, he turned into a victory for himself. >> he had the use of helicopters to shut off shiite attacks.
10:40 pm
>> bridges were out everything. he is no longer here to defend himself. >> it wasn't your general making the agreement. you have to sign off on it. >> it was done at the level one they were negotiating a cease-fire. my point is, saddam was masterful on his part. when he was able to use the abject defeat and turn into a victory. he peddled it that way. he survived when none of us thought that he could. none of our intelligence. >> if you thought what might have been in mcafee cap the attack in afghanistan, them he had osama bin laden on the run then, and had not invaded iraq -- why not? >> i believe deeply in what we did. we did the right thing. >> fair enough.
10:41 pm
as they say, there are others who believe like you do and they are speaking up now. have an you thought about it? you are an intelligent man who thought what if we hadn't done that? what if we don't do that? what if we don't invade iraq. how might it have turned out? will it have been different? what are the negative implications? >> charlie, if you go back and look at the circumstances we were dealing with, in the aftermath of 9/11, 3000 dead americans, you see that change of reporting on intelligence on two fronts. with respect to terrorism, and with respect to weapons of mass destruction, and you seem the reporting that we had from the first day, watch out for iraq wmds.
10:42 pm
>> other countries believed they had them. >> for the president to have ignored that under those circumstances, it would have been dereliction of duty. >> the point is, some people feel like that we should have waited for more inspections to determine whether he had them or not. my question is more historical. would it have been different? are there such negative repercussions from that long war and where we see ourselves now that we would've been better off if we hadn't gone in? >> i don't believe that. i think we did what we had to do. you don't get to go back and say what if we ignore the intelligence? what if we ignored, when george said it is a slamdunk.
10:43 pm
>> were you sitting there? >> i was between the president and george. he said slamdunk. we have the information. we have been briefed on the overview of the intelligence? >> how come they were wrong? or were they wrong? >> i think it was, i look back at it. you can't say they were 100% wrong. there were centrifuges. maybe, one story i heard was it was corruption. the procurement system was corrupt. there was a kickback system for someone who bought centrifuges. it is all guesses at this stage. i believe deeply in what we did then.
10:44 pm
the bottom line was only left office iraq was in good shape. now we're in a situation where we have -- there have been a dramatic reduction in the level of violence. sectarian violence, car bombs. you have the sunnis and the shia pulling together in the military. and it was in good shape to be handed off to a greater extent than it had been with u.s. forces staying behind as we have all over the world to make certain they were up to the task. that is where the current circumstance developed. >> i find that you and the president seemed to be about the same place as to what we ought to do now and iraq.
10:45 pm
do you see a difference? >> i never had it put that way. >> i'm putting it that way. are you in the same place? >> the position -- >> tell me one difference you have? >> i see it is a larger problem. >> with respect to iraq today and the decisions of the president, you are where he is. it is ok to agree with the president. >> i hope maliki is replace. >> you haven't ruled out air strikes. although you say we make sure we can get the right targets. that is where the president is. >> the military wanted to be on the advisory forces. 20,000. in terms of negotiation and the stay behind force. he is for 300.
10:46 pm
i never would have cut from 25 to 10. >> your theory is the iraq he finally said they are not serious, we are going to give up negotiations. >> the one making up negotiations were barack obama. he didn't want to see troops in iraq for political reasons. >> or he believed it was not an american interests and he wanted to extract us from there. he wanted to build new relationships. >> i think he was wrong. >> i close with this. at the core, this is where you are. you want to define a new strategy against the alarming increase in terrorism. >> and the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons. >> layout for me the cheney plan. >> i would reverse course on the military.
10:47 pm
i would put the military front and center in terms of budget. i would go back to a two war strategy. >> raise taxes? >> if i had to. that is the only way i can get a first-rate military, i would do it. it is more important than anything else. it is the president's most important responsibility. >> it is important to say if you have to raise taxes, raise taxes. we need a strong military. >> i would stop talking about withdrawing from afghanistan. we have a stay in afghanistan. we shouldn't be scaling back. that is we keep up with what is going on in pakistan. where to be launched from? we launch from afghanistan. had we keep track of nukes? the last thing we need to do is abandon the vacuum that has been created by the way we are operating out of iraq and planning to get out afghanistan.
10:48 pm
>> how many troops? >> as many troops as are experts believe is necessary to make sure afghans can control the situation and the taliban will not amend and take over. >> do you think the president wants the same amount? >> whatever the pentagon gives him he cut in half. >> you would like to see be on 216. what is your strategy for africa and yemen? those places where there is affiliate of al qaeda. >> we have to develop some kind of strategy to deal with it. we can't be everywhere. we don't want have our major u.s. forces scattered around the globe like that. we ought to be able to work with our fine third parties we can
10:49 pm
work through. yemen is an especially difficult place. around then you have saudi arabia. use drones and yemen. we have basis to make sure we can operate out of. you need to change the mindsets. quit talking about a pivot to asia. asia is important by itself. it is used as a cover. i was briefed at one point. i got a phone call when they first announced the pivot to asia. he called me as a former secretary of defense to give me the word. i've listened to him and ask questions. he got exasperated and said, mr. secretary, you have to understand this is budget driven. it did have anything to do with
10:50 pm
strategy. there was no strategic reason to withdraw from the middle east. that is a we need to reverse and get headed the other way. i would help us cc every chance i got. same for our friends up and down the gulf. the emirates, abu dhabi. we have to recognize the danger that we are faced with. if nuclear negotiations fail with iran, which i expect they will, they are going be others who are going to nuclear weapons. you are not going to be able to. >> how close do think they are? >> i think they are very close. i haven't seen any classified reporting for five years. >> you talk to people. those guys make it their business to know.
10:51 pm
>> i always remember, the summer of 1990 before saddam invaded kuwait. the secretary of defense and my counterpart from israel came. they briefed me on saddam's nuclear program. 1990. they thought he was fairly close to achieving a nuclear devise. our intelligence said no, he was working on it. after the war was over with, if it hadn't been for we did during desert storm he would've had a nuclear devise by 1992. >> he would've had some back in the 80's. >> our intelligence hasn't always been that reliable. the israelis do a better job than we do in terms of estimating. >> their redline is more narrow
10:52 pm
than our redline. >> i think it is. >> they think they don't have the luxury of testing whether we will go if they don't go. that is the problem they have. even though the united states would be better to do something if push came to shove. they can't let it go past their redline. that means they are putting their own welfare at the mercy of others. >> i don't think they believe we will do anything. >> therefore? they will go they think he is close. >> i think so. i don't know that. >> what are the ramifications? >> what are the repercussions if they don't? a nuclear armed iran and a nuclear weapon. they have the launch systems. at that point you're going to have something of an arms race in the name middle east.
10:53 pm
>> and develop [indiscernible] americans are not allowed to talk to him. >> you are right. i used to send messages through a third-party. there'll be enormous pressure on the saudis, on the emirates and others in the region. the iranians have a nuclear weapon they're not going to be the only nuclear power out there. there'll be other nuclear powers as well.
10:54 pm
>> it is said the saudis could do it quickly because the pakistanis owe them. true? >> they have provided a great deal of free oil to pakistan. >> if everybody was going to a nuke, a book on the pakistanis supply. someone said a couple of nights ago they don't think isis could take baghdad? >> i have my doubts. in terms of numbers. a lot of the sunnis have left hearts of baghdad. you have mobilized a significant number of shia militia. my guesses they can defend baghdad. >> thank you for coming. dick cheney, former ice president of the united states, undersecretary of defense. minority whip in congress. a conversation about iraq. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
10:55 pm
10:56 pm
10:57 pm
10:58 pm
10:59 pm
11:00 pm
>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west." i'm cory johnson, in for emily chang. from the ski slopes to the stock market, go pro expected to price an ipo at any moment. they're expected to sell 17.8 million shares. $427 million in raising the offering. that will give these guys a market cap of $3 billion. aereo has been shaking up tv industry.

54 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on