my name is karen. thank you for joining us here at the center on national security. we are delighted to be bringing you this afternoon's conversation. with me today is award-winning author, journalist, documentary maker. his new book is the spymaster's how the cia director shaped the future and we are going to talk about this book today but first i want to say welcome and thank you for joining us. >> it's a pleasure to be here thanks for having me. so this is a wonderful read. when i started it i was like this is going to be too much information i won't be able to take it in but it's fantastic. it's based on your own knowledge and research over 70 interviews and among those the directors of the cia except for the current ones and it's not so much about

the cia directors of their relationshitherelationship to te and the president would you agree with that? >> thanks for the kind words about the book because what i try to do may be above all else is humanize these directors. i was lucky because as a cast of characters we never could have trumped up the quintessential director bob gates described as a james bond character with a cigarette in one hand and a martini in the other who could walk into the oval office and tell lbj that the domino theory was flawed and then going forward to bill colby.

then you've got bill casey and an amazing cast of characters all the way up to the first woman to run the cia but you're right the book focuses a lot on that relationship between the president and the cia director. it's almost impossible balancing act for a cia director because he or she on the one hand has to tell the person hard truths while also keeping the president's ear. that is a tough challenge even in the best of times and in the current times it is practically mission impossible. >> i don't know if you saw the comey film over the weekend but it's one of the things that becomes clear how hard that particular relationship is generally and how much harder it was under trump so going down that line a little bit, who had

the worst relationship? and i read the book so i think i know what you're going to say, and then who had the best. >> jim woolsey would have to have the worst relationship. he is a fascinating character to me, brilliant guy. as we all know on a ideological spectrum, he was well over to the right bu the love to joke at the fact he was president of yale students for mccarthy and 68 and hosted not for the reasons mccarthy did but he thought it was winnable and we were not doing enough anyway. he becomes cia director about bill clinton and woolsey were like oil and water as one source put it to me. clinton just didn't like him

after the first briefing which went on and on evidently at some length. woolsey left, bill clinton turned to one of the advisors and said i never want to see that man again and almost never did. he had literally one meeting with the president and at one point there was a freak accident on the south lawn of the white house, a small plane crashed and killed the pilot. afterwards woolsey said to the press that was me trying to get an appointment with bill clinton. so it wasn't a very productive relationship. and he met his demise over the altar james scandal. he met that case in the most serious mold since kim filby probably in intelligence

history. it happened on his watch and it frankly ended his tenure. >> and what about the best relationship? >> there would be a number of contenders for that probably. i would say bob gates and george w. bush had a good relationship. leon panetta and barack obama had a good relationship, john brennan and barack obama. sort of a spoiler alert for those of you know i wrote another book called the gatekeepers about the white house chief of staff. some of the attributes that make a great white house chief of staff also served cia directors and leon panetta was the gold

standard. there were certainly other great chiefs and cia director but panetta was up there with the best and that is because it had a lohasa lot to do with the fact panetta when he became the director he was 70-years-old, he'd been around the block, he served in congress and was comfortable in the corridors of power. he knew the white house and could walk into the oval office, close the door and tell barack obama what he didn't want to hear. that is essential in both jobs. ...

>> and then to all the stations that panetta waited about half an hour and sent

out another message to all the stations saying disregard the previous message. that this is not a fair fight. and to know exactly who had their back on this one. not only barack obama but when vice president joe biden who is the you on this one. and then to adjudicate this and then to say and then biden said yes and then knew he was a dead man walking. >> this isn't just about the cia director and the president with foreign policy and behind the scenes and with that foreign-policy from decades.

a number of those things and with the killing of bin laden but there was one incident that the audience doesn't know that much about and that is and then i'm so embarrassed. >> don't be embarrassed because a lot of people don't know what and in fact the first half of the story i tell in the work has ever been recorded before. it is an absolutely believable story now last for decades.

it was far and away the most wanted terrorist in the middle east by the cia and mossad all the way back to the worst stay in cia history which is the plumbing of the beirut embassy which killed so many cia officers and other americans at the time. subsequently this was probably an operation and that was the beginning. it was a little time and from that day forward having israeli blood on his hand than anyone it was the operational genius. the operational chief because he is so elusive and that he

read where disguises and to pioneer and those sophisticated ied that drove israelis out of lebanon and then to trigger the israeli withdrawal and in short the most wanted guy and the other two most wanted were general qassem soleimani and the iranian general named qassem soleimani whose name a ring a bell sense he was killed january of this year. in any event of the caa tried to track down medea and i told the story of an operation on bill clinton's watch with cia

director and actually they tracked him down to beirut and discovered he was discovering his mistress and word was at her and beat her as it turns out and then enlisted her to bundle him down to the dock and then to a battleship offshore. and the operation failed in before the cia tracked him down in damascus. so i told that story in hair-raising detail how i joined cia massage operation , they finally got him tracked him as he was driving around damascus and his suv and

decided they couldn't plant the bomb and always had his suv and to pull the prom and it was a technical marvel because replaced back door of the suv and to match the paint color exactly. they did all this and mossad pulled the trigger. and at one point, that one moment, while they were surveilling and waiting for a moment to strike, they looked, and looked again someone leaning on the car was guess who? general qassem soleimani and they thought we can take them

both out. and permission was denied and the only legitimate target and qassem soleimani went off and is just an unbelievable story. and that whole initiation because because that has always been a fraught proposition at the cia. and for decades. and to go through confessions where the israelis. and bush signed off on the deal as long as nobody talked about it.

in this chapter that i wrote in the book. >> when you exit your interviews with those cia directors what happened and comment. >> but in the end where tom brennan who gets frustrated with me asking repeatedly for commen comment. he finally looked at me and said he died quickly. >> that's more than you got from the others. one thing i wanted to ask what are your thoughts the use of

the generals to be head of the cia? and how we think about that and others have thought about that with general patraeus because there is a way that the is our distinct authorizations so what did you learn about that particular mixing of expertise? >> it is a mix of course the two directors and i that i get into it with our hayden and patraeus and each of them are capable and really interesting characters. hayden tells the story of how when he arrives he runs the nsa prior to when he arrived

at the cia and he went through the bubble to make his first address to the troops as it were. so as he was speaking he took questions and somebody said what would you like us to call you? and hayden who was eloquent and articulate, was thrown in did not know how to answer and finally he said whatever makes you comfortable. call me whatever you want to call me. and in retrospect it was the most important thing that he said. what some lags as the cia some

call it the four-star general disease and that means military people sometimes arrive at the cia with a fairly well-developed sense of entitlement. i'm use to having a staff of 50 people and to cater to his every whim. and this was a problem for patraeus when he arrived it was a culture shock. and then to be accustomed in a way of life and operating. >> as the cia culture.

and when he met his untimely demise and then i asked him frame think about that and it is fascinating i have to say. >> and that could be a teaser for the next section of the book. so what did you learn about that process and to be the most fascinating scene in the book from the beginning all the way up to the current cia

director. and i've had the privilege of getting to know the widow of the previously mentioned quintessential cia old-school director and to full of terrific untold stories and that they were all asked to do things they should not have done. and i said like wet? and we got into it that house was a flawed character. and i love the stories he was holding his own on the dance floor with to stare at the 1975 state dinner for the shaw

of iran. with the shah of iran. sold his relationship with lbj is fascinating because he admired for his domestic achievements and words exasperated by the vietnam war but he wanted lbj to succeed and he leaned on him very hard is only lbj could do and with no uncertain terms he wanted intelligence showing domestic protesters against the vietnam war were being controlled by foreign communist powers. he protested and said that's not on the cia charter and he said i'm well aware of that. i want it.

holmes should have known better. and it was illegal domestic surveillance. and at the end of the day he came up with no evidence of any foreign control. so at the end of the day homes what is the most important time and when the clenched came during the watergate scandal and white house chief of staff called him into the white house and told him to shut down the fbi investigation into watergate. house was having none of it. so that is the earliest

example of a cia director who had to deal with that pressure. but so many have had to and time and again presidents will ask them to do stuff they should not be doing. but gates said usually you have to have a difficult problem. >> let the diplomats handle it they say let's let the cia do it. >> let the diplomats handle it they say let's let the cia do it. is one former director told me you could never get rid of it or abolish it because and there's nobody to blame so the fact of the matter over the last five or six decades it's because presidents have asked them to do stuff they should not be doing.

>> did they get in trouble? where they held accountable? >> yes they were blamed time and again. the other classic language that in this town there are only policy success and intelligence failures. the cia was blamed for 9/11 and was called a failure of imagination but basically and said people would say how does it feel to have the worst intelligence failure since pearl harbor? the truth is to have a detailed chapter on this, july 2001 george tenet who is head

of the al qaeda unit with a letter to the bush white house he slammed his fist on the table and says we have to go to war now so essentially they blew the whistle and nobody heard it. this was less of an intelligence failure more of a policy failure to heed warnings. fast-forward to 2020 and now the catastrophic consequences of the president who ignored warnings in the president's daily brief throughout the month of january and 200,000

americans are dead. >> so with those stories and the abandonment of procedural norms. and with the principal committee meeting. and with the trump presidency and the cia. so on the war on the process this is the war on governing will never forget the outgoing chief of staff for obama so when the clock struck noon on jh he is waiting for winds previous to arrive and nobody showed up he waited an hour or

more and then finally turned off the lights and left. to me that's enough of the presidency but it's not the first time that norms have been abandoned. so let's go back to that because one of the things that i learned in the book and the part that was called the spymaster's from july 2001. and then the number of persuasive of the ncaa. now we had to do july 2001 and with the heads of the cia.

look national security advisor and then you shake the tree when all those people at the table back. number of people told me they think had condoleezza rice called the principals meeting they would have discovered that they were on us soil and had been for months because we all know it's a failure to communicate between cia and fbi but that is the stuff that gets found out when you are process. mrs. is the first presidency trump is in the first presidency to fail to follow some of those norms. and in the case of the bush white house they were living

in a time warp and could not believe a bunch of guys with beards and caves were going to blow up the world trade center and said they thought they were euro nazis to stay up all night and blow stuff up during the da day. >> and as he tried to get that message it is one of those things we have enjoyed yet but to reflect on what you say so well with the war on government so the director time and time again almost always in a crisis situation.

so i know how to ask this question but in what period of time do you think we have the best understanding of? >> we have a very close relationship with the wrong guy. the shah of iran. that's one of my favorite chapters in the book and what happened on his watch as cia director and then the greatest intelligence failure of the new century.

and then a huge fiasco but with those intelligence failures, the failure to see the shah of iran was as weak as he was late 1979 and on the verge of collaps collapse, was just a fiasco. and one of the reasons, quite frankly we had willfully blind ourselves is because henry kissinger in which he basically said if you will give us access to your listening post on the soviet union we are looking the other way and will not pay any attention to your political opponents. and then to rely on the shah secret police. i get into all of those in the book and that whole relationship between turner

and jimmy carter is fascinating. but one of the caveats that i suppose is one of the great sources is just a plan guy because some of you may know him. still very active and a persuasive voice on foreign affairs in the book on carter recently was terrific. but then to say our intelligence is terrible during the soul. and that we often just completely misunderstand this is a classic example of vietnam and just not understanding the society.

have to wonder if you have known the shots on the edge of collapse. and policymakers have done with that knowledge? what exactly could have done to change that pivotal moment in history? was there any way to have arrived with the ayatollah? i'm not sure the odds are all that gray would have been smart enough to figure out what to do. i love to his book on mutual book - - richard holbrooke about how badly we had misunderstood so many of the conflicts vietnam to iran to

bosnia where the current situation. obviously human beings are terribly forward and diplomats as well as. suggesting is not much of a learning curve? >> i think the cia is much more capable today that was in 1979 and the was lots that went to the school as they did but white mail and deal for decades and diversity is a huge problem at the cia. i think historically over many decades have learned to understand other cultures that

whack a see where is a part of that. and i think the cia has improved and many other ways. >> you have any questions to them in the chant and i will work on. mm that was the dni and the director of national intelligence the creation of post 9/11 reorganization the government is to enhance the intelligence and national security priorities and abilities of the country. it meant the intelligence community community of the world and understand to function before.

what you make of that or other directors make of that? >> a funny story because i was fortunate and very lucky with my book was launched, had a gym party on - - a party and i was asked this question and i proceeded to say after 9/11 that the intelligence community. and essentially with those muddled lines of authority. and then he started to leave his hand. and then to and the restructuring.

and then plan and came in and now to have some of my gym copper with other intelligence services and they have a point. and i think that relationship works with jim clapper and brandon as cia director because they figured out how to make it work and clapper was the guy. and want to step on planet and chose. and to courtney the other agencies and to do his job as he saw fit.

and then leon panetta where he said and then they showed up at langley and one that he meddled with but it is restructuring much more successfully now. and then to have the director of national intelligence with a partisan hack and then really been serving the president to be on the spoke of intelligence to. >> we have a lot of questions

and one is about torture and with the interrogation techniques, and how you see the cia reflection on that. of time. it was only gone we should not have gone there. >> and will refer as those interrogation techniques and what the cia turmoils it's not the term i will use. and he gave me a hard time and supposed to be referring to. what is fascinating to me is first of all michael hayden said to me in a quotation that

later became famous that if a president wants to order. anybody ever again he better bring his own pocket because this agency isn't going down that road again. i think he is right one thing it's illegal in my view it should be illegal and in my view it is immoral and it's not something the united states of america should be doing. you talk to david patraeus who has some experience of is in charge of more detainees than anyone on the face of the eart earth, he will tell you the way you get information is by having a bond with the subject and you don't get

effective to intelligence to torture. having said that it was important to get inside the heads what took place and if you talk to george tenet he will give you and impassioned argument that he believed these techniques were the only way to prevent what he thought was a second wave of attacks after 9/11. that second wave of attacks never occurred and he would argue to produce intelligence to save lives and with the other acting director not

exactly the archconservative the hard on - - the odds on favorite to become your director mike moran will tell you there is no question in his mind the enhanced interrogation techniques provided actionable intelligence with the apprehension and terrorist and give specific examples. and therefore we should be doing it but to simply say it is not as simple as it has been portrayed. the senate majority with which was so damning and very thorough with the and efficacy of those techniques they never interviewed any of those directors on his watch.

none of them were interviewed. so what they were thinking inside their heads, you can find in my chapter. >>. >> asking about the relationship and starting right now with trump and the relationship and another question that can be bundled with that is talking about activities about non- allied powers?

and how does the cia see its position in the world over time? with the coronation of intelligence services et cetera. >> it's the tough question particularly because it was cia director currently who flies under the radar and gives no interviews and then to be trained as a covert operative and doesn't talk a lot about what they are doing. where she and mike pompeo gave me interviews for the book.

it's because i believe they have to be honest program intelligence that only to the president but to the american people and the cia director the really great ones richard holmes and fernandez and bob gates so their unwillingness to give interviews. having said that, it's hard to know much how much the trump era has affected the cia relationships. gina haskell has a very close relationship with intelligence a two-time station chief in london and i have a great story in the book when she was rising through the ranks

haskell formed a friendship with the unlikely event or imaginable which was josé rodriguez with the enhanced interrogation techniques and became her feminist mentor when she was thinking about becoming station chief in geneva and say to her listen that's not good enough for you. that's where it is happening. so a little digression but they have a pretty good relationship. and with the effect of the trump president but we all remember the time that donald trump met in the oval office

and then to put out the details of the israeli operation the middle east and there is is real concern among allies and other countries that this president can't be trusted with intelligence. there is a big problems that is unbreakable. he doesn't read the president's daily brief he thinks he knows everything worth knowing. and he thinks he can share stuff with vladimir putin of the worl world. that is a problem. i will tell you the bob woodward of portland - - reports are concerned that

russia might have something on this president. i can simply tell you that with a high ranking intelligence officials who believe the same thing and especially after helsinki those at the russian operations because there was no other rational possibility except the russians have a compromise or a financial relationship with trump. so with it comes to the cia relationship. >> there are two other questions they have to do it now. one is china. it isn't a huge part of what

you have written about a huge part of what you have written about of robust they could handle that? and then closer to the intelligence community after 9/11 and it is the unusual position inside this administration. so because our listeners are asking? >> so in china, just briefly so there's no doubt about the challenge. and then rolling up the cia

assets in recent years but that was the end story. and then china is coming on strong as a competitor as everyone knows. and it's a huge challenge for the cia going forward. maybe the biggest challenge. but the doj role, this is where dena haskell has to be really really careful. the way in which donald trump has succeeded to politicize the intelligence community would make richard nixon plush. and then to compromise intelligence and many top jobs

are unfurled or empty and he has installed a partisan sycophant as director of national intelligence which makes gina haskell's job is the honest broker of intelligence that budget congress and the american people to be that much more difficult and critical. and with the doj investigation. and then to seems aimed at trying to prosecute intelligence officers for doing their jobs that gina haskell has to be very careful to have the backs of her

employees. so when donald trump is intelligence before under the best saying that the first he heard was virus generate 23 the paper said it was no big deal. we all know now the name. she said that on her way out it is not clear who would replace or. that gina silence was deafening when he threw her under the bus. and this is the case everything by definition is a big deal and it's an even bigger deal.

and this is a perilous time right now for the intelligence community and a lot is riding on gina haskell. >> and then afterwords with the top three recommendations to give the cia and with those restraints or those at the table. any of those things anything you would recommend? >> and it has to start in november this is not the first time we had a president who was convinced the cia was the deep state full of liberal

enemy been to bring him down. nixon thought that nixon was wrong and trump is wrong and he takes it to another level he is delusional he believes the intelligence community compared us to not see germany. and then to the am it makes it possible for the information so the overwhelming priority has to be in november our way to get someone into the oval office and who respects the truth because at the end of

the day. >> so that brings up the last election versus the selection. what did we know then and now? do you think they learned enough lessons from the point of view of the intelligence community? and that this election can be protected one way or another? >> we are more aware of the nature of the soviet that and obviously this is an advantage going into this. having said that only surprises in august 2016 and

that is trying and that the social media component and what they do at that point is to hack into the electoral machinery in 30 states. and then 2016 was not a strategic intelligence failure on the cia part with that extra component we don't know what the russians may try obviously they are working

closely when the president of the united states denies and pretends it is not happening it's hard to mobilize a very effective effort to stop a russian attack. so they have a better idea but it's hard to know how that will play out. >> the last question is what brings you hope cracks. >> but at the risk having a whole chapter on george w.

bush as the cia director no greater defender. he loved that job as everybody knows. but, one of the things that strikes me is that at the end of the day, human beings have political opinions, vast differences between the analyst to tend to be's deprived or geeky intellectuals and the covert operatives who are breaking laws. but the vast majority are good at keeping their heads down and to produce honest intelligence. they don't pay a lot of attention to whoever is in the

oval office at any given moment. that may sound like pollyanna but and then to take some way when you see have a dedicated most of them are. >> so that doesn't have to rely on the percent on top? >> it helps. and it is critical that people at the cia believe the director has their backs. leon panetta, bob gates. >> thank you for a wonderful conversation you can buy this

book and a button you can push. thank you so much i'm sure we'll talk again soon. >> thank you for having me