>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin this evening wit h an assessment into the investigation of the shooting down of malaysia airlines flight 17 over eastern ukraine. we talk with mike morell, former acting director and former deputy director of the c.i.a. >> vladimir putin created these separatists, he encouraged them, he has funded them, he has equipped them. he has fed the beast, so to speak. so, in that way, he is already complies it in terms of what they did yesterday. >> the second level of complicity would be did he actually give them this particular anti-aircraft missile system and did he train the separatists on how to use it. that would be a second degree of complicity. the third degree of complicity is were there russian special forces who were there and who assisted the separatists in the

shooting down of this aircraft? that would be as far as you could go in the complicity list here. so we have to figure that out. >> charlie: and we continue with a look at the future of afghanistan with abdullah abdullah, one of the two candidates awaiting the results of the voter audit. >> what is at stake here, the achievements of the past 13 years which was the result of many, many contributions from the part of our partners, the united states as the lead partner, and the international community as a whole as well as the afghan people. so it was much more than just one election, who is winning the election and who is not winning the elections. it was about whether democracy works in this country or it doesn't. so, hopefully, at this stage that we are just at the beginning of the audit process, we will -- the hopes of the

people are restored and the trust of the people is strengthened on the democratic process. but we are at the beginning to havofthe process. >> charlie: and we conclude my conversation with hillary clinton in which she talks about the relationship with russia, europe and china and her relationship with former president bill clinton, her husband. >> we have to have a very clear understanding with china, which is why we put together this strategic and economic dialogue, becausehey are prone to misread us and, occasionally, we are prone to misread them. so we have to keep the channels open. >> charlie: it's a danger. it's a big danger. when i agreed to let the blind dissident chen into our embassy, it could have blown up our relationship for years to come. they start talk about people who meet with the dalai lama.

but since we i vest much time building a relationship, people to people, official to official, we were able to weather that and we need to do more because it is a conscious queeningsle relationship. mike morell, abdullah abdullah and hillary clinton when we continue. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> charlie: a malaysia airlines flight 17 was shot down yesterday flying over ukraine ukraine traveling from amsterdam to kuala lumpur, it is thought it was shot down by a surface-to-air missile in ukraine. >> evidence indicates the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile launched from an area controlled by russian-backed separatists inside of ukraine. we also know that this is not the first time a plane has been shot down in eastern ukraine. over the last several weeks, russian-backed separatists have shot down a ukrainian transport plane and a ukrainian helicopter and they claimed responsibility for shooting down a ukrainian fighter jet. moreover, we know these separatists have received a steady flow of support from russia. this includes arms and training. it includes heavy weapons.

and it includes anti-aircraft weapons. now, here's what's happened now. this was a global tragedy. an asian airliner was destroyed in european skies filled with citizens from many countries. so there has to be a credible international investigation into what happened. the u.n. security council has endorsed this investigation and we hold all its members including russia to their word. >> charlie: joining us is mike morell, former director director odeputy directorof the c.i.a. ah cbs news. tell us how you see it based on what we know so far. >> based on what the president said and what i've seen and the folks i've talked to, it is clear to me that the separatists

shot down the aircraft. almost certainly they thought they were shooting at a ukrainian military transport, and they turned out to be wrong. one of the things that's interesting to me is the web postings that the separatists made immediately following the crash where they were talking responsibility, and then those web postings were taken down. some of the chatter that was picked up by the ukrainian government of these guys boasting about the shootdown and then realizing the mistake they had made is also very telling. so it's very clear to me they were not targeting a civilian airliner, that they were targeting a ukrainian government airliner which would have been the third this week. >> charlie: is it easy to make a mistake between a military aircraft and commercial aircraft? >> not if you are a nation state and you've got the radar

systems, the sophisticated military radar systems of a nation state, because these commercial airliners are squawking that they're commercial airliners. but if you are a rebel group, a separatist group that's basically guessing as to what you're shooting at, very easy to make a mistake because, at 30,000 feet, you can't tell what is a military and what is a civilian aircraft. >> charlie: can we make assumptions about who was manning the weapons? >> i don't think so. to me, the interesting question that remains is the degree of russian complicity, and there is three levels, charlie, for me. one is that -- and this is clear to me we're already at this level -- vladimir putin created these separatists, he encouraged them, he has funded them, he has equipped them, he has fed the beast, so to speak. so, in that way, he is already

accomplice it in terms of what -- complicit in terms of what they did yesterday. the second level of complicity is did he actually give them this particula anti-aircraft mie system and train them on how to use it. the third degree is were there russian special forces who were there and assisted the separatists in the shooting down of this aircraft. that would be as far as you could go in the complicity list here. so we have to figure that out. that's going to be difficult. but at minimum, he's complicit in supporting these guys. >> charlie: well known publicly. >> which is well known publicly. possibly his own guys were there when this happened. >> charlie: how will we find this out? >> in terms of the russian comfelicity, there is only -- complicity, there's only one way, through intelligence

sources. an investigation of the crash site won't tell you that. that particular anti-aircraft system is long gone. that will be nowhere to be found. the only way we find out the degree of russian complicity is through russian intelligence. >> charlie: they might have access to it in eastern ukraine. >> i'm sure they've gotten rid of it. >> charlie: what else will they be looking for now? what kind of forensic evidence, as bob orr said? >> you're going to want to make sure that the conclusion that we've come to that this was a missile strike is a correct one, right, so you're going to be looking for an explosion going -- where the fragments of the aircraft are going into the aircraft as opposed to the bomb inside the aircraft where the fragments are coming out, so you will want to find out. >> charlie: what could be the consequences for, a diplomatic

question, first of all for vladimir putin and secondly for the fight in ukraine and thirdly for the relationship between russia and the united states? >> great question. i think the first piece of this is that, if this turns out to be what it looks like, russian separatists firing this with or without direct support from the russians but, in any case, the russian separatists did this, i think this puts tremendous pressure on the united states and on western europe to take harsher action against russia in response. so -- >> charlie: primarily sanctions or -- >> i would say primarily sanctions, but also possibly more direct military support to the ukrainian government. i think both of those probably should be on the table, will be on the table. the sanctions to date have been fairly modest when you compare them to the iranian sanctions, for example.

so i think you're looking -- there will be pressure from congress, there will be pressure from other places for those sanctions to be tightened up. that's number one. number two is i think there's just going to be a lot of pressure on putin from the world in general. certainly the embarrassment factor here. one of the interesting things, charlie, is to look back at the soviet union shootdown of the south korean airliner in the 1980s, and it was really a turning point in the cold war, i think, because it told the world, in essence, what the soviet union was all about, and i think this event has the potential to do that for putin is to make it clear to the world what this guy is all about. in my mind, he is a thug, he is a bully, and he's willing to do things that the rest of the world simply sees as going way too far. and i think it has a potential

to change -- >> charlie: things responsible people and responsible nations do not do. >> correct. >> charlie: help me understand more about the kinds of weapons being used. >> all right. so this is one of the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world. there is only one other system that is more advanced than this. so this is -- >> charlie: assuming it's an american system? >> no, a russian system as well. >> charlie: they have both? they have both. so this is a very advanced system. but this is the important point, you and i could not break that system. it's not like flipping a switch and pushing a button. you have to be trained, you have tore experienced to use that system successfully. >> charlie: and most airplanes fly at what altitude? up to 30,000, 40,000 feet? >> all sorts of different altitudes. >> charlie: so they might have

given them these weapons in order to shoot down military craft and, therefore, promote a conflict between the separatists and the ukrainian government. >> which is what he has been trying to do. so, in terms of where this particular system came from, there really is two possibilities. one is the buk system was in the ukrainian military arsenal. >> charlie: right, they got it there? >> so they could have gotten it -- >> charlie: i think i read reports they did have some, the ukrainian military had these kind of systems because ukraine used to be part of the soviet union. >> absolutely, so it was part of the ukrainian military inventory, so the separatists could have gotten it there by overrunning a ukrainian military base. >> charlie: wouldn't they know whether one is missing or not? >> we should be asking the ukrainians exactly that. they also could have gotten it from russia, one of the many pieces of military hardware putin has given the separatists. should have come from either

place. >> charlie: do we have evidence they act at the whim of vladimir putin? intelligence tells us? >> so i think the answer is it depends. >> charlie: oh... first of all, the separatists are not a unified group with a single command in control. there are individual separatists groups probably responding differently to what moscow asks them to do, number one. number two, i think that putin has lost a bit of control over the separatists. i think he would actually like more control over them than he has, so he created this monster, to some degree, and he's lost control, and gave them dangerous weapons and lost control over them to some degree. so i think it is questionable how much control he has over them. >> charlie:. >> charlie: there will be clearly a huge international response to this because when you shoot down a special

airliner, somehow the world always responds to that and with an accusing finger. >> yes. and i think it's going to be pointed at vladimir putin. >> charlie: yeah. thank you for coming. >> you're welcome. always good. >> charlie: mike morell. back in a moment. stay with us. >> charlie: violence threatened to engulf afghanistan last weekend as the two leading contenders in the presidential elections both claimed victory. the first round of voting produced no outright winner, forcing a runoff between ashraf ghani and abdullah abdullah. preliminary results on july 7 slowed ghani leading by 12 points. abdullah rejected, and threatened a parallel government. last week the candidates reached an agreement, deal brokered by john kerry, setting the stage to have 8 million votes recounted. abdullah agreed to form a national unity government once

the winner is determined. joining me is abdullah abdullah, i am pleased to have him on my program. i have known him for a number of years and seen him in different places, and this is especially an appropriate time. so thank you for coming. >> you're welcome. good to talk to you after these many years. >> charlie: where are we in terms of this audit, and when will we have conclusive results? >> the audit has just started. we are in the second day of the audit process. we are satisfied the way it is moving forward. there are some small issues which hopefully it will be taken care of in between. so it's predicted that it will be between three to four weeks before we have the preliminary results of the audit. the audit is a comprehensive one. it includes all the ballot

boxes, all the ballot papers, 23,000 ballot boxes, 8 million ballot papers. >> charlie: so was this a dramatic breakthrough mediated by secretary of state john kerry? >> absolutely. no doubt about it. afghanistan stan was in a very serious situation. there were different ideas including the idea of the announcement of a government, not even parallel government, because our supporters believed and truly believed that there was massive fraud and systematic fraud. so that was the background, and we are at the verbal o -- vergef a serious crisis, and it was a very timely intervention, thanks to secretary kerry and president obama himself which took a keen

interest in order to help the audit, and the recognition of the fraud and also the need for acting in mobilizing the international community in order to pursue the most comprehensive audit ever perhaps in the history of elections around the world. so that helped us to avoid a crisis, and then not only enter the process but at the same time being hopeful that, at the end of the day -- we are dealing with the audit process in good faith. both technical agreements in that regard as well as the agreement on the political situation for the formation of the national unity government. these are essential for the future of the country and hopefully afghanistan will emerge stronger once the audit is completed and once the

national unity government is formed. >> charlie: it's an important statement for democracy. >> absolutely. what was at stake here, the achievements of the past 13 years which was result of many, many contributions from the part of our partners, the united states as the lead partner, and the international community as a whole as well as the afghan people. so it was much more than just one election, who is running the election and who is not winning the elections. it was about whether democracy works in this country and whether it doesn't. so hopefully this is the stage that we are just at the beginning of the audit process, the hopes of the people are restored and the trust of the people is strengthened on the democratic process. but we are at the beginning of the process. >> charlie: you have complete confidence in the results of the

audit and will abide by them? >> i will abide by the audit in the outcome of the audit, but nevertheless we are observing it and we are monitoring it and we are part of the observation in the internationally supervised audit is something that we asked for. so we will be contributing to the success of the process, but, nevertheless, in each step of the way down the road we are true participants, at the same time seriously watching it and what we are asking for is clean votes of the people of afghanistan deciding the future of the government, and this is, i think, the legitimate right of our people. >> charlie: help me understand what is the commitment to a unity government. have both you and mr. ghani said that you will form a unity

government and whoever wins will have the top post and the other will be prime minister? >> that's right. we both agreed on the formation of the national unity government in the presence of secretary kerry, and that is the political agreement between us. there is a technical agreement on the issue of the audit. it is important both agreements are implemented in good faith and we are dealing with it as such and we think that both are important while our focus is mainly on the auditing, at the same time we think the political agreement is also fo important r the future of the country and creates a win-win situation rather than winner take all. much emphasis we put on the

fairness of the audit process, at the same time we realize there are needs of the country which has to be addressed in the formation of the national unity government will help afghanistan. >> charlie: how will afghanistan be different if you are the top guy versus mr. ghani, or if he's the top guy versus you? what's the essential difference between the two of you in terms of the future of afghanistan and it's relationship secondly with the united states? >> firsto of all, we will compliment one another in many way, should we work in the same system and help one another and help the country. there are certain capabilities, i would say, in both of us. had i been in the campaigning mood, i would have given you a book full of reasons why i would

be better option for afghanistan. but now campaigning is behind us. first round of elections is behind us, and now we are hoping that we will able to work together, but that depends on both sides' intention -- good intention. and my experience of the country and knowing the country and being in the country throughout difficult times in this country and also the beginning of the political process 15 years ago, we were the architect of the democratic process and i was the central figure in that regard, once massoud was (indiscernible) and then we had a civilized transition of power 13 years ago

and we established a framework where at the end of the day. so my experience with the country and his expertise in certain areas of governance both are complementary to one another. >> charlie: this was a fierce campaign. you obviously have significant differences. >> yes, there is no doubt about the differences, but i would say knowing the country, knowing the people better, that is very important. then, of course, experience of governance both of us we do have, and as far as democratic process, we both are committed to this, and the style of governorrens in might be different, but we all have learned lessons in the past 13

years and also the recent campaign was an ex persons that might help us to look forward towards a better future for our people. in one of the areas, one of the conditions i was very serious about it and tried to put it in the political agreement, to help to have an overall -- of the overall of the electoral system, the afghan people, they don't need to go through the same painful process that our electorates, our people, our voters and candidates went through, and that is important, to deal with corruption as a whole in the rule of law and establishing the rule of law and strengthening the rule of law, strengthening the institutions

of the country and delivering to the people in a fair manner, these are the ideas that i have committed my life throughout my life, throughout the resistance against the soviets, the resistance against al quaida and taliban and later when there arose an opportunity to form a government, i was part of the government, i was part of the opposition, the royal opposition. i didn't accept seats from president karzai after the fraudulent elections because i believed that we can do -- we can help the country in the opposition to correct the system rather than be part of a corrupt system. >> charlie: what influence do you believe president karzai had on the outcome of the election? >> he was not neutral,

unfortunately. he took sides. he supported one side, and that one side was not me. i asked him to stay impartiality. it was good for him and would have been good for the country and the future of him as a leader who had served the country in the past 13 years with ups and downs, with achievements and failures altogether, but towards the end of his tenure, it would have been much better if he had listen to advice to stay impartial and then, in that sort of situation, he would have been the one who could have brokered -- brokered a deal in between us, between me and ashraf ghani or to facilitate so we could have gotten together and solved the problems. so he damaged that position of

himself, but that's his decision. i still respect him as my boss for some years and as a leader of the country but, nevertheless, it wasn't in the interest of the country that he took sides and that also led to the lack of faith in the process and damaged his position. >> charlie: just to be clear, you believe he was part of the voter fraud? >> i would say that he was part of supporting one candidate and also he himself as well as close associates had meddled with the electoral system and with our institutions. so the way that you define it as an outgoing president, i don't want to go further than that,

but, unfortunately, he chose to do such, which he could have done much better for the country and left much better memory for the people of the country had he been impartial. >> charlie: i realize you're dancing around a criticism of the president, but, at the same time, to commit voter fraud, i assume, is a criminal act in afghanistan, and did they -- and did he -- in their participation in the election commit a criminal act? >> you called it "dancing around an issue," criticizing. i have criticized him the past several years for many, many things including his role in these elections. but what is important for us, to leave the problems of the

elections behind us and look toward a better future for the people of the country. but his role was not positive. >> charlie: do you believe that, regardless of who is president, there will be and should be negotiations with the taliban? >> yes, i do believe in negotiations with the taliban, but this should not be the sole element of dealing with the taliban. at the same time, we should assure our people that we will be defending their rights and their achievements against terrorism and against those who are resorting to violence. only the day before yesterday in a suicidal attack in one of the provinces, 95 people were killed and a whole small town was destroyed. so these are crimes against humanity. so we are here to protect our

people, people's rights, at the same time keep the door open for negotiations. >> charlie: there are many people who have argued for a long time and it is part of the culture of afghanistan that it does not have a strong central government, you know, that this huge amount of power is wielded by tribal leaders. has that changed, or is that a fact of life in afghanistan? >> the fact of life in afghanistan has been that, for many, many years, the people were deprived of their democratic right and, for the first time post 2001, there was opportunity. a lot has changed. afghanistan has evolved, but, unfortunately, the mentality of some of the leaders have not changed. if you look at the younger generation in afghanistan, you will be find them vibrant,

forward-looking generation which have risen above the old ideas. but, at the same time, we have leaders in this country who are stuck in the old mentalities. so mentality among the leaders has not changed that much, so that is &ecause of that sort of mentality that there is no belief in institutions, there is no belief in the rule of law. so based on that mentality, we have missed a lot of opportunities in the past few years. i believe that some evolution of authority is needed. even under the current residential system, we with could have had elected mayors, the role of the provincial elected counsel members should be enhanced. but there was contingency of concentration of power not in

one office but in one person. that's why i give you the example of the signing of the bilateral security agreement. even we had the grand family consult. they decided if afghanistan should sign the bilateral security agreement, but 1% decided not to do so, and that has led to us missing a lot of opportunities. so the demographics of the country and the cultural issues in the country should be taken into account in the political system of the country which has a tradition of self-rule in a way, but, at the same time, uniting afghanistan, and that is something never in the history there have been calls for the integration of the country, the

separatist movement in the country. the country wants to be, the people want to be united, but, at the same time, certain evolution of authority to the problems is needed and hopefully the future coming years will help us to move towards it. >> charlie: you and dr. ghani said you will sign a bilateral security agreement with the obama administration, meaning there would be some american troops left there. is it, in your judgment, essential for american troops to be -- to remain beyond 2014 because -- and my question is how many -- because, without that, you might see the same kinds of consequences we have seen in iraq? >> i would say that, first of all, signing the bilateral security agreement in the first

few days of the future government is essential and, at the same time, i would say that sacrificing your troops as well as the afghan people and the international community as a whole. afghanistan has moved from one place to the next, but we are not where reought to be in order to create stable circumstances and a stable foundation for this country. so the federalist organization cannot return back and then put in the security and stability of afghanistan and threaten world peace. so the presence of troops will be needed for some time to come, but, meanwhile, it's important that the commitment is there for long-term support for afghanistan. at the same time, it shouldn't be one-sided where the international community is committed to afghanistan while the afghan leaders are not

committed to help their own people, to deal with the corruption, to help strengthen the rule of law, to uphold the ideals of democracy, which is the only means for survival of our country. here, it's not an idea that you have a choice to take it or leave it, but survival of the country is related to this. so part of this is the commitment of the afghan leaders and the afghan people, which is provided -- there is an opportunity for them. and most legitimate elections, i see an opportunity, at the same time, continued support from the international community and the united states is needed and, hopefully, the future opportunities will be utilized in a much better way than what has been done in the past few years. >> charlie: it is said the taliban took advantage of the

corruption of the karzai regime, and it was part of what enabled them to come back as a potent force. do you agree? >> i do. the growing gap between the people in the government because of corruption, because of bad governance, because of lack of commitment to the democratic principles and the rights of the people, that helped the insurgency, and that feeds insurgency. on top of this, absence of a policy towards insurgency. we are releasing prisoners without taking a guarantee or assurances that they are not joining the battlefield. in absence of a clear policy which not only has elements of

dealing with the insurgency by also assurances to the millions and millions of peaceful people which are committed to peaceful afghanistan. so confusion in the policies has led to the strengthening of the taliban, i have no doubt about it. >> charlie: when you assess the future of afghanistan, how potent a force do you believe the taliban are? how strong are they? >> they are an ideological force as well as they have links with terrorist organizations. there is strength. as far as the numbers are concerned, it's difficult to put a number on them, but, at the same time, they will be stronger if the government of afghanistan is not seen as legitimate. they will be stronger and they will find ways, if the government of afghanistan is not

committed to the ideas of its own people. it's not in the service of their own people, if there's no justice. if there's no rule of law. if there's rampant corruption, that will lead to their strength. otherwise, they will be isolated. they can turn into isolated groups in different parts of the country and, eventually, those of them who want to continue the war up to the end, they will be very limited isolated groups. those of them will see no future for themselves in fighting, they will have to join the peaceful process. so their strength will depend not just on how strong a force is dealing with them on our side, whether international, our own national army and national institutions. that's one part of it. the more important part of it is the civilian government which is legitimate, which is committed

to the rights of the people and delivers to the people in a just and fair manner and provides an opportunity for the peaceful citizens of this country, that's a very important element in dealing with the taliban. >> charlie: i know it's too early to say, but what will history say about america's involvement in afghanistan? history generally says about afghanistan that it's not a place to get engaged and involved because the afghans always reject the presence of international other countries. they did can it in history, they did it with russia or the soviet union and, in the end, they're doing it with the united states. >> part of the history could be relevant to the current

situation, that major part of it is history and those are by gones. as far as soviet union is concerned, the soviet union occupied afghanistan and the people resisted it. i was a student in the faculty of medicine at that time but i knew i would be part of the resistance against the soviets because they occupied our country and when i graduated from the faculty after one or two years, i joined. but those were different circumstances. this question of yours i was faced with post-2001, post-september 11, 2001, when there was the prospect of american troops coming to afghanistan, i clearly anticipated at that time that the people of afghanistan would welcome the american troops in

afghanistan because we knew that the process, the conditions which were imposed upon us, we were not able to do it on our own. so the role of your people, your country in afghanistan will be regarded as servicing, as helping afghanistan in a critical moment of our history, and the people of afghanistan are grateful for your people, your country in helping us in a very difficult time. disgraceful attitude of some of our leaders should not be interpreted as the views of millions and millions of afghans who have benefited from your support in the past 13 years. nevertheless, there have been some mistakes and some big mistakes, perhaps, and, at the same time, the fact that you have helped us and you have made

sacrifices alongside the afghans, and those who will get it in a fair manner rather than being contaminated by self-interests, invested interests, in a prod sense, the afghan people will be grateful for the help that you bring toward us and remain helpful. and this was a turning point in our history that you helped us against the soviet union once towards the end of the 20t 20th century, and you helped us once again at the beginning of the 21st century against taliban and al quaida. >> charlie: what were the mistakes you mentioned? >> i would say that listening to one person rather than listening to the voice of millions of people of afghanistan, that's

one, for quite some time. and then turning towards iraq, the attention towards iraq at a critical moment, and that is the next. and then, of course, considering the indigenous forces in afghanistan, those who have helped against the soviet occupation of afghanistan and also against the taliban and al quaida, and the main challenge, that was a mistake because these indigenous forces of afghanistan which were committed against al quaida and taliban, they should have been transformed into national forces rather than trying to isolate them and creating a security vacuum, which was used and utilized by the taliban. so mistakes were also not less. there were a lot of them.

but, at the same time, the soviets, the the help and the support was overwhelming, and the overwhelming majority of our people are appreciative of that. >> charlie: thank you so much for taking your time to talk with us and to understand your own vision for afghanistan and its future. >> you're welcome. and good to talk to you. >> charlie: abdullah abdullah, one of the two men who may likely be the next president of afghanistan. we await the results of the audit and see what happens. back in a moment. stay with us. >> charlie: we talk in the book at resetting russia. we talk about whatever happened with the reset with russia. that didn't work. >> that's just not true. >> charlie: explain why the relationship with russia is so good because of the reset. >> first of all, we had a different president we were dealing with. >> charlie: but -- no, it's significant. >> charlie: the most powerful figure was the prime minister, not the president.e

>> well, he was. but he saw an advantage to the reset as well, because look at what the reset accomplished -- a new stark treaty because we had one expire because we didn't know what they were doing, they didn't know what they were doing, that was in both our interests. getting the sanctions on iran, i worked hard to negotiate that through the security council that began to rein in the iranians to get them to the table which is where we are today and clearly helping us in refueling and reapplying our troops. >> charlie: but -- we got what we needed from the reset. it miffed a longer life if putin had come back into office with a different attitude, but the signs that i saw starting with the protests in the streets in russia in december 2011 after the rigged parliamentary election and he blamed me for

the protest, so it was very clear to me he was not going to continue the kind of cooperative relationship we built up when he became president again and that's why i wrote a memorandum before he took office and one when i walked out the door talking about a different approach in dealing with him. but the reset was successful insofar as -- >> charlie: in that it was the president. >> exactly. and as long as we had clear objectives. well, you know, a lot of diploim si is transactional. >> charlie: most of it. well, not always, because we do have some, you know, friends and allies with very clear values that are not ours. >> charlie: iran, as we sit here, you know, it looks like it's likely that they're going to have to extend beyond. you would support that if what? >> well, i would take a hard look at what the iranians have been saying because there have been two messages -- the message from the political side, if you

will, and the message from the supreme leader. >> charlie: different points of view. >> that's right. i do believe this is serious enough that we should look carefully at an extension, but in return for what? what is it we're going to get from an extension of the talks? >> charlie: what should we demand? >> well, you can't negotiate in public about that. >> charlie: but, i mean -- what is iran willing to do to reassure the united states, the west, the p5-plus powers, everyone else is concerned about iranian expansionism and nuclear power to back it up, what are they going to do to assure the rest of the world that they are not going to be able to rush to breakout capacity in a relatively short period of time. >> charlie: did they make any assurances that are believable based on what they said?

they even said to have a nuclear weapon is against the qur'an. >> yes, and issued a fatwa and all the rest of it. >> charlie: but the leaders are saying we need 100,000 centrifuges. >> well, but that makes no sense. >> charlie: that's what he said. >> he's in a position that may or may not be a negotiative position or a substantive position. it's a political system, how do we know. i can make the case he said that to make it clear to the united states and the rest that, come on, guys, i have this supreme leader saying this and you know that won't cut bait with you so how do we get -- you have to help me. and then we have our own problems, my friend. we have a lot of people who don't trust you, have good reason not to trust you, we have

a congress that's very suspicious, so what are you going to do to help us? and that's the conversation that's going on now. >> charlie: the most important relationship the united states has is with china? >> no. >> charlie: who is it? the most important relationship we have is with europe. >> charlie: period. period. >> charlie: but the two dominant forces of the 20t 20th century are united states and china. europe as a whole but -- >> i have a good relationship with kathy ashton who is the first high rep foreign affairs. the relationship with china is absolutely consequential and that's not just a semantic difference. we have to have a very clear understand with china, which is why we put together this strategic and economic dialogue, because they are prone to misread us and, occasionally, we are prone to misread them. so we have to keep the channels open. >> charlie: it's a danger. a big danger. and, you know, when i agreed to let the blind dissident chen

into our embassy, it could have blown up our relationship for years to come. they stopped talking to people who meet with the dalai lama. but because we invested so much time and effort into building a relationship, you know, really people to people, official to official, we were able to weather that and we need to do more because it is such a consequential relationship. >> charlie: if i don't mention it, a thousand people will write saying why didn't you mention benghazi. two questions, one is the question of whether there was enough security and whether you knew. you've spoken about that. >> right. >> charlie: you did not know. right. >> charlie: but you've also listened to recommendation made by the first commission. that question has to do about talking points and things like that which were not necessarily having to do anything with you. had to do with the president and susan rice.

is it going to be, you believe, an effective campaign item for those who believe somehow that the president was paying more attention to the campaign than to the definition of what was going on in benghazi? >> you know, charlie, i don't think so, and i certainly hope not because, you know, over the last, you know, 35 years, we've had both democrats and republicans in the white house when terrible attacks on americans have occurred. we lost 258 americans, marines and embassy personnel in beirut under president reagan, and the way that was handled at the time was with deep regret and shock and as clear an investigation as could be held to try to learn from it and to apply the lessons because those were terrible

times for the united states. my husband was president when we had attacks on our embassies in tanzania and kenya. again, the first time ever, an investigation was held at mad lip albright -- madeleine albright's direction and made public because we wanted people to know what we needed to learn from that. since 9/11, we've had many attacks on facilities and personnel in the civilian work of the united states, the state department, a.i.d. and foreign nationals who work for us. there is no way to express the deep regret and tragedy of the loss of our four americans. two diplomats, one a friend, someone i sent there, an ambassador, information specialist and two c.i.a. contractors. so we have had losses.

there's a big -- you know, a big plaque as you come in the state department listing people who have died in the line of duty as civilians and we know how much our military has sacrificed. so i think the american people want answers. i believe there have been many answers given. answer doesn't mean everybody listens to it. so between congressional investigations, the independent board that was convened that came forward with their recommendations, there are many, many answers out there. so we'll see what yet one more investigation means, but i think it's important to put this in historic context. >> charlie: i thank you for spending this time with me. the book is called "hard choices." i appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >> charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

>> what if those "health foods" that you're eating every day are actually hurting you? the cereal with skim milk for breakfast, the decaf soy latte mid-morning, that yogurt you had for an afternoon snack. you may be surprised to learn that a lot of what we've been told is good for us is only good for some company's bottom line. and it's taking its toll on your health, your weight, and the number of years in your life. what i'm about to tell you will help you reclaim your health and your life. and all it takes is dropping seven foods from your diet. and you could lose up to seven pounds in just seven days. stay with me. [cheers and applause] >> male announcer: pain and fatigue don't have to be your fate as you age. and that extra weight isn't just due to gettinglder. >> you can be your best in your