"First of all I would call him a felon. Let's be honest here, I'm the former director of Central Intelligence, the former secretary of defense, I'm not exactly an unbiased or completely independent person when it comes to these issues. But I will tell you this. As a result of the scandals that affected the CIA in the early to mid 1970s, the United States government?all three branches, both political parties?has spent 35 years erecting institutions of oversight on intelligence operations. They have continued, they've grown, but they have continued on the same oversight basis, the same principle and law, under presidents as different as Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Barack Obama. Under Congresses led by Republicans and led by Democrats.
"We've spent three and a half decades building institutions to provide for oversight. And those who have participated in those oversight institutions are among those who are defending what's going on now.
"The debate over freedom and security is as old as the republic, and it's a debate that should always continue, but it's a debate that needs to take place within the rules, because if a single individual within the system can decide for himself or herself that [his or her] judgment overrides all of that of all the institutions I've described, then that's a formula for chaos and anarchy. And there are multiple avenues that have been established over that 35 years for people that have grievances.
"So my view is Snowden is not a whistleblower, he is a felon. And I think in a way his motives say a lot about him?the travel itinerary that he apparently has planned. The truth is, a person of conscience would make the revelations and stay here and face the music, and not flee to the protection of the most authoritarian governments of the world. Which is one of the supreme ironies of all of this."
On President Bush and President Obama:
"On issue after issue, including even more aggressively going after Bin Laden and al-Qaida, I found that there was going to be tremendous continuity between the presidents. Including I would say for the first year and a half on the defense budget itself. In fact, when I asked [Obama] about going after Bin Laden and al-Qaida, he looked at me and kind of smiled and said 'I'm no peacenik.' So I found after that meeting, first of all, that I welcomed his candor and his honesty with me, his openness with me, but it seemed to me there would be a lot of continuity, and frankly I think he saw me as the bridge of continuity, in terms of providing assurance to people."
On Syria:
"First of all, I would say I was very much opposed to going into Libya . . . I did not believe our vital interests were at stake. I believe that once you get drawn in, it's like pretending you can stick your hand into the vortex of a tornado and pull it out whole, or not get the rest of yourself sucked into it. And we saw that happen . . . in Libya, where what began as a humanitarian mission to protect the people of Benghazi was broadened steadily day by day with broader and broader target lists.
"The question about the involvement in Syria is, can you put just a few fingers into the tornado? And at what point, when that fails, do the pressures to do more gradually draw you in further and further? My own view is that if you had to do something, that the way the president's doing it is probably?well, it's the way that I would have suggested. To do so indirectly, by working through others in the region: Turkey, Jordan, some of the other states. Providing training. Providing basic military equipment. I would be willing to provide more antiarmor. But I'm not prepared to offer them antiaircraft. The danger of those surface-to-air missiles mainly from Qaddafi's arsenals falling into the hands of the wrong rebel I think is too great."
On the biggest threat to the nation:
"I think the biggest threat to our future sits in Washington, D.C., and not someplace else. The rest of the problems of the world wouldn't worry me if we had a functional government. And if we had a Congress that could begin to address some of the long-term problems that the country has. I mean, the reality is our problems are deep enough in every category that none of them can be resolved during the course of one presidency or one Congress. So you need bipartisan solutions that can be sustained through more than one presidency and more than one Congress. And we don't see any evidence of that in Washington."
On budgeting by sequestration:
"There may be a stupider way to do things, but I can't figure out what it is. The result is a hollow military, and we will pay for it in the same way we've paid for it every time we've done this in the past, and this is, in the next conflict?and there will be a next conflict?with the blood of our soldiers."
Nemo Storm weather forecast Rivals weather channel Kaepernick Eddie Vanderdoes puppy bowl
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.