we had tried when we first came in to strengthen the containment regime around saddam hussein.sunday afternoon, long sunday afternoon meeting in which we were trying to figure could we have something to do smart sanctions that would hurt the regime and not the people? we had these no-fly zones where our aircraft would fly to keep his aircraft on the ground. he would shot at them. i remember the president saying "what are we going to do if he shoots down an american pilot?" and, of course, he put 400,000 people in mass graves and weapons of mass destruction were not a theoretical issue with him, he'd used chemical weapons against his own people and against the iranians. so he was a threat. what changed after 2003 is that after you've gone through something like 9/11 we don't want to let threats sit there and materialize and he had been one of the biggest threats on the list for a long time. we tried to deal with it differently before 9/11 and then afterwards put him on notice through the u.n., resolution 1441 passed unanimously that he was a threat to international peace and sec

saddam hussein was trying to buy stuff and bum bum bum bum bum. didn't turn out to be true.ney writes she you. >> bill: cheney referring to a difference of opinion you guys had because you said we shouldn't have included that into the president's speech when he was explaining to the american public. so were you crying in his office. >> no. billion why he thought i was crying. maybe the tears were in his eyes. >> bill: this is hyperbole on the part of the vice president. >> i have cried. i cried when i saw wounded soldiers. i cried a couple days after september 11th. i cried when i was sitting with the victims of rape in darfur who had been raped some of them by u.n. peace keepers. but in the vice president's office because of a press report, no. >> bill: he didn't like you because you didn't agree with him on a lot of things. north korea, terrorism watch lists, you wanted them off, he didn't. then there was the controversy over shake mohammed, khalid sheikh mohammed. you wanted to stop the waterboarding at that point. >> no. i wanted to bring khalid sheikh mohammed to guanta

weapons of mass destruction were not a theoretical probability with saddam hussein. after all, had he used them before. he had been seen in 1991 after the gulf war i to have a crude nuclear device in perhaps a year, and so we believed that the weapons of mass destruction case was solid, but as i said, i don't think it was wise to have any of us, but particularly the president, debating or defending an intelligence nugget. did he buy uranium ore in niger, what were aluminum tubes for, why was he buying so much colorin? the reasoning was this was a cancer in the region, saddam hussein, who had caused two massive wars in the region, who had tried to assassinate a president of the united states, who had put 400,000 of his people in mass graves, was breaking out of the constraints under which he had been put in 1991 and was reconstituting, according to our intelligence agencies, his weapons of mass destruction. that broader strategic case, i think, got lost in, as you call tshg the drip, drip, drip of intelligence nuggets. >> let's take a break and come back. i want to ta

saddam hussein had in place there were elements of his regime that stayed in place.ements from al qaeda. elements from iran who were there. who were ready who launched a very bloody insurgency. >> not anticipated by us. that insurgency. >> it was anticipated by everyone. >> when we removed saddam hussein we made sure that there wasn't going to be somebody in place who we knew had ties to terror and make weapons of mass destruction who we knew had used him before who qui knew were supporting terrorists. we also by the way as soon as saddam hussein was gone got a call from muammar qaddafi who didn't want to be next who gave up his nuclear weapons. i think that the notion that we now have in the heart of the middle east, a democracy that is not supporting terrorists. it's not perfect. but it is a huge accomplishment of the bush administration that we liberated all those people and the people in afghanistan. i think it's just flat wrong for you to call it. >> bill: i disagree in the sense that it could have been done in a different way. i would have -- the same result. >

saddam hussein had in place there were elements of his regime that stayed in place.from al qaeda. elements from iran who were there. who were ready who launched a very bloody insurgency. >> not anticipated by us. that insurgency. >> it was anticipated by everyone. >> when we removed saddam hussein we made sure that there wasn't going to be somebody in place who we knew had ties to terror and make weapons of mass destruction who we knew had used him before who qui knew were supporting terrorists. we also by the way as soon as saddam hussein was gone got a call from muammar qaddafi who didn't want to be next who gave up his nuclear weapons. i think that the notion that we now have in the heart of the middle east, a democracy that is not supporting terrorists. it's not perfect. but it is a huge accomplishment of the bush administration that we liberated all those people and the people in afghanistan. i think it's just flat wrong for you to call it. >> bill: i disagree in the sense that it could have been done in a different way. i would have -- the same result. >> which

cause that was immediately sort of coupled with the anthrax attacks was the drive to take out saddam hussein and the iraq war. there were many within the bush of administration, some in congress and quite a few outside the area who were gunning for saddam hussein for very long time, prominent members of the bush administration, defense secretary donald rumsfeld, paul wolfowitz. i'm sure these are familiar names to you. they written a letter saying the only viable policy now part of the world was to take out saddam forcibly so the anthrax letter attacks were really a gift in the lap of the ideologues and they immediately began intimating that the anthrax attacks were somehow sponsored by saddam hussein. the third mater policy consequences that flowed from the anthrax letter attacks was something called project bioshield, which provided billions of dollars for research into the development of new medical products and other countermeasures that may at some point make us safer in the event of another biological attack. there was a dramatic expansion around the country and great ongoing expense t

>> well, i don't think there is a case to be made that saddam hussein would have gone down like moammar have. >> reporter: why not? >> he had a bigger army. gadhafi was a monster, but saddam hussein killed 400,000 of his own people. >> reporter: you had a complicated relationship with a gadha gadhafi. to say the least. especially one particularly bizarre meeting with gadhafi in his private kitchen when he decided to show her a strange video. what was going through your head? >> what was going through my head is, how long do i have to sit here? it was actually just pictures of me with various leaders. and he said, i had libya's best composer write this song for you, and it was called "black flower in the white house." and this is a really, really strange moment in my time as secretary of state. and why he had this strange fascination, i think, i'll never really know. >> reporter: and when you say him being dragged through the streets? >> revolutions aren't pretty. >> reporter: neither is policy-making dur wartime in her new book, "no higher honor," rice takes her critics to task. she cla

we didn't invent the threat of saddam hussein. he'd used weapons of mass destruction-- chemicals-- against the iranians and against his own people. >> reporter: but he didn't have them. >> well, he didn't have stockpiles of them. i do think that when we made the case, we should have made that broader case, not just the case about weapons of mass destruction. we had gone to war against him in '91. president clinton had used force against him in 1998. there hadn't been an inspector in iraq since 1998. he was continuing to threaten his neighbors. he tried to assassinate george h.w. bush. he was paying palestinian suicide bombers $25,000. and, oh, by the way, he put 400,000 people in mass graves. you want to talk about a humanitarian disaster. >> reporter: so knowing now what you knew then, you would do it again. >> i would because saddam hussein was at the center of an unstable middle east. we would not have an arab spring in iraq. the arab spring in iraq would have started in 9:00 and been done at 4:00 because this is-- was the worl

. >> reporter: was getting rid of saddam hussein worth a trillion dollars and 4,400 american lives?east and i'm really glad there is not today a weapons of mass destruction a nuclear arms race between mahmoud ahmadinejad in iran and iraq. >> reporter: did iraq have weapons of mass destructions? >> iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destructions. >> reporter: the critics have charged that the focus on iraq meant that you took your eye off the ball in afghanistan. president obama's record in terms of terrorism, how would you rate it? >> well, president obama has built very well on the legacy and the institutions and the mechanisms that president bush left him. >> reporter: but when you look at the numbers, would you give president obama credit? he has killed more al qaeda leaders in three years in office than president bush did in his entire eight years in office. >> well, of course, the important thing is that we were able to capture their field generals and people like khalid sheikh muhammad were able to tell us how al qaeda operated. >> reporter: you have to give obama credi

a really good relation with the you know they've considered it they considered it during the saddam hussein era in iraq to be sort of a cousin. in iraq so we're really looking at a clash between between too many regional powers and how the big powers such as the united states and britain and russia play into it is really going to determine the outcome and ted your thoughts about france's musician and the french foreign ministers have been said within five when he said the time for reforms is passed to what extent do you think france is prepared to escalate. well france certainly has a history of intervention in syria just recently a seventy years ago and more recently than that so i think france has some sort of neo colonial designs on the assad regime they see some opportunities there but it's i think that none of the people involved here are really truly are looking to green light a full fledged bombing offensive on the scale that we've seen starting in march in libya it could it could end up happening because of what they're doing now i just don't think that's what they have in mind righ

destruction and carries it to vittie was as solid as could be satellite images of a base where saddam hussein was believed to train al qaida terrorists evidence of more laps for biological weapons illumine him to present it as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium all of the above proved to be a hoax. and yet it was enough to start a war that would last eight plus years and kill more than a hundred thousand civilians israel is considering military action to take out iran's nuclear facilities preemptively the question many now ask is could the un's atomic watchdog group ford serve as a justification to start a war with iran security experts say the consequences for such action would be catastrophic we would most likely see new kinds of attacks probably on israel from hezbollah or other groups we'd see attacks on american troops perhaps in iraq and afghanistan even more than what we've seen so far iran i mean could retaliate in conventional terms of credit attacking saudi arabian oil fields if you really want to see a crisis in being here in the international economy despite tough rhetori

cause that was immediately sort of coupled with the anthrax attacks was the drive to take out saddam hussein and the iraq war. there were many within the bush administration, some in congress, and quite a few outside the commons area who were gunning for saddam hussein for a very long time. prom innocent members of the bush administration, don rumsfeld and others wrote a letter to president clinton in 1998 saying the only viable policy in that part of the world was to take out saddam forcibly. the anthrax letters were really a gift in the lap of the ideolog, and they immediately began saying the anthrax attacks were sponsored by hussein, al-qaeda, or perhaps both interests. the third major policy consequence flowing from the attacks was called project bioshield providing billions of dollars of research into the development of new medical products, vaccines, other counter measures that may at some point make us safer in the event of god forbid, another bilogical attack. it's a dramatic expansion of the labs around the country at great ongoing expense around the country, and this means 11,000

in retrospect, knowing what we know now does that change your opinion about saddam hussein, about iraq, about whether or not this was the right thing to do and whether or not the world is better off? >> it doesn't sean. partly because the sort of shorthand that says we didn't find any wmd. if you go back and look at the report of the iraq survey group that was put together by the experts that went in, surveyed, spend a couple of years looking at all the information that was available. while they didn't find stockpiles they did fan a government that had the capacity to go back that production of weapons of mass destruction. and the -- had the basic raw terms had the personnel and technical know how. there was every reason to believe that's what saddam hussein would do as soon as the sanctions were lifted that the international community tried time pose on him. the facts are, to say that there were no stockpiles, that's accurate. to say there was no wmdt all or no interest or threat from it is not accurate. there was a significant threat that existed. >> sean: i want to ask you one quest

the western powers and iran is the cornerstone because contrary to iraq which was on its own saddam husseinontrary to libya and afghanistan iran has definitely a very strong commercial and trade agreement with china and has a very strong trade agreement with russia although it's not official it probably has some sort of military alliance with russia too so i think that what we are seeing is we are probably edging closer to what might become a full fledged war in the region even a world war with iran is the cornerstone if it is attacked by israeli american british or a combination of all three forces in the near future it is very interesting how you bring russia and china into this you know basically describing the massive trade agreements between iran and china and russia certainly if the west did try and attack iran it would certainly flare tempers and two of the biggest well powers of that of russia and china now moments ago you mentioned the issue of israel if israel did unilaterally attack iran as we know just a few days ago a test fired this new intercontinental missile do you think am

had retrospect, knowing what we ow now, does that change your been about saddam hussein, about iraq, did whether or not this was the right thing to do and whether or not the world is better off? >> well, it doesn't, sean, partly because the sort of shorthand basically says we didn't find by wmd. if you go book and look at the report put together by the experts that went in and surveyed, spent a couple of years looking at all of the information that was available, while they didn't find stockpiles, they did in fact find a government that clearly had the capacity to go back into production of weapons of mass destruction, had the basic raw materials, had the personnel and the technical know how to do that and there was every reason to believe that was, in fact, what saddam hussein would do as soon as the sanctions were lifted and he was back free of the restraints that's correct the international community had tried to impose on him. so the facts are, to say that there were no stockpiles, that's accurate. to say there was no wmd at all or interest or threats of it, that's not accurate.