>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." two people in the history of the government have held so many

high-level positions as leon panetta. chief of staff for president clinton. he is now retired from government. he has written his memoir, called "worthy fights." i spoke to him at the council of fortin relations -- foreign relations about the book. >> thank you for joining us. how does it feel to complete this? is more than a memoir or about politics. it is almost a biography. >> i wanted to tell my story. i think it is the story of the american dream. the son of italian immigrants. i remember asking my dad why he came all this distance to a strange country with no money or skills. he said the reason was because

my mother and he thought they could give their children a better life. i think that is the american dream. i have had the chance to live that dream. i wanted to share it with people. i have had the opportunity to work at some of the highest levels in government. that is the fulfillment of the american dream. >> there are some people, not to become secretary of defense and chief of staff at the white house, some people say just being able to give your children alike better than you have had is no longer so easy. that something is wrong with the american dream. >> i think that is a concern. that alsotwo things inspired me to write the book. one was, at our institute for public posey, we deal with a lot of the young people. -- for public policy, we deal with a lot of young people. into inspired to get

public policy because i thought it was a higher calling. i see in young people, the sense of frustration with washington. the dysfunction in washington. they don't have that inspiration to get involved. i thought maybe this book might help you that. public service should be a. -- noble calling. >> there is the american dream, which goes back to the founding of the nation. our forefathers believed the purpose of america was to give our children a better life. >> what has been the most satisfying thing about this life? a lot of had satisfying moments. that is why i call it worthy fights. almost every fight i have taken on has in its own way been rewarding. first went to the office

of civil rights, fighting for civil rights, trying to give kids an equal shot, that was rewarding in its own way. working as a congressman to try to save the california coast. monterey baythe marine sanctuary, that was rewarding. budget,did on the working on budget agreements that help produce a balanced budget agreement, that was satisfying. the one thing that is tough to beat is the operation to go after bin laden. helping to put that together. getting the intelligence. doing the work on the operation itself. having it all work. >> special forces carried it out but you are -- were in charge. operation andvert i was in charge. >> what were the toughest moments that night? >> there was no question that

when one of the cut of -- one of the helicopters went down, there were a lot of nervous people at the white house. i was at the cia. two helicopters had to go 150 miles into pakistan that night. hopefully not be detected. they were followed by two chinooks, going in as backup. you had the two helicopters going in, middle of the night, followed by two chinooks. as we were observing the operation, we saw -- what happened was, when there has been a hot day in the heat is and itd, it is drawn up stalls the engine of the helicopter. we didn't realize how hot it had been. when they got there and that happened, the pilot, think that

he was a tough old army pilot -- thank god he was a tough old army pilot. he was able to handle the copter and ring it down. i remember the shock of seeing that thing go down. the premonition that this mission is turning to hell. i asked the head of special forces -- he was there in afghanistan -- i said, what is going on? he said, don't worry about it. we are going to continue the mission. they are going to reach the walls. he was cool as a cucumber. >> you did not know with certainty he was there. >> that's right. that was the tough thing about this mission. we put a lot of intelligence pieces together. every time, i kept pushing our people -- there was one moment

when we would see an individual go out in the art of the compound. walk in circles like a prisoner. sakes, can wed not identify the person? put cameras on the wall? they say, it is tough to do. the walls are anyway. way. the i said, we have seen movies where the cia can do this. they couldn't do it. we had good information, good intelligence, the best we had had since tora bora. the bottom line was, we did not know for sure whether osama bin laden was really there. ? bob gates said this was a remarkable decision by the president. he was calm and cool under fire. he had the most to lose if it did not succeed. >> there is no question.

this was a gutsy decision by the president. particularly when you consider in the national security council, the president basically asked everybody, what do you think? there were a lot of people around the table saying it was to risk -- it was too risky. >> bob gates? >> he was one of those. secretary clinton raise concerns. >> what did you say? >> the president asked me what what i thought. i said, i have an old formula i used in the congress. decision, ia tough in myself, if i asked ordinary's decision if you knew what i knew, would you do what i do? in this instance, if we asked an average citizen that we -- and

told him we had the best intelligence on osama bin laden, most citizens would say you have to go through. >> bill gates wanted to -- bob gates wanted to bomb them. >> we looked at three approaches. one was the idea of using a b-2 bomber, which would blow the place up. we found out it would involve so many weapons, it would level the villages around. we decided against that. the other was more precise targeting with a drone. due commando operation with the special forces. we came to the decision that was the best way to do it. one of the challenges was, should we do it with the pakistanis were not? was, in the past when we identify targets, we could not trust them because they would alert people. >> you had said, when you look

at isis, this is going to be a 30 year idle -- battle. what should we be doing today? made theesident has right decision to go after isis. when we were confronting al qaeda and going after the the mission was to dismantle, disrupt, and a destroy al qaeda. that is what the president said. with regard to isis, they are every bit as fanatical and a dangerous. to make the same mission against isis. it is not going to be easy. i view this, charlie, as a continuum from 9/11. we declared war on terrorism. when you look at the broad sweep of terrorism, they are another

piece to that. they are intent on attacking this country. we have to view this in that larger context. for that reason, this has to be a long, sustained and, hence of comprehensive effort. >> how is it going on the battlefield? there are airstrikes, moving forward? >> they are resilient. if there is anything i learned at the cia, it is they can be very resilient. >> it is not enough to kill the leadership. >> they learn what your tactics are. they adjust to those tactics. you have to invest -- adjust and be flexible. here, i think the same thing is happening. they are learning. airstrikes can have a certain

amount of impact. if they are adjusting to that, mixing in with the civilian population, hiding their tanks and mobile equipment under bridges, putting camouflage on it, they are taking whatever steps are necessary so they will not be targeted. to deal with that, you have got to have intelligence that develops the targets. it took us three years to develop good intelligence in pakistan when we were going after al qaeda pots core qaeda's core al leadership. here, it is going to take at least that long to develop. that intelligence. >> does this come from cia or special forces? >> it is a combination. jobt of that is the cia's

to develop assets we need to get critical information. >> you are the former director of the cia. has the cia and other intelligence services served the country and the president as they should? you know what the president said. >> i know with the resident said. -- i know what the president said. the bottom line is there is never enough intelligence. one thing i worried about was being surprised. it only takes one surprise to her this country. that is what happened on 9/11. it happened in iraq. in a position to judge whether they did the job well and was necessary. did they or did they not? >> when i was there during the four years, we had good

intelligence that was provided. affiliateal qaeda developing in syria. we knew there were extremists that were there. we knew al qaeda was there. we knew it was very dangerous to have this kind of al qaeda chaost developing in the of syria because of what the implications would be, not only in syria but against iraq. whether they had the intelligence on isis and what they had, i am not aware of. >> there was a lick testimony in some cases -- public testimony in some cases. >> i think they teed up some of the dangers involved with it. part of the problem was, because of the chaos in syria, the situation in iraq, there was not enough attention paid on the

broader policy implications. >> it is the biggest challenge for the u.s. in foreign policy? >> no question. i think that is right. the president has taken the right step. it was the right step to form a coalition and conducted these air attacks. the challenge is it will be a long and sustained effort. it will take time. that is one of the reasons i would like to see the president and leadership in congress be able to pass a resolution that makes very clear -- >> is it necessary to have a resolution? >> legally, he could probably do it on the authority he has as commander in chief. are in a long and sustained effort against a group

is going to that take a long time. this country needs to restate ftercommitment to go a them. >> you thought it was a mistake to go to congress with regard to the redline in syria. because as commander-in-chief, when you have an imminent situation where you have drawn a redline and they have used chemical warfare to go after men, women, and children, cross that redline, the commander-in-chief needs to act quickly. this is going to be a long and sustained war against isis. i think this is a situation thee we need to unify country behind what could be a long war. >> as you know, casper weinberg

and then secretary of powell develop the idea -- secretary thatl develop the idea, might include combat troops. is america ready for combat troops in syria? >> i'm not sure it is ready. i'm not sure they are needed. >> but if it is? >> i don't think we need to create a 100,000 forced to invade iraq and syria. or send the 100 and first he 101ne in -- send te airborne in. we can work to go after them effectively. does that mean the president ought to keep the options on the table? you don't see it because it

sends a signal to the enemy? >> the commander-in-chief needs to have the flexibility to do whatever is necessary to confront the threat. >> here's what you have said about the president, talking about his legacy. we are at a point when the jury is still out. i thought he was a strong leader on security issues, including osama bin laden. but in the last two years, i think he has kind of lost his way. a mixed message, ambivalence approaching these issues. he has lost his way? to --hink what happened the first four years when i was there, as cia director and secretary of defense, he was very strong supporting our operations. he supported the bin laden operation. development ofe

a defense strategy for the future. he was a strong leader with regards to the war on terrorism. the last two years, what happened was he looked at a country that was frustrated and exhausted by 10 years of war. >> you say he lost his way. that lost his conviction we had to constantly go after terrorism. constantly be involved in a troubled world. i think he wanted to hopefully the able to focus again on this country and what needed to be done here. >> a couple of important decisions. the redline and then not going ahead with the attack. you think that was damaging to his leadership? >> the credibility of the commander-in-chief is whether or not, when you say something, you stand a buy it. with au are dealing

rough world, the strength of the u.s. is we say what we intend to do and we do it. power,t with military o-matic power, economic power. when you say it, it is important to stand by it. when he drew the line and said -- >> if you make chemical weapons -- >> use the chemical weapons against your people, we will not tolerate that. and he drew that line, there are some people that would question whether he should have, when he drew that buying, -- line, you have to take action if the line is crossed. >> but the russians proposed a deal that got the chemical weapons out of's syria. of american symbol leadership, it was important to go ahead. notwithstanding that there was a deal made to get the chemical

weapons out. >> when you draw that line, they usesed that line, they chemical weapons on their own people -- the u.s. has to make it clear they cannot do that. i think it would have been important to do that. both the president, vice president, and secretary of state were going in that direction. i'm not sure what made him change his position. when he did that, it sent the message to the world that raises questions about the credibility of the u.s. what he has done now and going in after isis, saying they're hasg to go after them, that gone a long way to repair the damage. >> repair the damage and rewrite is a legacy. when he was a moment was asked to support the free syrian army. he declined to do that. the vice president said he made

the right decision. you say it was a mistake. if he had made a different decision, isis might not have had the opportunity to grow. >> who knows ultimately how it would have played out. is makingent today the decision to arm and train moderate forces in the opposition. it's the right decision. >> it is more difficult now. is the right decision today and was two years ago. >> tell us about the president toss -- president's mind. you are all saying, do this. he says, no. he makes up his own mind. what else does it say? >> the president of the nine states is the president of the united states.

you present your best case and tell him white it is important -- while it is important. i think he made the decision based on the concern that when the weapons went into this chaotic situation, where you have a hundred different elements to the opposition, they might wind up in the wrong hands . that bothered him. >> is a possible he was listening to other people close to him? was he listening to the national security council? maybe they had a different opinion? political people? >> i think deep down, what he did not want to do was provide these arms and then have them get into the wrong hands. create another situation where we would have to be in a deeper commitment in that part of the world.

i think that is what he was concerned about. he is advised as well as he was in the first term? >> these are good people around him. hagel.ly, secretary vice president biden is still there. the intelligence people are good people. i have to believe they are there and presenting their opinions to the president as much as many of us were. >> you know washington and how players act. how the white house works. is the president getting the same kind of advice he got in his first term? is it of a different nature now? tough for met is to be in that room in the national security council. in the four years i sat there, having secretary clinton there and secretary gates, myself,

others, that basically were presenting strong advice to the president, i thought was a good situation. there was a good give-and-take. oneink it is important -- of the problems i see in a presidentntext is the is not is exposed to all of the views he should be getting in order to make tough decisions. i think you have to open up those viewpoints to the president. i think it is important for him to get broad, experience viewpoints. inside the white house but outside the white house. when you are facing the tough decisions he is facing. -- ou said over weakness too often heess --

relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader. occasionally he avoids a battle, complains, and this is opportunities. that is an indictment of leadership. believeis a president i can be a strong leader. i have seen him be a strong leader. i have seen him take strong positions and fight for them. i want thisat, president to succeed. i want the president to succeed because i want the country to succeed. what i sense now is in washington generally -- the difference i see is when the president has confronted a difficult congress, this is a difficult congress. there are a public event party members who want to shut the government down. -- republicans and tea party members who want to shut the government down.

in confronting that kind of opposition, the president is frustrated by a group of people who will not do -- i think what he does is, because he knows he can't get anywhere, there is a sense of giving up oath by the president and the leadership in congress. -- both by the president and the leadership in congress. that is what has happened in washington. they have given up on immigration, and for structure, trade legislation. a lot of the key issues facing the country. the congress has basically pulled back and said, we are not going to do it. i think that is dangerous for this country and for its future. >> is dangerous if the president gave up. >> the biggest national security threat is the dysfunction in washington. andfact that the president

congress cannot confront the issues that are important to this country. >> the consequence of not doing that -- bob gates said the same thing in his book. >> we are looking at a moment in time in the 21st century where the issue is, will we govern the country i leadership or crisis? if leadership is there and takes the risks, i think we can avoid crisis. if not, we will govern by crisis. that is how we are governing today. >> what happens is foreign countries like china and russia look at us and have questions about how effective we can play a role in the world, which is a leadership role. >> when you look at what is a dangerous world, and there are a number of threats -- russia, china, north korea. dealing with iran. cyberattacks. a lot of challenges we are

confronting. if you add that with the dysfunction in washington, i think it is a moment in time where all americans have to be concerned about where is the nation going in the 21st century?\ firs the dream about the america that can exercise the world the americanave -- dream? that canthe america exercise the kind of leadership the world needs? recessions and natural disasters. i believe in this leadership because when you look at the american people, the men and women in uniform, who put their

lives on the line, i know there are values out there in which the strength of america lies. ultimately it is up to the leadership to recognize the american people want them to lead. to take the risks. assert the kind of leadership -- >> i don't understand what the president could have done with respect to the deadlock in washington. gridlock. a, that he did not do. other than that you are suggesting he left the battlefield out of frustration. maybe he had the bully pulp it. he alone had the chance to make it work and he got frustrated and quit. >> regardless of what happens in the election, we are in for another 2.5 years of stalemate. >> until the next presidential

election. >> i don't think we can afford that. i don't think this president can afford that. what i'm saying, this president has to roll up his sleeves. yes, he is going to have to deal with people he may not like. he is going to fight battles he may not like to fight. the reality is he could by virtue of getting into the ring establish a legacy that is very important for his presidency. >> he can save his presidency in terms of whatever concerns he may have or his friends may have about his legacy by getting in the ring. >he hasn't been in the ring? >> he has been in the ring but he doesn't keep the pressure on the institutions of our democracy to do what they have to do. presidents have faced tough congresses throughout history. bill clinton faced a tough congress.

he also understood, in the end, you still have to engage with people. you have to cut a deal. 's > is about the president personality? mindset? his experience? is that the reason he is different than bill clinton or lyndon johnson? >> he is extremely bright and able. extremely interested in doing the right thing. >> you said he is not in the fight. >> if you want to be able to get things done in washington, you have got to fight for it. you have to fight for it every day. when we passed a budget bike bill clinton -- by bill clinton, the republicans took a walk. we passed it on the democratic side. we worked every vote. ultimately, we were able to win it by one vote in the house and senate.

that was because of a tough fight to get it done. dedication kind of to how we should push our democracy. >> why is bill clinton that way and not barack obama? >> the one thing different between the two is bill clinton loves politics. he loves the engagement, to cut a deal. obama once the logic of his position to persuade people. in washington, logic is not enough. you have to be able to go in and push people in the right directions. >> exercise power. >> aber simon -- abraham lincoln had to buy some votes. >> where were you when bill clinton -- when the president was not doing this? were you telling him any meeting

meeting? >> there was something called sequester. a mechanism that congress developed to shoot themselves in the head. say, gun to the head and if we do not do the right thing, we will pull the trigger. suddenly, this drastic cut will go into effect. i went to the president and leadership of congress and said, this will damage the country. this will hurt our defense and readiness. it is going to hurt domestic programs that are important. they said, you are right. this is terrible. >i said, what do we do? >> both sides said this? >> absolutely. they said, this is going to hurt the country. anotherd, i will put

$100 billion in defense savings if that will help you cut a deal. nothing happened. teddy roosevelt once said, when you are facing a tough decision, the best thing you can do is make the right decision. the next best thing is make the wrong decision. the worst thing is to do nothing. >> the budget deal that included automatic spending cuts, even though everyone agreed they were he found himself a lonely figure by lobbying congress that this would harm national security. >> i have been a member of congress. i was elected to congress and served in the congress. when you serve in the congress coming your responsibility -- in the congress, your

responsibility and the oath you swear is to protect the country. you don't do things to deliberately hurt the country. >> what changed? havelot of things contributed to this. a lot of people are asking that question. there are a lot of factors. too much money, redistricting that creates safe seats. a media that engages in soundbites. >> you are saying this now. [laughter] >> there is a lot of emphasis on the conflict rather than the people that resolve issues. thereesult of all that, is a sense of not taking the risks you have to take to govern. frankly, leadership is all about risk. your own jeopardizing political position in order to do what is right for the country. >> some people say the defense budget is too low when you look at the challenges we are facing. is the i am scared about

uncertainty in washington with regards to the budget. right now, instead of developing a budget, they have kicked the can down the road. they did a continuing resolution until the election. the likelihood is they will do another one after the election. we may be facing the prospect of a sequester or shutdown. that instability and uncertainty is eroding our ability to maintain our national defense the way we should. i would like them to develop a long-term, five-year agreement on the budget that says, this is what we are going to do on defense. we know what needs to be cut. we know there is stability in terms of the budget for the next five years. >> you talked about president obama, president bush 43. president clinton.

there's also hillary clinton. tell me about her, not in terms of whether you like or support her, but in terms of where she stands in all of these qualities we have been talking about. i dealt a lot with her when she was secretary of state and i was secretary of defense. strong,her to be very believing in the strength of america. the position of the u.s. and the world. our need to exercise world leadership. we went to arab countries and said, they ought to put together a defense system similar to what is going together with the coalition. a system to have them work as a group to assist us dealing with the challenges in the middle

east. we were there in the room and talking to it arab countries to do that. whatever i have gone with her, i have happened -- found her to be strong and reliable. >> you are a good standing member of the democratic party? >> yes. >> some people have apprehension about secretary clinton. they say she is too much of a hawk, too close to wall street. her instincts are to centrist -- too centrist. do you agree? she is all those things? hawkish? >> she is strong on national defense. national security. to, her husband, she wants in terms of the economy, develop a broad-based economy where wall

street has to play a role in terms of strengthening the economy. of at the ability president to reach out to the country and bring the country together. i think we are too divided. >> the country. >> i think the country is -- >> divided over? >> politically and in terms of our views. >> our role in the world. >> are really world. i think there is a lot of division. -- our role in the world. i think there's a lot of division. we have to bring the count ry together. we can go in one of two directions. we can have the american renaissance. we can have a strong recovery, and agile defense force for the world.

develop energy independence and skills we need for our children in the future. we have the potential to be that kind of america for the future. we can also be an america in decline. if we allow the kind of crisis by crisis dysfunction we see in washington to prevail. we have a decision to make as to what direction we want to take. ♪ >> there are challenges of we

did not have in the past. of the chinese economy will exceed that of the american economy soon. russia, a different attitude today than at might have been when there was talk of the taunt -- detante or cooperation. the president made the decision to pick it to china -- to prohibit -- to pivot to china. did you agree? is that the future? >> that is the future in terms

of countries developing their economies. an area where there is a tremendous potential for trade and prosperity. interests areour in developing a strong security presence in the pacific to work with the countries to make sure -- >> you talk to people who know things. what do you make of this new president of china? he seems to be different and on a mission for china. in part, economic. but also, playing a role in the region for sure. >> there is no question in my mind. i really found him to be an interesting individual. normally when i used to meet operatedchinese, they

off of talking points. the talking points included taiwan. uighurs. they are concerned about other issues. you could not get through anything but the talking points. engaged in a conversation in which he said, why, for example, are you rebalancing to the pacific? i said, because what we are interested in, you are a pacific peace-- i think you want and prosperity. we face common threats from north korea. we can work together with the countries in south east asia to produce prosperity for the future. he agreed. he was willing to ask the right questions. he was willing to engage. i talked about cyberattacks.

he said, we ought to create a dialogue to talk through the issues. as someone who wants to strengthen china. also, engage with the u.s. and other countries in the world. >> at the same time, they are going around with contracts in africa and elsewhere. do they have more of a long-term shoji than we do? >> -- strategy than we do? >> china is interested in doing what is important for china. henry are -- read kissinger, he says, this is about china. that is what they focus on. >> that is what you expect from a leadership. >> is important to understand where they are coming from. that is the focus they have. they want to improve their economy, develop the resources they need for the future. you have to understand that is

where they are headed. does that mean we shouldn't engage with them? and check them when they over fountains? -- the bounds? i think we have to. their claims to territory in the south china, the fact that they are trying to assert themselves, we have to say to them that is wrong. and find better ways to do with that. is it is important -- but it important to have communication. >> and russia, ukraine? >> is almost a renewal of the cold war. is have a president as a -- is it because they saw the president as weak? >> putin's goal is to make

certain that russia extends influence in the countries of the soviet union. dud ubid in theid ukraine is part of his read the us would not take action. -- i think we ought to be providing aid. pricing and paints -- by sending them tanks?

>> it is important for us to strengthen nato. i would resurrect the issue of missile defense. we had been engaged in negotiations with them on missile defense. if they are going to behave the way they are now, we have to resurrect the prospect of missile defense. lastly, we have to develop over the long-term another source of energy for those countries in europe and the former soviet union. really selling energy abroad as fast as we should. >> we will be the largest energy supplier in the world. >> we should make use of that to give them another source of energy. >> iran. will there be a deal? >> i would like to hope and pray

there will be a deal. >> what does your analysis tell you? you know how far apart they are. >> i do. i have always had concerns about iran and their intentions around the world. secret, i have seen the police operations -- i would love to have the opportunity to talk to their general. they have spread terrorism through five continents trying to create instability. they are dangerous. we have to understand that there is no way we should allow them to develop their nuclear capability. >> what does that mean? >> the president took the right step getting the international community to apply sanctions.

these are tough sanctions. i think they help bring them to the table. but, i think it is important now that we are at the table, to make clear we are not going to allow them to have the ability to develop -- cia director, would you see to the president, we have to strike their nuclear facilities now? when would you advise the president to do that? >> we had a lot of that debate in the time i was there. secretary ofor as defense. that if the to me iranians made the decision to produce a nuclear weapon, and we had the intelligence to back that up, we would not allow that to happen. even if that meant military action. >> even if that meant taking it

out with a strike. that suggests they have not made the decision. as long as they are negotiating, you assume they have not made the attention -- decision. >> the intelligence, at least when i left, was that they had not made that decision. >> 1-wood israel say, we cannot wait for the u.s. -- when would israel say, we cannot wait for the u.s.? >> when i was secretary of defense, we thought they had made the decision. felt it was andrtant to strike iran now strike their nuclear capability. they were concerned about the so-called fast track. that they could produce it within a short time. they did not feel they wanted to give them that ability. we engaged in long conversations with them.

i think we indicated, you can give them a black eye, but you cannot take out their capability. recognizing that, it may be believing we would act if they made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon, they were willing to give us room. whether they are going to do that now, i don't know. >> you have written this book, "worthy fights." was it hard work? >> it is hard work because you want to make sure it is accurate to read and you have the stuff. the stuff from my background, when i was in congress. those are things i had a good feel for. when you are dealing with the cia and defend stuff, you want to make sure that is accurate.

we major they signed off on it and they did. >> the president did not sign off on it. [laughter] >> although we did send him a copy. >> thank you very much. good to see you. "worthybook is called, fights." see you next time. ♪

>> i'm just going to love seeing al hunt in a san francisco giants hat. steve scully gives us whiplash. some political ads. sarah silverman talks about her -- >> you will go from mount rushmore but you will stay for the four-way senate free-for-all. it got interesting this