♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> few people in the history of the government have held so many high-level positions as leon panetta.

think about it, secretary of defense, director of management and budget chief of staff for , president clinton. he is now retired from government. he has written his memoir, called "worthy fights." and memoir of leadership in war and peace. i spoke to him at the council of foreign relations about the book. and about his observations today about president obama and our country. thank you for joining us. >> good to be here. >> how does it feel to complete this? this is more than a memoir or about politics. it is almost a biography. you go all of the way back, to your parents and more. >> i wanted to tell my story. i think it is the story of the american dream. you know 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. no language ability, and he used to say the reason was because my mother and he thought they could give their children a better

life. and i think that is the american dream. i have had the chance to live that dream. i wanted to share it with people. because, as the book points out 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 cia director and chief of staff at the white house, some people say just being able to give your children a life better than you have had is no longer so easy. that something is wrong with the american dream. >> i think that is a concern. i mean, i -- there are two things that also inspired me to write the book. one was, you know at our , institute for public policy, we deal with a lot of young people. and what i am sensing -- i was inspired to get into public policy because i really felt it

was a higher calling. john kennedy said ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. i see in young people, the sense of frustration with washington. the dysfunction in washington. they don't have that inspiration to really get involved, so i thought maybe this book might help do that. >> public service should be a noble calling. >> that is right, and the second thing is there is the american dream, and i think it does go back to the founding of the nation. our forefathers believed the purpose of america was to give our children a better life. that is what this country is all about. >> what has been the most satisfying thing about this life? >> well, you know, i have really had a lot of satisfying moments. because almost every fight i have taken on a has in its own way been very rewarding. when i first went to the office

of civil rights, fighting for civil rights at a time when it was tough to do in the south trying to give kids an equal , shot, and equal education that , was rewarding in its own way. working as a congressman to try to save the california coast. then develop the monterey bay national marine sanctuary, that was rewarding. stuff i did on the budget, as chairman of the budget committee and then as omb director working on budget , agreements that help produce a balanced-budget agreement, that felt very good, but i guess the one thing that is tough to beat is the operation to go after bin laden. and helping to put that together. getting the intelligence. doing the work on the operation itself. and then having it all work. >> special forces carried it out but you were in charge. >> that is correct. the cia director. it was a covert operation and i was responsible to oversee that. >> what were the toughest moments that night? >> there is no question that

when one of the helicopters went down, there were a lot of nervous people at the white house. and i was at the cia. this is two helicopters had to go 150 miles into pakistan that and hopefully not be detected as they went in. they were followed by, thank god, by two chinooks, going in as backup, in case anything happened, so 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, is in a helicopter when there has been a hot day in , -- and heat is confined, it is drawn up and it stalls the engine. we didn't realize how hot it had been there, and when they got there and that happened, the pilot, thank god he was a tough

, tough, old army pilot. he was able to handle the copter and bring it down, even though the tale ended up on the wall. he brought it down. i remember the shock of seeing that thing go down. and the premonition that, oh, my god, this mission is turning to hell really fast, and i asked bill, who was the head of special forces, and he was there in afghanistan, and i said, bill, what the hell is going on? and he did not miss a beat. he said, don't worry about it. we are going to continue the mission. they are going to breach the walls. we have the chinooks coming in as a backup. 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. and every time, you know, i kept pushing our people, particularly because there was one moment

when we would see an individual go out in the yard of this compound and walk in circles like a prisoner, walking in a prison yard, and i said for god , sakes, can we not identify the person? put a telescope on the mountain, put cameras on the wall? they say, it is tough to do. the walls are in the way. they have really secured it. i said, we have seen movies where the cia can do this. you cannot tell me you cannot get this done. they couldn't do it. so we had good information, good intelligence, the best we had on his location since tora bora. but the fact, the bottom line was, we did not know for sure whether osama bin laden was really there. >> bob gates has said this was a remarkable decision by the president. a courageous decision. he was calm and cool under fire. and he had the most to lose if it did not succeed. >> there is no question. this was a gutsy decision by the president.

because particularly when you consider the fact that in the national security council, the president basically asked everybody, what do you think? there were a lot of people around that table who were saying it was too risky. >> bob gates included? >> that is right. bob gates was one of those. >> secretary clinton? >> she turned around to go ahead with the mission. >> and you? >> there were people in the intelligence area. >> what did you say? >> the president asked me what what i thought. and i said, mr. president i have , an old formula i used in the congress. when i face a tough decision, i ask myself, if i asked in -- an ordinary citizen in my district if you knew what i , knew, would you do what i do? that helped me come to a decision, and i said, 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 the location of osama bin laden, most citizens would say you have to go through with this. >> what bob gates wanted to bomb them. and destroy the building. >> we looked at, frankly three , approaches. one was the idea of using a b-2 bomber, which would blow the hell out of the place, but we found out it would involve so weaponry that it would level the villages around. we decided against that. the other was more precise targeting, that you could use with a drone. the third was to do a commando operation with the special forces. we came to the decision that was the best way to do it. by the way one of the challenges , was, should we do it with the pakistanis were not? the third was to dothe concern t when we identify targets, we could not trust them because they would alert people. and so, we decided to do this alone.

>> and you have said when you look at isis this is going to be , a 30 year battle. so what should we be doing today? >> i think the president has made the right decision to go after isis. and take them on. you know, when we were confronting al qaeda and going after the leadership of al qaeda because of their involvement in 9/11 the mission was to , dismantle, disrupt, and a -- destroy al qaeda. that is what the president said. and that was his direction to us. and with regard to isis, they are every bit as fanatical and a dash as dangerous and as terrorists as al qaeda, and we ought to take the same mission against isis. it is not going to be easy. i view this, charlie, as a kind of continuum from 9/11. 9/11 we declared war on because of the attack they made on our country. when you look at the broad sweep

of terrorism, isis is another piece to that. they are intent on attacking this country. and i think we have to view this in that larger context. for that reason, this has to be a long, sustained and comprehensive effort. >> and the leadership got there early training with al qaeda in iraq. >> that is right. >> how is it going on the battlefield? there are airstrikes, but they seem to be moving forward. >> they are resilient. if there is anything i learned at the cia, dealing with al qaeda it is they can be very , resilient. >> it is not enough to kill the leadership. >> no. they learn. they learn what your tactics are. then they adjust to those , tactics. you have to adjust and be flexible to make a move against them, and here, i think the same thing is happening. i think they are learning. airstrikes can have a certain amount of impact. but if they are adjusting to

that, basically 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's core leadership. three years, and in yemen, it took us one year to develop that kind of it ability, intelligence capability on the ground, so you could identify terrorists. here, it is going to take at least that long to develop that kind of intelligence. >> does this come from cia or special forces? >> it is a combination. i mean, basically a lot of that , is the cia's job to develop

the intelligence and to develop the assets we need to get critical information that you have to have if you're going to target them. >> you are the former director of the cia. has the cia and other intelligence services a part of the national apparatus served the country and the president as they should? you know what the president said. >> i know what the president said. and i know what jim clapper said. the bottom line is there is never enough intelligence. one thing i worried about was being surprise when i was the head of the cia. it only takes one surprise to her this country. that is what happened on 9/11. it happened in iraq. >> but you're in a position to judge whether they did the job well and that was necessary for the president. did they or did they not? >> when i was there during the four years, we had good intelligence that was provided.

about the front, which was the al qaeda affiliate that was developing in syria. >> >> we knew there were extremists that were there. we knew al qaeda was there. and we knew it was very dangerous to have this kind of al qaeda element developing in the chaos of syria because of what the implications would be, not only in syria but against iraq. whether or not they ultimately had the intelligence on isis and what they had, i am not aware of, because i was not there. >> there was even public testimony in some cases. some testified before congress. >> i think they teed up some of the dangers involved with it. i think that part of the problem here was that, you know because , of the chaos in syria, the situation in iraq, frankly, there was not enough attention paid on the broader policy as to

how it could contribute to the breeding of an isis. >> it is the biggest challenge for the u.s. in foreign policy? at this moment? >> no question. i think that is right. i think that -- i think the president has taken the right step. i think it was the right step to form a coalition. it was the right step to conduct these air attacks. i think the challenge here is that it will be a long and sustained effort. it will take time. that is one of the reasons i frankly would like to see the president and leadership in congress be able to pass a resolution that makes very clear -- >> but is it necessary to have a resolution? >> legally, he could probably do it on the authority he has as commander in chief. as to the authority that was given him by the congress, but because we are in a very long and sustained effort against a group called isis, that is going

to take a long time, i really think this country needs to restate our commitment to go after them. >> because you told me on an earlier program that you thought it was a mistake to go to congress with regard to the redline in syria. and the attack he was developing, that the u.s. was developing against damascus. >> i did. i did. i did 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, i think in that situation the , commander-in-chief needs to act quickly. here, because this is going to be a long and sustained war against isis. i think this is a situation where we need to unify the country behind what could be a very long war. >> as you know, casper weinberg then secretary powell

to go to thes idea american people and use all of the force necessary and more, and that would include, probably, combat troops. is america ready for combat troops on the ground in syria? >> i do not think america is ready for that. 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 fours or 150,000 force to invade iraq and syria. or send the 101st airborne in. into those countries. i think we can do this, you know, using the capabilities we have an working with the other coalitions that are part of it to be able to go after them effectively. now does that mean the president , ought to keep the options on the table? yes. >> so you don't see it because it sends a signal to the enemy?

president needs to keep all of his options on the table. i think 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. for the first four years and the time i spent there, i thought he was a strong leader on security issues, including osama bin laden. but in the two years since then i think he has kind of lost his , way. a mixed message, ambivalence to approach these issues and trying to clarify what the role of this country is all about. he has lost his way? >> i think what happened -- the first four years when i was there, as cia director and secretary of defense, he was very strong in supporting our operations. he supported expanding those operations. he supported the bin laden operation. when i was secretary of defense, he supported the development of a defense strategy for the

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

difficult world, the strength of the united states is we say what we intend to do and we do it. we do it with military power, we do it with diplomatic power, we do it with economic power. we have a lot of capability, but when you say it, it is important to stand by it. i think the president drew that line and said -- >> here is the redline if you , make chemical weapons -- >> use these chemical weapons against your people, we will not tolerate that. i think when he drew that line, and there are some people who would question whether or not have drawn that line, but when that line is crossed, you have to take action. >> but the russians proposed a deal that got the chemical weapons out of syria. >> yes, because, frankly -- >> just for the symbol of american leadership, it was important to go ahead. notwithstanding that there was a deal made in the interim to get

the chemical weapons out. >> i think two things. when you draw that line, they crossed that line, they use chemical weapons on their own people and kill innocent men, women, and children, i think the u.s. has to make it clear they cannot do that. i think it would have been important to do that. and, frankly, both the president, vice president, and secretary of state were going in that direction. i think everyone expected them to do that. i'm not sure what made him change his position. i think when he did that, it sent the message to the world that raises questions about the credibility of the united states, and so what he has done , now and going in after isis, saying clearly that we are going to go after them, i think that has gone a long way to repair the damage. >> repair the damage and rewrite is a legacy. >> exactly. >> but there was a moment when he was asked to support the free syrian army. the so-called moderate forces.

he declined to do that. the vice president said he made the right decision. the former deputy director said that, but you say it was a mistake. and if he had made a different decision, isis might not have had the opportunity to grow. where it is today. >> who knows ultimately how it would have ultimately played out, but i think the president today is making the decision to arm and train moderate forces in the opposition in syria. it's the right decision. >> it is more difficult now. >> is the right decision today and it was the right decision to w years ago, because, we were ahead of the game. >> tell us about the president's mind. here is you, secretary clinton's, general petraeus, and the general of the joint chiefs. you are all saying, do this. he says, no. he makes up his own mind. but what else does it say? >> well, i think the president of the united states is the

president of the united states. you present your best case and tell him while it is important. but in the end, the president has to make the final decision, and i think he made the decision based on the concern that when these weapons would go into this kind of chaotic situation where , you have a hundred different elements to the opposition, they might wind up in the wrong hands, and i think that bothered him. >> is a possible he was listening to other people close to him? >> i don't know. >> you would know. was he listening to the national security council? maybe they had a different opinion? was he listening to 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. and then kind of create another situation where we would have to be in a deeper commitment in terms of that part of the world. i think that is what he was

concerned about. >> do you think he is advised as well today as he was during that first term? >> you know, these are good people that are around him. you know, obviously secretary , hagel. secretary kerry. vice president biden is still there. and the intelligence people are all good people. i have to believe they are there and presenting their opinions to the president as much as many of us were. >> come on. tell me. you have no washington and how the players act. you know how washington works. you know how the white house works. is the president getting the same kind of advice he got in his first term? and is it of a different nature now? >> charlie, it is tough for me to be in that room in the national security council. the four know is in years that i sat at the national security council having , secretary clinton there and

secretary gates, having myself there, having others there that , basically were presenting strong advice to the president, good situation, because there was a good give-and-take that takes place. i think it is important -- one of the problems i see in a broader context is the president is not as exposed to all of the views that he should be getting in order to make tough decisions. i think you have to open up those viewpoints to the president of the united states, and i think it is important for him to get broad, experience viewpoints. not just from inside the white house but outside the white house, as well, particularly when you are facing the tough he is facing now. but you have set a couple of interesting things. you said obama's weakness -- too often he relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader.

on occasion he avoids a battle, complains, and mrs. opportunities. sses opportunities. that is an indictment of leadership. >> this is a president i believe can be a strong leader. i have seen him be a strong leader. >> but -- >> i have seen him take strong positions. i have seen him fight for those decisions. i want this president to succeed. i really do. i want the president to succeed because i want the country to succeed. but what i sense now is that in washington generally, the difference i see is that when -- aresident is confronted difficult congress, this is a difficult congress. there are some that want to shut down the government, that went to undermine the programs that serve the people, and if in confronting that kind of opposition, the president is

frustrated by a group of people that simply will not try to do -- >> so therefore, he -- >> i think what he does is, because he knows he can't get anywhere, there is a sense of giving up both by the president and the leadership in the congress, because in many ways, that is what has happened in washington. they have given up on a budget deal for the deficit. they have given up on immigration. they have given up on infrastructure. they have given up on trade legislation. they have given up on energy. a lot of the key issues facing the country. the congress has basically pulled back and said, we are not going to do it. and i think that is dangerous for this country and for its future. you want to know the biggest national -- >> is dangerous if the president gave up. >> do you want to know what the biggest national security threat is in washington? it is the dysfunction in washington.

the fact that the president and 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. >> yes. i think we are looking at a moment in time in the 21st century where the issue is, will we govern the country i -- by leadership or by crisis? if leadership is there and takes takes the risks associated with leadership, then i think we can avoid crisis. if not, we will govern by crisis. that is largely how we are governing today. >> what happens is foreign countries like china and russia whether friend or enemy, looks at us and has questions about how effective we can play a role in the world, which is a leadership role? >> i think that when you look at what is a dangerous world, and this is not just about isis. there are a number of threats -- russia, china, north korea. dealing with iran. it is about dealing with

cyberattacks. it is about dealing with 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 united states going for this 21st century? the american dream? where is this dream that our parents had? where is this dream of america that can exercise the kind of leadership the world needs? those are questions out there. >> what would you do? >> i believe in this leadership and i have been with this for 50 years. because when you look at the american people, and when i looked at the men and women in uniform, who put their lives on

the line for this country i know , there are values out there in which the strength of america really lies. and i think ultimately it is up to the leadership to recognize the american people want them to lead. wanted them to take the risks. want them to assert the kind of leadership -- >> i don't understand what the president could have done with respect to the deadlock in washington. with gridlock in washington, a, that he did not do. other than that you are suggesting he left the battlefield out of frustration. that is what your indictment of him is, that he had the executive power. he had the bully pulpit. he alone had the chance to make it work and he got frustrated and quit. >> let me tell you what i think is going to happen right now regardless of what happens in , the election, we are in for another 2.5 years of stalemate. >> until the next presidential election. >> yes i don't think we can

, afford that. and, frankly, i don't think this president can afford that. what i'm saying, this president has to roll up his sleeves. and yes, he is going to have to , deal with people he may not like. yes he is going to fight battles , he may not like to fight. but the reality is he could by virtue of getting into the ring i think 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. >> yes, yes, that is right, getting in the ring. >> he hasn't been in the ring? >> he has been in the ring but the problem is that he doesn't keep the pressure on the institutions of our democracy to do what they have to do. i mean, look. presidents have faced tough congresses throughout our history. you know bill clinton faced a , tough congress. but he also understood that in

the end, you still have to engage with people. you still have to cut a deal. >> is about the president's personality? his mindset? his experience? is that the reason he is different than bill clinton or lyndon johnson? >> this president is extremely bright and extremely able extremely interested in doing , the right thing. >> you said he is not in the fight. >> but the problem is 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. look, when we passed a budget by bill clinton, the republicans took a walk. so we had to pass it on the democratic side. we established the role. we worked every vote. but ultimately, we were able to win it by one vote in the house

, one vote, and one vote in the senate, the vice president votes. that was because of a tough fight to get it done. that is the kind of dedication to how we should push our democracy. >> ok, but you have not told me why is bill clinton that way and barack obama is not. >> the one thing different between the two is bill clinton loves politics. he loves the engagement, to cut a deal. i think that barack obama as a law professor wants the logic of his position to persuade people. and in washington, logic is not enough. you have to be able to go in and push people in the right direction. >> exercise power. the 13thm lincoln in amendment, he basically had to go to congress, and he had to buy some votes. in order to pass the 13th amendment. >> where were you when bill clinton -- when the president was not doing this?

were you telling him in a meeting? i have been around this time for a long time. i have been in the congress, the omb. >> there was something called sequester. and sequester was this crazy mechanism that congress developed to basically shoot themselves in the head. they basically said if we do not , do the right thing, we will pull the trigger. and they did not do the right thing. suddenly, this drastic cut will go into effect. i went to the president and leadership of congress and said, look, this will damage the country. this will hurt our defense and readiness. it will basically hollow out our capability. it is going to hurt domestic programs that are important. they said, you are right. this is terrible. and i said, ok, what do we do about this? >> both sides said this? >> absolutely. both sides said, you are right. this is going to hurt the country. >> i said, i will put another $100 billion in defense savings

on the table if that will help , you cut a deal. nothing happened. 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. >> yes. here is what you wrote. the budget deal that included automatic spending cuts known as sequestration even though , everyone agreed they were bad policy -- he found himself a lonely figure by lobbying congress and making speeches, saying that this would harm national security. >> look, i have been -- i have been a member of congress. i was elected to congress and served in the congress for 15 years. when you -- when you serve in the congress, your responsibility and the oath you swear is to protect the country. and you don't do things to deliberately hurt the country. by your failure to act.

>> what changed? >> i think there are a lot of things have contributed to this. a lot of people are asking that question about what created the dysfunction that we are seeing today, and i think there are a lot of factors. too much money, redistricting that creates safe seats. a media that engages in soundbites. as opposed to really looking -- >> you are saying this now. >> [laughter] there is a lot of emphasis on the conflict rather than the people that resolve issues. and i think that as a result of all that, there is a sense of not taking the risks you have to take in order to govern, and frankly, leadership is all about , taking risk. it is about sometimes jeopardizing your own political position in order to do what is right for the country. >> some people say the defense budget today is way too low when you look at the challenges we are facing. >> i think what i am scared

about is the uncertainty in washington with regards to the budget. i mean right now, instead of , developing a budget, they have basically kicked the can down the road. they did a continuing resolution until after the election. the likelihood is they will do another continuing resolution after the election. we may be facing the prospect of going into a sequester or shutdown. that instability and uncertainty really is eroding our ability to maintain our national defense the way we should. i would -- 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. so that we know what needs to be cut, but we know there is stability in terms of the budget for the next five years. >> you talked about president obama, president bush 43. there is president clinton. there's also hillary clinton. >> yes.

>> tell me about her, not in terms of whether you like or you support her to be president but in terms of where she stands in all of these qualities we have been talking about. but give me some specifics. >> you know, i dealt a lot with her when she was secretary of state and i was secretary of defense and also cia director, and, you know i found her to be , very strong and steady believing in the strength of , america, believing in the position of the united states in the world and our need to exercise world leadership. we went to arab countries and basically said, they ought to put together a defense system similar to what is going together with the coalition. >> right, right. >> that we ought to put together a defense system to have them work as a group to assist us dealing with the challenges in the middle east. and she was there.

she was in the room, and i was there. we were talking to these arab countries to do exactly that. wherever i have gone with her, i have always found her to be a strong and reliable friend. >> you are a good standing member of the democratic party? >> yes, indeed. today thatomething said some people in the left of your party have apprehension about secretary clinton. they said she is too much of a hawk, too close to wall street. and that her instincts are to o centrist. do you agree? she is all those things? hawkish? close to wall street? she represented new york, by the way. >> she is strong on national defense. national security. like her husband, she wants to, in terms of the economy, develop a broad-based economy where wall street has to play a role in

terms of being able to strengthen our economy. you know, i want the ability of a president to reach out to the country in many ways, to bring this country together. i think we are too divided right now. >> the country. >> i think the country is -- >> divided over? >> i think we are divided politically and in terms of our views. what is the direction? >> and our role in the world. >> our role in the world. i think there's a lot of division. and i think what we have to bring the country together. century, inhe 21st the year 2014, we face the decision of going in one of two directions. i think we can be a country that has a strong economic recovery and in agile defense for the world. that develops energy independence, that develops the skills we need for our children in the future. i think we have the potential to

be that kind of america for the future. but i also think we can be an america in decline. if we allow the kind of crisis by crisis dysfunction we see in washington to prevail. so we have got a fundamental decision to make in this country as to what direction we want to take for the future. ♪

♪ >> there are challenges of we -- that we did not have in the past, china, the size of its economy, will exceed that of the american economy soon. you have got russia. >> yes. >> which seems to be of a different attitude today than at might have been when there was talk of détente or cooperation. or resetting and all of that. the president made the decision to pivot to china. did you agree with that situation customer >> yes, we recommended it. >> is that the future? >> because that is the future in terms of countries developing their economies.

an area where there is a tremendous potential for trade and for prosperity, and where i think our interests are in developing a strong security presence in the pacific to work with the countries to make sure -- >> you where the head of the cia, and you still talk to people who know things. what do you make of this new president of china? xi jinping? he seems to be different and on a mission for china. >> yes. >> in part, economic. part, playing a role in the region for sure. >> there is no question in my mind. you know, i really -- i really found him to be an interesting individual. because, you know normally when , i used to meet with the chinese, they used to operate

off of talking points. the talking points included taiwan. the uyghurs. this group. >> right. >> and they are concerned about other issues. and so you could not get through , anything else but the talking points. xi basically engaged in a conversation in which he said, why, for example, are you rebalancing to the pacific? and doing that? and i said, because what we are a pacific in, we are power, you are a pacific power, and i think you want peace and prosperity. we face common threats from north korea and other areas. we can work together with the countries in south east asia to produce prosperity for the future. and he agreed with that, but he was willing to ask the right questions. he was willing to engage. i talked about ciber, the cyber

world and the concern about cyberattacks. he said, we ought to create a dialogue to talk through the issues. so i see him as somebody who obviously wants to strengthen china but someone who also wants to engage with the united states 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 strategy than we do? >> china is interested in doing what is important for china. i think if you read henry kissinger, he says, this is about china. this is about their kingdom. and that is what they focus on. and so -- >> that is what you expect from a leadership. >> but it is important to understand where they are coming from. >> right. >> that is the focus they have. they want to improve their economy, develop the resources in their economy that 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, in fact, check them when they overstep the bounds? i think we have to. for example their claims to , territory in the south china, -- the south china sea the fact , that they are trying to assert themselves in violation of international rules, i think we have to say to them that is wrong. and find better ways to do with that. but it is important to have communication. >> and russia, ukraine? >> i think russia, the danger we are facing now is almost a renewal of the cold war. you think it is, in part, because they saw the president as weak? and think that putin, everybody who has dealt with putin, his goal is to try to

make very certain that russia again extends its influence in over the former countries that were the soviet union. that is his goal, to divide east from west and make that assertion, and i think what he did in the ukraine is part of his read that the u.s. would not take action. >> and so how does the united states convince them otherwise? >> i think you have to make very clear to him -- and when >> how do you do that? >> it is not just sanctions, that sanctions are important. it is not just sanctions. i think, frankly, we should be providing aid to the ukrainians. i think we should be providing military aid to the ukrainians. >> by sending them tanks? >> it is important for us to strengthen nato. we need to make rush understand that they will have to pay a

price. and strengthen the nato presence. russia. thirdly, frankly i would , resurrect the whole issue of missile defense. we had been engaged in negotiations with them on missile defense. but if they are going to behave the way they are now in charging into the ukraine, i think we have to resurrect the idea and start talking to countries about the prospect of missile defense, and lastly, we have to develop over the long-term another source of energy for those countries in europe and the former soviet union. we are not really selling energy abroad as fast as we should. >> we will be the largest energy supplier in the world. >> that is right, and we should make use of that to give them another source of energy. >> iran. do you think there will be a deal? >> i would like to hope and pray there will be a deal.

>> what does your analysis tell you? i mean, you talk. you know how far apart they are. you know what they are demanding. >> i do. and i have always had concerns about iran and their intentions around the world. because, very frankly, i have force, their secret police -- >> there was a conversation with the general. >> i would love to have the opportunity to talk with him, because they have, in essence spread terrorism through five , continents trying to create instability. so they are a dangerous customer to deal with, and i think we have to understand that there is no way we should allow them to develop their nuclear capability. and certainly to not develop -- >> what does that mean? >> the president took the right step in getting the international community to apply

sanctions against iran. these are very tough sanctions, and i think they help bring them to the table. think it is very important now that we are at the table to make very clear that we are not going to allow them to have the ability to develop and enrich uranium. >> at what point, if you were secretary of defense if you were , cia director, would you see to -- say to the president, we have to strike their nuclear facilities now? when would you advise the president to do that? >> well, we had a lot of that debate in the time i was there. as cia director as secretary of defense. and i think it was very clear to me that if the iranians made the decision that they were going 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 is right. >> a strike against them. >> that is right. >> that suggests they have not made the decision. as long as they are negotiating, you assume they have not made the decision. >> the intelligence, at least when i left, was that they had not made that decision. at that point in time. >> when would israel say, we cannot wait for the u.s.? we think they have already made that decision. >> when i was secretary of defense, it actually got to the point where we thought they had made the decision. they really felt it was important to strike iran now and strike their nuclear capability. because i think they were concerned about the so-called fast track. >> right. >> in which when they made the decision that they could produce , it within a short time. and they just 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. >> you need us to do that. >> the way we can, and recognizing that, it may be believing we would act if they in fact made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon, i think they were willing to give us room. whether they are going to do that now, i don't know. >> so you have written this book, "worthy fights." was it hard work? >> it is hard work because you want to be able to make sure it is accurate and you have the stuff. particularly, you know the stuff , from my background, when i was in congress. civil rights, etc., i mean those , are things i had a good feel for. but when you are dealing with the cia stuff, and when you're dealing with the defense stuff, you want to make sure that is accurate.

we had to make sure the cia and the defense department signed off on that. >> at the same time, the president did not sign off on it. [laughter] >> although we did send him a copy. >> i am sure you did. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good to see you. the book is called, "worthy fights." thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪ from pier three in san francisco >> welcome to "bloomberg west." for emily johnson in chang. first, let's check your bloomberg top headlines. duncan, the first ebola patient to die in the united states will be cremated. ,duncan died in a dallas hospital, and the bodies of the deceased remain extremely inio