tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg January 22, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
10:00 pm
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose". charlie: we began with politics. now for the latest on the 2016 presidential race sarah palin is , back and campaigning for donald trump. one of the developments that has come out in the run-up to the iowa caucuses. they are managing editors of bloomberg politics and the cohosts of "with all due respect." they are at laconia, new hampshire at a café. we are pleased to have them
10:01 pm
joining us. what is the name of the café? >> the water street café. it is lovely. charlie: i wish i was there. tell me where hillary clinton stands today in new hampshire and what she can do to change that dynamic? >> she is well behind. there is a pull out this week that shows her 30 behind. nobody thinks that's where she is. iowa has gotten worse for her and she has to do three things at once. she has to stop sanders' momentum. she needs to have a closing argument that has a positive and negative message. her husband was here, best i have seen in a long time. it wasn't vintage clinton 1992, but it was very strong. she is in trouble in these two states, and as we have discussed before if she loses either numerically or in terms of perception, iowa and new hampshire, there is not a
10:02 pm
political analyst in the world who can tell you just how hard that will be for her going forward but it will be hard. , charlie: that seems to go against what i have read before that she has built a firewall in , the south starting with south carolina. isthe problem is that that static analysis. she is stronger right now today with african-american voters and hispanic voters by far than bernie sanders. as we learned in 2008, when barack obama won the iowa caucus , the calculation changed and african-american voters who were split evenly between him and secretary clinton looked at him in a different way. if bernie sanders wins the iowa caucus and the new hampshire primary, hispanic and african-american voters will look at him a new. he will get a second look and the dynamics of the races will change in unpredictable ways. >> a firewall cannot withstand a huge raging fire in every case.
10:03 pm
even if she loses in both, she is still the front runner and quite substantially, but it changes the race again in ways none of us can currently describe the dimensions of. charlie: does it change the race so that someone else might decide to get in? >> that is certainly possible, charlie. no doubt that there will be a panic, a full-scale panic. there is already something of a panic in the democratic establishment given the way that secretary clinton has been slipping in these last couple of weeks, but there will be a full scale, for tang-alarm that will go on if she loses the first two , and there will be people who will start asking questions about john kerry, joe biden, al gore, elizabeth warren. those names will be mentioned if she loses the first two. you will hear a lot of discussion about another person getting into this race if that were to occur. charlie: does the reality of iowa and new hampshire, is it because of bernie sanders or is it because of hillary clinton, i.e. is she simply having a bad
10:04 pm
candidate or is bernie sanders having tapped into something that simply is growing and having its own momentum? >> stunned to hear, i think it is a little bit of both. he is leading a movement. he has energy. he has a clear message. he is talking today and he will , through iowa about the issues in the same way that he did when he started his campaign. >> and for his whole career. >> the clintons get tougher coverage than anyone else in american politics. bernie sanders has become the darling of his supporters but many people in the media and as pundit,iend and noted haley barbour, former governor of mississippi, good gets better, bad gets worse. she needs to start winning some days. she needs to have some good news , because she has has got momentum now. the ability that she has to stop his momentum, turn things around and rebuild is diminishing as he , wins one day after another. >> charlie, i just add to that.
10:05 pm
everything mark said is right, but you are a big fan, we all are of the narrative. if you look right now at the two closing argument ads that the campaigns have put out, yesterday, secretary clinton one minute long that stress her experience, readiness for the presidency her time in the , situation room when president obama decided to take out osama bin laden and bernie sanders , putting out a one minute ad, his closing argument which has no policy, no credentials. it is an inspirational at set to simon and garfunkel's "america" with faces of his supporters and inspiring images. it is 2008 all over again. it is her eight years ago ready from day one, ready to be commander-in-chief, i am tough enough, strong enough, bernie sanders aspiration, hope, , change. if you look at the electorate they were ready for barack they were ready for barack obama's message. , the electorate eight years
10:06 pm
later if anything is more primed for the message of hope and change that bernie sanders is delivering and less amenable to an establishment message like hers. charlie: let me turn quickly to the republicans. first in iowa, where does that stand? is ted cruz going to win? >> a new poll shows trap with the lead, and most of the recent polling has showing the race tight or trump during better and ted cruz doing worse. the tail between the two of them will be hard-fought over the next weeks now that you see that trump is engaging with ted cruz , ted cruz is engaging back and it is impossible to see who is getting the better of the exchanges, but i will say that trump has a strong message that he is driving hard. the fact that the governor of iowa has now made it clear that he does not ted cruz to win and sarah palin will help donald trump in iowa. he is planning a lot of business
10:07 pm
-- visits. if i had to bet today, i would bet on trump. charlie: bob dole said something, too. >> dole said if he had to choose between trump and ted cruz he would take trump and that was taken as a sign that some establish and terry nsa -- establish and terry nsa -- unhappy with the nominee that they would accept trump. right now as mark said, donald trump is driving his same message. ted cruz is responding to donald trump and trying to find ways to take donald trump down. that is something ted cruz has not done for months. you see ted cruz attacking trump as too much of an establishment terry and, and saying he is a closet liberal. trump now is befuddled a little ted cruz is befuddled a
10:08 pm
little bit the way a lot of other candidates are. in a way that others have been by trump. i think trump has the whip hand in that battle between him and ted cruz. charlie: this is the reason that everything i know i learned from you. thank you so much, mark. thank you so much, john. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
10:11 pm
correspondent for cbs news covering both the pentagon and the state department. he began reporting for the network in 1983. since then he has covered 11 , secretaries of defense. he has one four emmys and two dupont awards. the dupont committee wrote that the role of a journalist, to measure what we are being told against what we find out. i am pleased to have david martin. what is good about your beat as a journalist? david: to me it is the freedom i have. i can walk cost anywhere in the pentagon. i think it is the only ministry of defense in the world that allows reporters to do that. charlie: it is a big building. it is a big building, and i can cruise around looking for stories. and then you can go out to all
10:12 pm
bases and the places are the troops are deployed. you compare that with some of the other beats in washington. the state department, where you have to have an appointment to get out of the pressroom. and the white house is famous for being behind the rope line all your life. it is -- it gives you the freedom to be a reporter and the subject matter. you're playing for all the marbles. politics you win or lose. , charlie: has it changed since you have been there? >> yes. charlie: the nature of warfare has clearly changed. how else has it changed. david: the biggest one you can see is the role of women. but you know the military is a reflection of what is going on in society. so the role of women over the last 30 years has been changing in society. it used to be that if you were
10:13 pm
walking around the pentagon and you saw a woman with stars on her shoulders you would do a , double take. and now female admirals and generals are common sight. there is a woman who is the number two officer in the navy , and i would bet that before president obama leaves office, he will nominate a woman to either be the head of one of the services or one of the major combatant commanders. charlie: secretaries of defense, who is your first? this gives it away, harold brown who remains the , smartest man i have ever encountered in my life. charlie: how was it manifested? david: he would get these huge briefing books and the staff would send them in and he would send them back with a note saying the thickness of the
10:14 pm
armor on the soviet t-72 tank had been misstated. he had this encyclopedic knowledge. he could argue the design of them on nuclear weapons with edward teller. he knew more than any man alive about defense. ,e will tell you this as well he was not a particularly successful secretary of defense. charlie: why is that? david: jimmy carter had other priorities. it is one of the first lessons i learned about the military which , is the president really is the commander-in-chief. it does not matter all that much who the secretary of defense is or how much he knows as long as he has a good relationship with the commander-in-chief. charlie: that is also true about secretary of state, too. james baker had a great relationship with george bush. and kissinger had a good
10:15 pm
relationship with nixon. those that did not have a good relationship. you never knew whether they were speaking from a position of power or knowledge. william rogers is a perfect example. thing isan interesting well about how the commander-in-chief use the pentagon. how does the pentagon today feel that barack obama views them, what is the dynamic of the relationship? david: there was some bad blood back during the debate over whether they were going to surge troops into afghanistan. the white house felt that the pentagon was leading them down the trail to another vietnam-like quagmire.
10:16 pm
on the pentagon side of the river, all the layers had changed since then, but it was still basically the same people at the white house. i think that the white house is always wary of the pentagon and what it is proposing. look, the pentagon is not looking to get involved in any more wars either. charlie: that is the interesting thing, david. people say that generals hate war more than anybody. david: it is true. -- because they have a much more realistic understanding of what is going to happen even if they win. all the unintended consequences , and those are people they have trained with you are going to end up getting shot. charlie: dick cheney was bush 41's secretary of defense. david: yeah. charlie: colin powell was chairman of the joint chiefs. david: yeah.
10:17 pm
brent scowcroft had a great line about vice president dick cheney is not the dick cheney i know. i could say the exact same thing. charlie: how is he different? he might say that 9/11 changed him. david: he did and it became never again. all the business about the 10% solution. if a plot has a tempers a chance of being a plot, then act on it as if it were a real plot. the other thing is that secretary of defense is not a political job so he had to put , that whole side of him away. totally thought judicious the entire time he was secretary of defense. he has what remains for me one of the greatest one-liners, after the first gulf war when it
10:18 pm
looked like saddam hussein might be overthrown and so everybody was asking him, is saddam hussein going to fall? and he said, saddam hussein's days are numbered and he nailed it. he just took a couple thousand more days. charlie: i never understood from george bush 41, date cheney, and colin powell -- the decision that was so controversial was whether, it was not whether they should go to baghdad. it was whether they should extend the war for several more days, wasn't it? david: they stopped it for what might be a fairly trivial reason. 100 hours. that is how long the ground war was. it sounded so neat and tidy. you remember those pictures from
10:19 pm
the so-called highway of death. it was a slaughter. charlie: powell called it a turkey shoot. david: it was the right thing to do. i have been reading the new biography of george h.w. bush. charlie: john mitchum's book. david: yeah. it talks in there about how depressed the president was after the victory because saddam hussein was still in power. he actually compared to leaving hitler in power at the end of world war ii. he was very disappointed. charlie: how has warfare changed? it seems so technology-based now. i watched you go to qatar. where we have a big military base, and they launch of the attacks on isis, airstrikes in terms of syria and iraq. it is so -- it is all about
10:20 pm
computers and -- david: you can get the feeling it is a videogame. but it ain't. if you go to the physical therapy rooms at walter reed and balboa naval hospital you know , it is not a videogame. what really happened in terms of warfare was the role of space. the u.s. started using space before any other country for military purposes. charlie: how did we do that? david: putting up gps satellites, and those are the basis for all these precision guided strikes you see. we never see the classified pictures that satellites take, but they are using space to get greater and greater visibility in understanding what the target is. the downside of that is that everybody has been watching the
10:21 pm
the russians and chinese, and they know how much the u.s. military depends on space and they know that if you take out american satellites, you will cripple american military power. charlie: so they are trying to do it? david: they are trying to develop the means to do it. charlie: do we have the capacity to take out their satellites? david: we tested a anti-satellite weapon back in the 1980's. personally, i could not tell you a program that does that because it is so highly classified. i have to believe that we can and we can certainly jam their and we can certainly jam their satellites. charlie: how much can you -- you are only given the information as a sense to give you knowledge and under some pledge will not broadcast. david: there are two kinds --
10:22 pm
two categories of information. one is a technical capability. most of the time that is an easy call because it is so far down in the weeds that a national audience would not be interested in it. the other biggie is upcoming military operations. we usually know when there's going to be a raid into iraq, syria. we do not report it. it is a pretty easy rule of thumb. you do not report anything that would get somebody killed. charlie: or put them in danger? yeah. charlie: back to obama. is a difference because of -- carter. how was it with leavitt secretaries -- previous
10:23 pm
secretaries? chuck hagel. did not hit hagel it off with the white house. you do not deal with the president most of the time. you deal with the national security advisor. it just did not work out. ash carter is interesting. here is a guy whose whole resume is as a technocrat. but he has turned into a really aggressive war fighter. since he became secretary of defense, the campaign against isis has really ramped up. has become secretary, we have put special forces teams into syria and put commandos into iraq to conduct raids and , most importantly they have loosened up their restrictions with youru can hit airstrikes. there used to be a standard of
10:24 pm
zero civilian casualties and now they are willing to accept civilian casualties. charlie: if the target is rich? david: yeah. a perfect example is they started hitting these cash collection sites. so they blow up warehouses full uses tomoney which isis pay its fighters. that is a much more lucrative than takingerally, out a machine gun site. when we were in qatar, talking with the b-1 crew, a big huge bomber that was built to drop nuclear weapons on the soviet union. that b-1 was going after a single sniper that had been spotted on a rooftop. if that's not a mismatch of power. charlie: that would seem like overkill to me. you would think that would be a role for a drone. david: it was the b-1 that was
10:25 pm
on hand. charlie: did they get him? they did not get him, but they found the tunnel that he went into and they collapsed the tunnel. charlie: here's interesting thing i've read in the last 48 hours. the isis leadership in syria their activities are in , someplace that there would be so much collateral damage, they accused hamas of this, schools and hospitals in places like that. help me if you can about this. they believe that the isis leadership in order to prevent themselves from being attacked have placed themselves -- >> they have embedded themselves in the civilian population. they read the american press and they know how worked up everybody gets about civilian casualties. they think that is a a safe way of doing it. i heard a number just the other
10:26 pm
day, that they have killed 92 senior or mid-level isis leaders, almost all of them with drone strikes. charlie: right. the president is a huge proponent of drone strikes. right? and special forces? someone says he likes that kind of warfare that appeals to him. david: it has allowed him to put boots on the ground without saying he is putting boots on the ground. he defines boots on the ground as the battalion, the brigade, the combat formation, special operations forces can be deployed without violating his fundamental tenet that we are not going to become involved in another ground war in some far-off country. charlie: there may not be an answer to this, but i am thinking about the bigger
10:27 pm
question, is the military, they used to say generals are always fighting the last war. is that still true in your judgment? david: they wish they were fighting some super war against another superpower. charlie: that was easier. david: that is much easier than what they are doing. charlie: for other reasons you know where the enemy is. david: you do. charlie: that is coming from a nationstate. and you know that a nationstate will take more precautions because it does not want to suffer the same kind of response. david: when you are fighting another superpower, the enemy is easy to find, but hard to kill. when we are fighting these kinds of wars, the enemy is easy to kill but hard to find. , charlie: is there an obama doctrine? after seven years? david: i think you can see it. it is a preference for special operations forces, not always to
10:28 pm
carry out raids and violent operations, but also to train the local forces. there are special forces all over africa now. every time there is a terrorist attack in some african country you have not thought of in 10 years, you find out that there is a small american military detachment there working with that country. it is trying to build up with a -- build up what they call partner capacity. charlie: what is the relationship between the chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense? david: in this particular case, carter picked joe dunford. charlie: does joe dunford report to him or the president? david: he reports to the president.
10:29 pm
he is the president's principle military advisor, but he goes through the secretary of defense. charlie: in terms of execution? david: no, in terms of what he's telling them. he would say as he has on the issue of women in the military, joe dunford was commandant of the marine corps when the marines objected and asked for an exemption for opening up all the combat roles to women. and now he is chairman and he has been ordered to do it not just for the marine corps, but for all the services. he disagrees. but he salutes and he does it. charlie: the policy today is that women can serve in all combat roles. david: right. all combat. you can be a navy seal. charlie: are there any? david: no.
10:30 pm
they have not got the training figured out yet, so no one has we know we have women who have gone through ranger school, which is the army. charlie: that was a great story. david: those women are -- charlie: i know. as tough as anybody as you have seen. david: one of them was a 37-year-old mother of two. that is tough. dick meadows. he is no longer alive. he died of leukemia, i think it was. it is just a classic story. born in a dirt floor shack in appalachia and then became one of the most famous soldiers in the army's history. charlie: what did he do?
10:31 pm
david: 10 missions behind the lines in vietnam to try to rescue pow's, calling in airstrikes on trucks. after he retired, he became a civilian advisor to the delta force. his first mission was the attempt to rescue the hostages -- he was sent in ahead of the mission as undercover. he was the guy who would do reconnaissance at the embassy. these delta guys aren't going to go unless one of their own sets eyes on the target. he was doing the reconnaissance of the embassy.
10:32 pm
he had to rent the trucks that would go out to the desert and pick them up after they landed from being flown in and drive them into the embassy. he was out there in the desert when the crash that ended that mission happened. and then, so they pulled out. he had to make his own way out with everybody in iran screaming death to americans. charlie: did you know him? david: i traveled around the country with him for about a week after the failed rescue mission. we were going around, and he was introducing me to people he had met during his career. he took me to the firing range where delta was shooting to show me how much live ammunition they used. we went to arizona and spent
10:33 pm
some time with the cia station chief in laos, from the vietnam era. charlie: do you understand where courage comes from? and bravery? david: well, if you ask any soldier who has received a medal of honor where they got the courage to do what they did, every one of them will say it was the training. the training. you just fall back on what you know. i mean, a lot of what they do a rational person would not do. that is how you train. you fall back on it. i don't think that explains why you would go looking for danger the way somebody like dick meadows did. charlie: that was something inside of him. david: he ran toward the sound
10:34 pm
of the guns. in one case, he threw away his gun and killed a guy with his knife. he was a warrior, a natural born warrior. charlie: did you do a film piece about him? david: they should. we put him on the cover of "newsweek." there is a huge statue of him down at fort bragg. he is a household name in the army. charlie: stan mcchrystal. somebody i like and admire and thought should never had had to resign. david: stan mcchrystal made a difference. he did basically the impossible. he got the most secretive agencies in the united states government, delta, seals, cia,
10:35 pm
to work together and share their information and share their best people. that is the operation he was running in iraq which took down al qaeda in iraq and killed zarqawi. charlie: the present head of isis was his number two. david: the difference is when mcchrystal was in iraq, they were conducting multiple raids, getting cell phones and laptops, tons of intelligence. now with an airstrike, you don't get intelligence. charlie: it is often said, people in afghanistan have told me, he was the one guy, the president of afghanistan would
10:36 pm
listen to. karzai trusted stan mcchrystal. david: i heard, i don't know if this is true, they are making a movie based on that "rolling stone" article, the runaway general. if that is how he is remembered, because there is a movie of it, that will be unfair. charlie: absolutely. not only unfair, bob gates told me that he did not know what was going to happen. did not know. when mcchrystal went to see the president. david: he was surprised when the president said -- charlie: bob gates also told me
10:37 pm
when he went to see petraeus in afghanistan to tell him he was not going to be chairman of the joint chiefs, which he wanted, he raised the question of the cia. gates said you won't believe. he is ok not being chairman of the joint chiefs. this was a time, and you know this better than i do, a paramilitary role. david: i remember he said i'm not being cast aside. i asked for this job. charlie: so when you cover the pentagon, tell me what you think and we will close with this, how do they see the world? how do they assign risk and priority?
10:38 pm
david: well, they have endless metrics to measure all this. i don't know if you have ever sat in on a classified briefing, you could not disclose a single secret because it goes by so fast and the charts are unreadable. that is how they build their worldview. levels of violence here, demographic trends, china, russia. obviously they look at the military operations of potential adversaries, which are russia and china. charlie: they know what china is doing. they know what russia is doing in ukraine and is prepared to do and how smart to the russian military may have become. david: they have their judgment about it. they may not know. particularly with the chinese,
10:39 pm
you don't know what you don't know. they are very secretive. charlie: here is what is interesting, how much of your attention as chief of national security correspondent for cbs news is making sure that you are up to date and covered and informed as you can be about cyber security? david: cyber security is a blackhole. it is a blackhole to me and to everybody that does not have all of these security clearances. i recently did an interview with the former nsa director, who has written a book. he says the cyber world is way over classified. until they start declassifying some of that stuff, people are not going to believe these
10:40 pm
warnings about a cyber 9/11. they are not going to know what the u.s. could do to defended -- to defend this country against a cyber attack, and what the u.s. could do to retaliate. the truth is that the u.s. has been stockpiling cyber weapons. obviously -- charlie: is there no doubt if you look at technology, and the quality of the military, and you look at the weapons of warfare, the u.s. is far ahead of everybody?
10:41 pm
david: the u.s. is far ahead. we are number one. the really is no number two right now. but china really is on the rise. in particular, the space program and their long-range ballistic missiles. we've got this navy which is based on aircraft carriers. forward projection. if the chinese can pick off the aircraft carriers, that is a problem. our biggest new warplane program is the f-35, which is a tactical fighter. you are talking about fighting an enemy across a vast ocean.
10:42 pm
the u.s. has vulnerabilities when it comes to china. everybody's best bet is they are so economically interdependent, nobody would want to -- charlie: david, a pleasure. thank you so much. much to talk about in our next encounter. david martin, chief national security correspondent at cbs news. former newsweek correspondent. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
10:45 pm
charlie: robert gates is here. his career spans five decades and eight presidency. -- presidencies. he joined the cia during the cold war and became the director on the eve of the soviet union's collapse. until 2006, he was president of texas university. he left that to oversee two wars as secretary of defense, making him the first defense to serve administrations of both parties. he brings all of that experience to bear in a new book called "a passion for leadership." i'm pleased to have robert gates back at this table. welcome. i want to talk about leadership. define it for me. mr. gates: i tried to differentiate between being a leader and a manager. managers are important.
10:46 pm
they have specific skills, human relations, so on. we need good managers. leaders are people who lead the way into the future. who point out the direction an organization ought to go and then develops the strategies for moving the country, or the institution in that direction. one of the points i tried to make the book is that there are leaders at every level. you can be a middle manager in a private company, or in a government office.
10:47 pm
you can be on a school board, you can be a mayor. you can be the head of your church administrative board. if you are in charge, the question is, can you make the organization, can you lead people forward to make the organization better? to help serve people better. you can do that at any level. the qualities of leadership are pretty much the same. it is a question of vision, of being able to put together a plan and execute that plan. it is transparency. it is treating people with respect and dignity. it is being willing to delegate authority to people to get the job done and holding them accountable. these characteristics apply at every level of leadership. a leader is -- harry truman
10:48 pm
every great achievement is the result of a flaming heart. it leadership is about an internal fire, a passion to make any organization better. to better serve the people who belong to it and serve the people it is supposed to serve. charlie: fair to say you can be a great leader and not a good manager? mr. gates: yes. in some respects, that would be true of several great presidents. president reagan was a great leader, but he did not take day to day responsibility for managing the government. he delegated that to his cabinet and his advisers. you can be a great leader without being a good manager. more often than not, in most organizations, you need to do both. charlie: lyndon johnson was on the other side.
10:49 pm
mr. gates: the other side of the coin is somebody who may be a great leader, but is a micromanager. and who tries, we used to refer to people like that at the cia as people who would come around all the time and pull us up by the roots to see if we were growing. the problem is it is very tough. the beauty about delegating and holding people accountable is you give younger people experience in leadership. you allow them to develop their own skills, with a safety net. because they are working for
10:50 pm
somebody else and so they can develop their own leadership style. charlie: you have a sense some of the great presidents have had leadership ability, but also temperament. mr. gates: temperament is very important in a leader. i write about this. i have a chapter on personal characteristics, including being willing to trust subordinates. it is also about treating people with respect and dignity. i write you can be the most demanding boss in the world and still treat people with dignity and respect. the best example of that among the presidents i worked for was george h.w. bush, who treated the maintenance staff at the white house with the same courtesy he treated cabinet officers and leaders and so on. he was always reaching out to people and trying to make them feel good about what they were doing. one characteristic is helping people understand why they are important to an organization. and giving them a sense of pride.
10:51 pm
charlie: much of this is innate skills versus learned skills. mr. gates: leadership is more about the heart than the head. you can teach somebody to be a manager. it is hard to teach somebody to be a leader. if you don't care about people, if you can't empathize with people, if you don't like people, if you don't have a sense of vision and passion about what you are doing, it is very hard to be a leader. where do you go to school to learn about fairness and dedication to a greater cause? and good cheer and being able to reach out to people? there are some techniques of leadership that can be taught, but fundamentally, as a person, if you don't like and respect other people, it's very tough to be an effective leader.
10:52 pm
charlie: you wrote this book because you believe big institutions are not being led well and are not making the contribution they should to american society. mr. gates: i wrote the book because i believe, i'm also the national president of the boy scouts, and i've always believed it could be better. all organizations can be better at the local level, whether a nonprofit, a charity, church, whatever, they can be improved and be made more efficient. and so the need, my worry is big institutions, particularly at the national level, when they don't function well, breeds cynicism about the fact whether government can do anything right.
10:53 pm
and so i think -- and they affect our daily lives. it's important to get a right and make these organizations serve better. a perfect example at the national level is the veterans affairs department. a current example at the local level is what is going on in flint, michigan. what failures of leadership led to the water problem they are having? who should be held accountable? charlie: how do you hold leaders accountable when they have failed? mr. gates: one of the things that surprises people, people
10:54 pm
lose their jobs in washington, d.c. on the time for personal misbehavior. it's pretty unheard of because they did not do a good job. i have fired a number of people in the department of defense because they didn't do their jobs well. i fired the secretary of the army because he did not take the problems we had with wounded warriors, their treatment, at walter reed, seriously enough. accountability is a good piece of leadership. charlie: you quote napoleon when you say never mistake, he said, for malice that which is explained by stupidity or incompetence. i agree with that. [laughter] mr. gates: all kinds of conspiracy theories and every -- and everything else. sometimes people are dumb or they make dumb decisions. charlie: they don't pay attention. all those kinds of things. people don't really intend to do badly. mr. gates: one of the points in the book, people who are in these organizations, and it does not matter at the local level or state, national, in the private sector, whatever, they need to know what the expectations are and that they will be held accountable. they want to be proud of the organization they work for. that is a reform leader's
10:55 pm
greatest asset. when he or she comes into a level, a community, in a bigger environment, to persuade people what they do is important and to make them proud of it and to seek their advice in terms of making the organization better. transparency in leadership is important. being open and honest about what is wrong and what you are going to try to do. getting their input. listening to them. the greatest presidents surrounded themselves with others who were smarter than they were and listened to them and integrated their views with the president's own instincts and experience.
10:56 pm
11:00 pm
emily: you are watching bloomberg west, let's get a start with your first word in news. iraqi's prime minister says there appears to be no political motivation behind the recent objection of three americans in baghdad. speaking at the world economic switzerland, he says the men were likely taken by criminal gangs. so far no ransom demands have been made. the financial times is reporting russian president vladimir putin asked bashar al-assad to step down. putin reportedly sent the head of military intelligence to deliver the message.
77 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
Bloomberg TV Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on