>> james: welcome to the program. we begin with the ongoing conflict between security and privacy between apple and the federal government, and this evening we talk to apple's attorney te ted olson. >> government doesn't have the right to constrict private citizens to invent an operating system for a cell phone any more than they could do a program on pbs or ask an artist to sing a song or write a poem. >> james: we conclude by looking at national security through the eyes of michael hayden, whose new book is called playing to the edge. american intelligence in the age of terror. >> my observation is that the american effort against i.s.i.s. in iraq and syria has been underresourced and overregulated. i'll bring one example to mind.

after the horrific paris attacks, after that weekend we actually for the first time bombed the oil fields and the oil distribution system on which i.s.i.s. was relying for a lot of its finances. what made that an acceptable tactical decision on sunday that it wasn't an acceptable tactical decision for the preceding year and a half we were bombing. i've talked to people as well and without betraying confidences, the tolerance of the administration for colonel lateral damage in this war is near zero. >> ted olson and michael hayden when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by:

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with our continuing coverage of the encryption debate. should privacy be forsaken for security in apple's refusal to help the f.b.i. unlock an iphone used by one to have the san bernardino shooters has we survived this question. many from the tech industry and law enforcement have weighed in with their concerns. the legal case is likely to set up a consequential precedent and may end up before the spfnlgt joining me now from washington is apple's attorney, former solicitor general ted olson. i am pleased to have him. thank you for doing this. >> my pleasure. thank you, charlie. >> rose: let me begin with the basic question. where do we stand this evening on the legal issues here?

>> a judge in -- a magistrate judge in san bernardino county has asked the parties to prepare and submit briefs and to prepare arguments as to whether or not the order that the f.b.i. and the justice department is seeking here to cause apple to change the structure of the operating system in its iphone is something that they will be required to do. >> rose: okay. so you will make your argument, and they will make their argument. the f.b.i. representatives will make their argument, and this magistrate will make a ruling? >> yes, and it will be the justice department representing the f.b.i., but they work together, of course. papers will be submitted to the magistrate, and, as i understand it, as of now, there is a hearing set on march 22 before this magistrate. >> rose: next month. yes. >> rose: and he will make a ruling? >> it's a she. she will presumably make a

ruling. that ruling, whichever side prevails, will be appealable to a federal district judge in southern california and then, of course, appeals could follow from that depending upon who prevails and who, if the losing party wants to appeal. >> rose: now, let's get to what the conflict is -- and i've had many conversations about this, including with you and with john miller and cy vance and others -- the conflict is to say the justice department wants access to this phone. they say they want a one-time-only fix by apple whic, which they're capable of doing, and that the it. they want apple to do it. they want apple to destroy whatever they do, end of story. >> charlie, would you have asked the justice department to tell you on camera that they only were going to ask this one time, they're only going to seek it

this one time? we know that they are seeking it in other places -- the same relief in other places, in other cases throughout the united states. cyrus vance told you last week, the district attorney of new york, that he had 175 cell phones that he wanted the same remedy to peek into. he wanted the structure of the cell phone to be changed to make it a defective device, not the device that apple designed so that they can hack into the system. this is potentially happening everywhere, and while the justice department is saying and the f.b.i. is saying we only want to break the rules this one time, it is simply not true and it would set a precedent that could happen anywhere, anytime, not just in this country, but in other parts of the world. >> rose: let me tell you what they have said to me, representatives of law enforcement. they have said simply they want this one-time-only and they're perfectly prepared for the

process to go forward, make an exception in this one case because of the high-security reasons and let the process go forward all the way to the supreme court, if necessary, and then let that ruling stand, but allow them this one time to make this case for this one cell phone and then, after the ruling of the supreme court, you can decide all the other cases that may come up from cy vance an other prosecutors from around the country. >> well, we know that they're trying to the same mechanism in other places in the country, they're asking the same thing. now, if it is true that they're willing to recede from that and say they're not willing to pursue this further until there's a definitive ruling from the united states supreme court, that would be one thing, but they're also saying, the justice department and the f.b.i., and i respect these people enormously, i worked in the justice department for seven years, i know what they're trying to do and i respect them for trying to

do it, but we have to stand up for constitutional principles here. if they're willing to say that they are willing to stop at this one situation and wait for a definitive ruling from the united states supreme court, that would be another thing. i would like to see them say that in writing to the judge in san bernardino. >> rose: you've never heard that from anybody on the side of the f.b.i., law enforcement and the justice department that they would be willing to consider that? >> i have never heard that from them. i've heard them saying this is just this once, but we know that if they're successful here in this court, that this same thing could be done anywhere. the legal principle, if they can use something without a statute that authorizes a court to order apple to redesign its program, to go to work, to put its engineers to work to undermine the security system in the iphone, well, that's a very,

very big step. they've seemed to want to do this everywhere, and we're hearing they're look thouing this case to set a precedent, but they're also looking for the same result in other places. but as i said, charlie, they should put it in writing, file it with the federal court, have the justice department sign it and say that they're waiting for a definitive ruling from the united states supreme court. >> rose: okay. that would be another thing. we can argue about the legal merits in court under that -- >> rose: but you're not denying they could do this one phone and it wouldn't affect anybody else's iphone anywhere else in the world? >> yes, i am denying that. >> rose: why. >> rose: because they would not allow that to be put on any phone anywhere else and apple can keep the secrets and do what they want to do and it will have knoll effect on phi phone anywhere else. >> charlie, you're accepting the word for it. what about the district attorney in milwaukee?

is he bound by what the justice department says? >> rose: no, bound by whatever the last court of final decision, is whatever that decision is. >> well, sure. now, if you're talking about and understanding that everybody waits until the united states supreme court issues a definitive ruling on this subject, that's not what they have been saying. i would be very interested to hear that. but apple certainly will await a decision from the united states supreme court, provided that the iphone is not broken and damaged and accessed in the meantime. >> rose: under no circumstances -- are there no circumstances in which apple would allow, no matter what protection is given to them, no circumstances in which apple will allow its so much to enter this phone on national security grounds, not one single exception? >> charlie, i can't imagine all of the exceptions that you might have in your mind or how the justice department -- but, remember this, they're asking apple, a private company, to

redesign their system. if they were to ask you, charlie, redesign your program or redesign the cameras that you use in your business so we can listen in to somebody, put your talents to work, put your energy to work to re-create a system so that the government will have an access to what you do -- >> rose: right. -- you would be stunned by that. this is unprecedented. the government doesn't have the right to constrict private citizens to invent an operating system for a cell phone anymore than they can make you do a program on pbs or ask an artist to sing a song or to write a poem. this is a constitutional government. they do not have the right to do that sort of thing except under -- perhaps exceptional circumstances. and they decided one more thing -- they were going to ask congress for a change in the law that might authorize them to do this. they had legislation that was

approved by the justice department to go forward to congress. they pulled it. for some reason, they did not want congress to consider this issue, and it should. congress should be weighing in, the representatives -- >> rose: so why do you think they pulled it? >> i don't know. i think that they may have been worried about the conditions that congress might put on that authority because that's what we do in this country, we have our elected representatives decide the pros and cons. you start it off by saying this was privacy versus security. >> rose: yes. no, this is security versus security. it's the security of all those people that entrusted these cell phones with their private information, the location of their children -- >> rose: if you insist what they're asking apple to do is change every single iphone going forward. >> no, what we know they want to do is to develop a different program with respect to this

particular iphone, but that program, if it were applied to this iphone, could be used in any other circumstances. someone could hack it, someone could steal it, the government could leak it and there is no stopping another law enforcement official from seeking the same thing. no other official -- a district attorney in phoenix doesn't have to wait for the supreme court to go into a court in phoenix to try to get the same relief. >> rose: as far as you're concerned, there is no way to separate out this one phone without the consequences for every other phone? >> of course. because if you develop a code, if you develop a computer system that will break into this phone, you've done the same -- whatever you've done there, you could do for any other phone. >> rose: would you disagree with emily pierce, a spokeswoman for the department of just who told bloomberg business, quote, the judge's order and our request were narrowly tailored to this particular phone?

>> they wrote it that way, but the principle they're trying to accomplish is to change the structure of the phone. use your engineers, your people that write code in such a way that you will damage and destroy the feature of the existing phone that keeps people from hacking into it. that's what they're asking to do. they're saying break your principles for this one case and we'll never ask again. we don't believe it. they've said in that same article in the "new york times" today that commissioner bratton and mr. miller wrorks they say that -- wrote, they say, well, we're also interested in this because it's applicable elsewhere and mention a case in baton rouge, louisiana. but that's just a tip of the iceberg. it's a pandora's box they want us to open, and they want to use apple's engineers to create a different product than apple created and they want to use

that different product to disable and make less effective the product that apple's got on the market. >> rose: do you think the government's trying to mislead the american public? >> well, everybody knows that the second the government filed an application and then filed a second application, they are engaged in a public relations war. they want the american people to accept what they're asking for here. we're saying to them -- and, again, i say it were director comey and the people in the justice department. i know their motives are good. they want information, but they have to comply with the constitution when they do it. if they'd go back to congress and seek the authority that they previously were attempting to seek or, as director comey said in a message he sent out the other day, we want a debate, we want the american people to debate this. let's have that debate.

we're the elect -- where the elected representatives of the people sit in congress just down from here. >> rose: let me ask the hard questions. >> oh, the ones you have been asking are easy? (laughter) >> rose: let me get to the hard questions. what if there's information linking that phone to other people planning acts of terrorism against the united states? what's your answer to people who are very, very concerned about that, and if your answer is about civil liberties, lay it out how it's applied here and not applied in other cases. >> well, in the first place, what terrorists want to do is to destroy the american system. they first want to hurt our people, but they want to hurt our principles. they do not like the principles that respect equality for women and for all people and equality of religion and openness, those are -- >> rose: and what principles

are at stake here in. >> everything is at stake because of the constitution that protects privacy and intimacy and individual rights can be violated here, then it can be violated anywhere. we surrender our constitutional principles, they have achieved a victory. every one of us have to stand up for those principles. >> rose: let's talk about those principles. suppose you were with the f.b.i. and you found out that there were bank records on the part of these terrorists, now dead, and there were bank records there that you wanted access to because you wanted to know, in the custody of a private bank, because you wanted to know how they spent their money and who they were in a financial transaction with. would you object to giving the government access to those financial records in the

computer? >> there is a fourth amendment of the constitution that says searches must be reasonable and -- >> rose: suppose a judge says it's a reasonable search? >> and if it is a reasonable search, then people have to comply with that if the constitution is complied with. but we have yet to have decide that here. there is what -- this is not a search for bank records. this is an effort by the government to change the iphone. they want a private company -- >> rose: but they want to do it for the same reason they want to search bank records. >> that's right, and if they wanted to kill somebody in order to get through those records, we would say that is unconstitutional, can't be done. simply because they want something doesn't peen they can do -- doesn't mean they can do just anything to get it. if they're intending apple to put its resources together to redesign its phone, then they have got to get a court order to do that, and they've never even tried to get legislative authority to back up that court

order. so this is a pretty important principle here. >> rose: clearly, i know and respect tim cook very, very much, and, clearly, he is a man who believes strongly in human rights and civil liberties and has gone at length to say, look, this company is very much opposed to any kind of illegal activity and especially that that threatens the national security of the united states, but some will respond to him by saying, you're asking a private company not to allow information that the government needs to prosecute criminals, end of story. >> it's not the end of the story. what they're asking apple to do is to design a different cell phone, design a different iphone and to take the iphone that they spent a long time

crafting because people needed and wanted it and to change its design so it's a less effective product, it's a product that can protect security less than it was designed, they're asking the people at apple, drop that you're doing, go into another business, design a different iphone for us so that we can get this information, and if they can get this information from this iphone, they can get it in the next case, and it's not just limited to terrorism. it can be bank robbers, counterfeiters, money land rears, whatever. >> rose: do you think the f.b.i. carefully chose this case to make the point it wanted to make in the ongoing question? >> they're saying that. they decided this was a good case to make a test case to get that back door that they haven't been able to get legislatively.

well, maybe we'll be able to get it in court because we'll be able to say the word "terrorism," we'll scream the word "terrorism" and intimidate apple here. they're not going to indim at a time apple -- intimidate apple. if they did pick this as a test case, again, what they're trying to accomplish, they want to get information, they want to fight terrorism or the threat of terrorism, they haven't demonstrated there is anything in this phone they really know about or that they have a strong suspicion for. >> rose: okay. but they want to overturn every stone, and i represent them for wanting to do that, but they've got to respect that apple is standing up for constitutional principles. >> rose: or its business model. >> that's so unfair. >> rose: that's what they say, you know that. >> yes, i know that's what they say, and that's why i made such a point of saying we respect the law enforcement people and their motives. they're not according equivalent respect to apple and the trust

of its tens of millions of people that have trusted apple and the integrity of its product. so don't talk about business model. this is a relationship between people who trusted apple to provide them with a product and didn't suspect apple would simply disable that product and make it into something else without testing the legal principles in court. >> rose: tim cook has said this to me on "60 minutes," as you know, look, we have encrypted this because we don't want to have any access to this phone and we want people in china and everywhere else to know that we don't have access, that we don't even know the encryption code, that's what they've said. and they've said that separates us. what we do is sell a product. we're not like other companies in silicon valley who are selling information about people to clients who want to use it for advertising purposes and the

like. that has been one of the point that tim cook has made time after time. >> well, of course, and that's what he has said and, of course, you will imagine yourself as a person in china. you want -- you're a dissident. you want to communicate with other dissidents. you know that if the government gets ahold of that information, you are dead. you are in prison. so those individuals in china or india or some other place, maybe a place in the middle east where someone is a gay individual and knows he can be punished or flogged for being who he, is he's trusting apple. he's saying, i need the ability to communicate and have the security that that will remain private. apple has designed that product for him. now, apple has a responsibility to those individuals, many of whom could be in serious peril of their lives and their

liberty -- >> rose: but at the same time you say that, ted, people will step forward and say, you know, they have a commitment also to people who will be imperilled in their lives because information that ought to be available to law enforcement is not. >> yes, and let me tell you, i was in the justice department on september 11. i participated in the developments of the legal authorities that the government was seeking from congress and from the courts to fight terrorism. we were sensitive, charlie -- i've got to say this -- we were sensitive to the fact that we want to fight terrorism but we want to preserve american fundamental constitutional liberties. there is a balance there, and this government has to respect it just as much as apple does. >> rose: this had to do with torture, didn't it? >> i'm talking about the u.s. patriot act and systems of attempting to find out

information from telephone calls and those sorts of things. the patriot act is something that everybody knows about, but congress debated it and decided what the balance would be, said that, under certain situations, applications for information from phones would have to go to the foreign intelligence surveillance court under a proper warrant, have to be signed by the attorney general, have to be signed by the director of the c.i.a., built-in protections for civil liberties. the point is there's got to be a balance there and we have to respect it unless we want to give up what we stand for, for the last 230 years, a constitutional democracy that protects individual liberty, the right to speech and the right to privacy. >> rose: taking you away from being apple's lawyer for a second and looking at tex persons you have had -- and

looking at the experiences you've had and your life experiences, i assume one way you've suggested is for congress to deal with it, but beyond that, which hasn't happened, what's the solution to the questions we have raised? >> why do you say "beyond that"? director comey has said this should be a matter of public debate. public representatives and public citizens should debate here. >> rose: he was talking about a general debate. >> what's the best context for the debate? there's already going to be hearings next week. an apple representative will be in the house judiciary committee. mr. vance will be there, also. the debate is starting. apple suggested a commission of people who know something about. this i was a member of the

president's privacy and civil liberties oversight board which existed for several years and in another form now where those debates take place. we fight terrorism, we fight the enemies of this country, but we also consider the impact on our citizens of invasions of their privacy and their civil liberties. that balance is important, and the best place for that balance to be debated is in congress, and that congress passed legislation and then we can debate it in court. >> rose: the reason i said beyond that is i wanted to know what you thought, what you thought -- what you as a citizen might recommend to the congress has the right balance when it includes all of the elements that we have been talking about in this conversation. >> well, i'm not prepared now to talk about the independen intrif legislation because it's a very complicated subject as we found out through the examination of the n.s.a. program and things

that happened in this country in the last 15 years, it's a serious and complicated thing. but one thing i'm insisting upon is there has to be legal authority. the awe rid sack the government is invoking says it is available if the judiciary is able to assist the government in the performance of its duties according to law. so let's have the law the government can have to seek the type of relief that it might want is that on that, i have to stop. i thank you very much. apple's case is in good hands with you. >> i appreciate the fact you're participating in a dialogue that the american public needs to hear. >> rose: thank you so much. thank you, charlie. >> rose: ted olson from washington. >> rose: michael hayden is here, retired u.s. air force general, the only person to have led both the n.s.a. and the c.i.a. he oversaw the nation's top spy agencies as national debates

raged over the iraq war, enhanced interrogation and electronic surveillance. he writes about these issues and more in this h new book called "playing to the edge: american intelligence in the age of terror." welcome. first, playing to the edge is something athletes can understand and especially football players because of the sidelines. >> yes, the title was suggested by my wife. she knew what we were doing while i was director of the agencies that in times of stress you have to use the entire field, the football metaphor, use all the authorities that the political processes that public give you, even though you realize full well this can come

back open you and me and probably the kids. >> rose: you just watched the conversation with ted olson, attorney for apple. >> yes. >> rose: what is your position? >> my position is that on the general principle -- being the f.b.i. director's and others' requirement, demand, request that apple universally enable backdoors in all devices to break otherwise unbreakable encryption -- on that one, i actually side with apple. i know ted brought up constitutional issues, but let me talk about something my experience should prepare me to talk about, charlie, and it's simply, on the grounds of security and safety, i actually think that's best choice. i think american security and safety in this current cyber era

is better served with end-to-end, unbreakable encryption. >> rose: in any circumstances? unbreakable in terms that you do not want to compel the company to put a back door in. >> rose: that's when it becomes an argument as to what they're asking as a back door and what ted and the f.b.i. says is very different in terms of what they're being asked to do. >> i agree totally with apple on the general premise, no universal enabling because, charlie, if somebody puts a backdoor in something and this i'm still a director of the n.s.a., i'm saying, thank you, lord, here we go. >> rose: right. i am not convinced what jim comey and the bureau are asking now is that. i think there are difference tweens the two. i am willing at the present time with what i know to shade in the direction of the bureau's request here and if that's not true, right, i would expect

apple or the president of apple to make the case, the burden of proof being on them, that if i can see this -- concede this, i'm actually creating that. i'm with them on that. i'm just not convinced this takes you there. >> rose: that's the question i asked several times. >> yeah. >> rose: but you're saying if they can't show you that, then they ought to have access to this phone. >> to this phone. otherwise, i think tim cook, whom i've talked to about this generally, i think tim's in a position of saying apple under no circumstances will allow itself to cooperate with law enforcement no matter what which i don't think it's a good position to be in. >> rose: he said i'm uncomfortable with a position like that. >> backdoor enabling, universal, on grounds of security -- >> rose: you don't want to see a back door, right. >> right. >> rose: let me talk about your rife and career and what you have done. edward snowden is now making some noise as he wants to come

back. >> right. >> rose: if he's given a promise of a fair trial. >> he has a definition of fair trial. >> rose: which is? he wants to use the public interest defense. which is in essence it doesn't matter i broke the law, i did a good thing and i should only be judged on your appreciation of how good a thing i did. it's not the law that matters. >> rose: i served in the public interest even though i legally broke the law, that's what he wants to argue? >> yeah. and i guess that would be aproactive to some people but if you look at american history of civil disobedience and read thoreau on civil disobedience, thoreau says it's only a justifiable act if you're willing to fay consequences. >> clearly that's true, martin luther king, jr. went to jail and history is full of people who engaged in civil disobedience and were prepared, especially in civil rights. >> yes. it gives it horrible character. >> rose: do you believe that edward snowden, after the

release of all the things, how would you characterize how he damaged the united states? >> as imentioned in the book, it is the single greatest hemorrhage of legitimate american secrets in the history of the republic. charlie, you probably won't, but others when they ask me this question, start jumping in on metadata and a whole bunch of things. let me for the purposes of discussion concede the point. i don't really, but i concede the point. the other 98% of what he released has to do with how america collects foreign intelligence. what civil liberties quotient was there in that a document he gave a correspondent allowed the correspondent to write about the ability of the n.s.a. to intercept and penetrate unclassified e-mails to have the syrian armed forces. what civil liberties quotient are we suggesting when he makes public n.s.a. and g.c.s.q.

intercepted satellite phone of medvedev in a g2 meeting in the united kingdom. >> rose: have there been deaths because of what he did? >> i don't know because i'm not in government. it might be difficult to prove even with the full evidencery trail in front of you that a cause b. but when i talk to people still in government and i say i'm out there saying public things about this, tell me you won't saw the limb off blind me here, have these revelations harmed american security? and what i get, charlie is something like, oh, yes. >> rose: but they harmed it because they gave some insight into methods and people. >> sure. there is an awful lot out there

now that was legitimately secret. >> rose: if you know the u.s. is doing this, you can change your behavior. >> you can avoid that pathway. let me just give you one that's a real softball. he revealed something called the cbjb, the congressional budget justification book, a massive document we've created every year, and in it down to a programmatic level, it shows what we're spending money on within each of the three letter agencies, n.s.a., ng a, c.i.a., and so on, and where we are strong and weak and need to spend additional resources. charlie, i would have moved heaven and earth to get that document from a whole host of countries around the world, and he gave it to them for free. >> rose: do you believe that after he fled to china and then to russia because of their intelligence agencies and their

interrogation, they have intention denied, you assume they had means of getting more information from him that would be damaging to america's national security. >> let me respond from the heart and total truthfulness. you're talking to an intelligence officer. i am most comfortable reasoning in an inductive manner that i have data and from there i say, charlie, i think this is what happened. i don't have data that any of that happened. reasoning for the moment which is unusual for an intel guy deductively, coming back to what best explains his ability to do these things, i begin to hypothesize he got assistance from others. when it comes to what others may have been able to get from him, if he had the data with him in hong kong and in moscow -- and we may never know -- >> rose: do we assume so? well, look, in my current

position, in my old job, you have to assume that. if he had the data with him, i would lose all respect for the chinese intelligence service if they didn't harvest all of it. >> rose: every intelligence agency has told me that. everybody i know who has a history in an intelligence agency has said exactly what you have. i would have lost respected for them if they didn't do this. you assume they would do this. >> absolutely. >> rose: cyberterrorism, another subject. >> yeah. >> rose: you say -- where do you think we are in terms of the president made some agreements with the chinese president. we've seen what's happened in terms of hacking some by governments, they suspect, some by concerns for other means and private gain and otherwise. >> yeah, it was interesting writing the book. i got done with the original manuscript, soup to nuts, and said i don't have a chapter on

cyber. and i went back and reconstructed cyber, pulling it from different -- it just didn't naturally appear in each of the pots, and i pulled it all together. the first point i would make in response to your question, boy, we've done a lot in this area. we've organized powerful institutions to go ahead and work america's will in the cyber domain, both defensive and offense and based on espionage. >> rose: and do you seem that we know more than anybody else because of our technological superiority, or assume technological superiority? >> i would make the claim that we're better off at this than anywhere else in the world and we're better able to steal people's secrets than anyone else but we steal secrets to keep our people free and safe, not to make them rich. that makes us one of four or five countries on the planet that limits themselves in that way. >> rose: you say the chinese government does itself for commercial advantage. >> for state-owned enterprises,

yes. you mentioned xi jinping, that's an amazing statement, but we'll see what the reality is, but xi jinping agreed with the american definition of espionage, in other words you don't use the power of the state to steal secrets for profit, and xi jinping promised china won't do that. we'll see what happens. >> rose: when you look at the possibilities of an attack against our electrical grid which could have huge impact -- if you turn off the electricity -- bill gates was here talking about how crucial energy was -- if you have the capacity to turn off someone's electricity which not only influences water filtration but influences their hospitals, influences everything they do. >> oh, yes. let me give you my current appreciation of that, and may surprise you a little bit. i treat it a bit in some of the book. i don't focus on a near peer --

let me fill in china -- i don't focus on a near peer turning out the lights east of the mississippi river. i really don't. >> rose: because if they did we would? >> let me tell you how edescribe it to popular audiences, if the chinese did that, that's not the first thing in the president's brief tomorrow, there is other stuff going on, part of a larger set. i think it might be possible but it's very unlikely because the chinese know actions have consequences. what i'm more concerned is it's not the near peer doing the catastrophic attack, i'm more concerned about what i call the isolated, renegade, let's roll the dice, we've got nothing to lose nation state, kind of a permanent definition of north korea. >> rose: right. i could fit iran in that box if something heads south in our current geopolitical relationship, i could even pull the russians in there. if vladimir putin is under great

torque between the autocrats because of recent sanctions, what they want to do is reach out and poke and say, you see, this is not without consequences, we have tools, too. so i'm more concerned about that range of threats, not the catastrophic near peer attack. >> rose: and let's speak about russia for a second. when you look at what putin's done, there have been lots of articles in h the last two weeks, and we now have a kind of agreement between russia and the united states with respect to trying to make some possible cease fire and some possible deal. >> right. >> rose: that would include assad and would include a transition in syria, and there is some reluctance and some people in damascus according to a report this morning don't want to see it because -- >> they're winning. think they're winning because russia stepped in to help. >> and the iranians and hezbollah. >> rose: is that the reality?

no, it is the reality. >> rose: and the reality is this has been a win-win for putin? >> so far. our president pointed out this woulcould be a quagmire for the russians, and that's probably true but doesn't make it any less bad news for us that, number one, the russians are back in the middle east for the first time since 1973. >> rose: someone said they're at the table and may be at the head of the table. >> actually, they are because to have the resources they commit. let me play h this out a little bit. we have our secretary of state trying to move heaven and earth to try to stop the killing. we are in a position, charlie, of being a supplicant. he's going to the runnings and iranians, please, we feed a cease fire. he's unable to say, we need a cease fire, this is what we want, and if we don't get it, this is what we're going to do -- there is nothing that fills that in, charlie. he's out there flying without top cover because everyone knows we are not committed to any more

dramatic action in syria for at least the rest of the administration. >> rose: and they take advantage of that. >> absolutely. i talk about russia a bit in the book and actually do a little bit of confessing. i say i went to over 50 countries as director of the c.i.a. because they were important, not one was russia. russia was off our scope and probably for too long. >> rose: marco rubio said, on becoming president if he's elected, one of the first things he will do is sort of disavow the iran nuclear deal. a good idea? >> i would caution him to take his time on that. i've got a lot of heartburn with the iranian nuclear deal, all right, but we're great power, charlie. the rest of the world needs us to act with some consistency. >> rose: with respect to iran, is it possible to expect theament them to change -- is it possible to expect them to change their behavior or can we

force them to change their behavior? >> i talk about iran, i do a whole chapter of them, and i'm fairly critical of the agreement, although i end the chapter by saying i don't think we would have bought this deal, it's not like we came up with a whole lot of better ideas either. >> rose: the president consistently said, if you have a better idea, tell me what it is. we were surprised that some of the countries that were supporting the president were surprised the iranians agreed to it. >> yeah, so here's how i reason through this, another new yorker, henry kissinger, said iran has to make up its mind, is it a cause or country? we negotiated with iran as a country and got to an agreement. since the agreement, iran have acted like a cause and acted like a cause without consequence. back to my earlier point, someone needs to be pushing back

on these guys, actually -- >> rose: they did something and we should have pushed back and didn't? >> sure. it is the iranians working with the russians that has saved the bashar al-assad regime, and the american response to that -- >> rose: they were doing that before -- >> i know, but -- >> rose: and through their own militia and hezbollah as a client. >> but they have more resources to do it. you can make the argument we didn't react boldly enough before the agreement probably because of the agreement, because of the negotiations, all right. i actually think that's a very bad idea and hope that's not true but i fear it was. now we're post-agreement. we have the agreement set and we still seem to be acting timidly in the face of the iranians. the iranians have continued their ballistic missile program. >> rose: in what way is this a criticism of the president? do you think he doesn't see the problems or he does not have a

toughness that you think? because as soon as you say that, people like bob gates and others say i sat there in the situation room and he's got toughness. >> i know he has. but he also has priorities. i say this with the deepest respect for both the person and the office of the president, and his priorities are far more jeffersonian an jack jacksoniand wilsonnian. he is spending his personal and political capital, to quote the president, to do nation building at home. >> rose: let me quote to you the secretary of defense who was on this program monday a week ago, he said to me that the president has asked him to do everything possible -- i said to him, in any way, is there pushback from the president when you and the chairman of the joint chiefs recommended more military action in syria?

he's saying, no, the president said present me for more options of what we can do and showed a presence of light footprint, yet saying to secretary of defense, i want to do more. >> ash carter is a good friend and has been quite visibly more aggressive in suggesting options. but, charlie, my observation is the american effort against i.s.i.s. in iraq and syria has been underresourced and overregulated. i'll just bring one example to mind, all right? after the horrific paris attacks, after that weekend, we actually for the first time bombed the oilfields and the oil distribution system on which i.s.i.s. was relying for a lot of its finances. what made that an acceptable, tactical decision on sunday that it wasn't an acceptable tactical decision for the preceding year

and a half we were bombing? i've talked to people as well without betraying any confidences. the tolerance of this administration for collateral damage in this war is damn near zero. >> rose: if collateral damage is a risk, don't take the action. >> that's what i'm saying. i have a good friend that's an air planner for the air war against saddam hussein. dave summarizes this as god made air power to be used like a violent thunderstorm. what we now have against i.s.i.s. and syria is a gentle irish mist. >> rose: you're saying they could do a lot more in terms of using the air power and you're a former air force general. >> i am. >> rose: what would you be bombing now that they're not bombing now, notwithstanding what they've done. >> i would have to take a look at the target list but i come back to my example, what made oil distribution acceptable late in the war that wasn't earlier in the war.

>> rose: carpet bombing in rack cay? >> no. i said once the president said he had to do something about syria -- he has not said we're going to put boots on the ground -- >> rose: there are boots on the ground in iraq, 3500 special forces, and they have offensive missions. >> they do. >> rose: according to the secretary of defense. >> where are they with regard to embedding in the iraqi army? they're not allowed to go below the brigade level. i asked why do you let the iranians take such a part in your maneuvers? the answer was because they go to the battle line and the americans stay back. >> rose: what was testify most

frighfrightening experience, sog experience at the c.i.a.? >> we, in the late 2007, early 2008, we had reached the analytic conclusion that al quaida was reconstituting in the tribal region of pakistan and to such a degree that it was not just a force protection threat to americans in afghanistan, this was about a threat to the homeland. and we then went about -- >> rose: to the united states. yes. so we went about an analytic process by which we attempt to convince our political leadership that action was absolutely essential, and i go through that in the text and use a line in the text i never used in the oval, but if you boil down the briefings for about six months in the oval with regard to what was going on in the safe

haven and threat to the homeland, it was simply knowing what we know now, there will be no excusing our inaction after the next attack and by july of 2008, the president torresed the faiths to conduct far more robust action against al quaida along the afghanistan-pakistan border. >> rose: in 2008. july of 2008, and that's when -- >> rose: this is right at the tail end of the bush administration. >> it is and you see a knee in the curve of what we call targeted killings and you see president obama actually sustaining that rate for about a year and then doubling down on it in 2010. >> rose: according to you, president bush personally intervened in 2005 to try to stop publishing an explosive scoop. >> he did. >> rose: what happened. this is stellar wind, a program we set up within a few weeks of 9/11 to better detect

terrorist threats entering, level or already present in the united states. the times it had the story, they had part of the story. in october of 2004 and decided not to publish. fast forward about a year later, the "times" now wants to publish. as i point out, they told me that they thought they needed to publish because other sources had come forward. i actually think they needed to publish because their writer was going to tell the story anyway in an upcoming book. so we once again tried to deswayed the "times" that this was not in the interest of american safety and security. the final meeting -- >> rose: in the white house. in the oval, and it was with the president and arthur sal salsburger. i think the editor was there, bill keller. i'm there. we made one final plea for the "times" not to publish. >> rose: what was your plea? the plea was, this is a

successful program. i was axe through the briefer, i tried to explain how we use the data collected from the program and that this program was successful because not everyone knew about it. i get the argument that, oh, don't i assume and so on -- but the difference between assuming and having someone fully reported in america's newspaper of record. so we were done with the meeting, we broke, i'd call it inconclusive. i think the last thing the publisher said was we will get back with you about our decision and about a week later the "times" published. >> rose: let me ask you this, clearly they did not publish for how long? >> about a year. >> rose: about a year. because there is a perception in some places journalists have no regard for national security and it's simply not true. this was a year they didn't publish and then they came down to washington to have a conversation and hear you out. >> right. i think that was a bad decision -- >> rose: those kinds of

decisions take place all the time and people don't appreciate it or understand it. >> charlie, i appreciate it. you've read it. i have a line in the book when my public affairs officer came in with his hair on fire and said, general, they're going to do this and give me a name and i would call. they always took the call. secondly, in every instance, i said i actually understand that you and i share a responsibility for american safety and american liberty, but i fear the way you're about to carry out your responsibilities is going to make it more difficult for me to carry out mine and, charlie, in every instance, i got a fair hearing and, in many instances, the story was amended or stopped. now, there are some where that didn't happen, and i reserve the right to complain about that. >> rose: and there are some in which it happened, and i think president kennedy said this, he wished the "times" had published

more about the bay of pigs -- >> i'm familiar with the example. >> rose: which was run. yeah. >> rose: great to see you. "playing to the edge" is the title of the book. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> no time in wasting our time seeking reduction cuts. they will not happen. >> with those words from one of the most powerful players in the oil industry, prices fell taking stocks down along with them. back in the game, first time home buyers are starting to enter the housing market but some have to jump through hoops to get there. revving up. are you driving one of the best cars on the market? the results of the one of the most anticipated studies. tonight on sh"nightly business report" for tuesday, february 3 23rd. it took a few