About This Video
Title:
Published: Fri, 31 Jul 2009
Description: John Bolton on U.S. foreign policy decisions
Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)
" with -- ambassador thanks having an indictment welcome to the web that are usually your daughters of big webcam action on the level of right as an as a young Morgan Stanley analyst and I think that's all it does work on the current. This is -- that right here this what's happening. You obviously you -- very critical of George W. Bush so it's of his foreign policy so you're critical of Obama I take it seriously injured not partisan about this. I am equal opportunity offender what are the things you said about bush -- the end of his administration which still encourage him to have made you an ambassador. Doing the things the -- critical of them after the fact well I frankly reasons was critical in Iran North Korea Middle East where because he had moved away from the policies that he tried to file during much of the first term thing or consistent with the reason he probably wanted -- Haven't you think he moved away what do you think that the way from the that he become a different kind of -- move -- the current events moment but that he did have a different president later mr."
" I think in the second term especially in the last two or three years say he listened essentially only the secretary of state rice says many of his other advisers were gone. For whatever reason Vice President Cheney is influence was diminished and Secretary Rice for reasons that I'm sure she'll explain when she writes her book. Was basically channeling the State Department white boy that changed on the part of the president feels that. I think the administration changed in the second term for a lot of reasons. But I think it primarily because the composition of the advisers was different certainly the circumstances were different. But the the one thing I think the most important ball was that he completely dominant role of Secretary Rice. Well he was always very close to her as a -- primarily Soviet colleges so. But she -- further influence and other areas as well what -- in the second term especially the last few years was that she simply -- absorbed by the State Department so all of those policies that had been there all along we're now being transmitted by -- in a way that secretary -- had not been so effective and transmitting and the president listened -- who who is calling the -- Obama equally -- ultimately that's right but I must say six months into the administration's very hard to figure -- their national security decision making works authorities very fragmented these legions of special -- is very hard to know who's really in charge -- Hillary Clinton influential in terms of -- this position at -- Doing a good job as secretary of state I think she is influential because of who she is much like secretary Powell is influential for that reason. But it's hard to see where she's making her particular mark in policy terms the -- what's going on this week for one thing you have George Mitchell and Robert Gates in the Middle East. Now are those two words the people to have in the -- in that place and we have Mitchell shuttling back and forth from Syria Israel to Egypt back and back again yeah. But also National Security Adviser James Jones is is there for three days there's another holdover from the bush -- well as a as a media indirectly he was in military and the Bush Administration. But I think that's part of the Obama effort to put pressure on Israel on two fronts one to not to attack Iran militarily not to attack its nuclear weapons program number one number two. To stop all settlement activity in the occupied territories is however George Mitchell someone -- can -- of coverage to the president made this a priority early in his administration to get some kind of mideast agreement. Is this. Easy bitten off more than he could you at this time. In this part of the world yes I think he has not having anything to do with senator Mitchell you could have Mother Teresa and that there'll that would make you wanna try. Well the reason is that on the other side of the bargaining table from the Israelis the Palestinians. Are real disarray they've got Hamas a terrorist group in charge of the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority which is basically the Fatah faction. Unable to could. -- even the West Bank so there's really no counterpart. On the negotiating side for the Israelis to deal no Arafat -- mean who had some power at the time over right exactly -- this is this is obviously very difficult negotiation. The Palestinians need somebody who can make commitments and following through that that's so what -- it without even tried it would not even get involved in the process -- I wouldn't say you ignore the process but I think you have to be realistic you're not gonna have real progress until there's some entity on the Palestinian side that really reflects the the possibility of of those properties and individuals engage should not even Jones should not even be. Deployed at this point to do this. Well I would not have appointed a special envoy to fill the Mitchell position I think if there's anything as secretary of state should do it's this this goes back to Kissinger who invented shuttle diplomacy. It if people say it takes up too much of the secretary's time naming an issue that's more important. I -- obviously is a focal point this is really United States permission if it ever decide to take action against Iran. Do we have to -- we have to check that off. I don't think it'll ask permission I don't know that Israel's made a decision whether route to attack Iran's nuclear program. But if and when they do make that decision I think as the saying goes they will inform us not consult -- you have said that Israel's do not believe Iran. Can be a nuclear program or that can have a nuclear program. But they can't. Well they've got a nuclear program the issue is whether you can trust the Ryan's under this regime in Tehran to have a peaceful nuclear program. And I think the answer to that is no given. Twenty years of deception of the international community and what they've been pursuing Hillary Clinton is that we're not gonna wait forever you know at some point we're not gonna be mr. nice guy. And try to negotiate drug -- despite diplomatic relationship at some poorly. There will use other -- she she has said that that is reflective. Of a trade in the Obama administration to act as though the world began on January the twentieth you know. Before he came into office the Europeans had been at this negotiation for over six years six years of failure. So you have to ask yourself what is the exit strategy from a failed negotiation I'm not sure the Obama administration has articulated that yes let's say -- was in charge here now and the president you're sure your foreign policy what do you do battery. Iran is not gonna be talked out of its nuclear weapons program if we had been working more effectively in the second bush term to help. Assist the dissidents which we've now seen in the streets of Iran then sent. And there we strike military answer installations very targeted as you say -- point. And that encourages the dissidents to kind and the government's gone based on horror. Initiative and going after the -- I think it's more complicated -- what I'm reacting to really is the assumption that if we're Israel. Attacks the uranium enrichment facility at times that somehow. The nation war rally around Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that is not true. What about what it look we've seen that Twitter -- is some people called it we've talked began talking about the Internet the power of the Internet and get things going on line. Twitter. I know that sounds funny. But bringing down the regime -- 140 characters or less than the idea that story has been dissidents take if we see what's happening in Iran won't that eventually we were over throws. The government I think it'll be a major factor look authoritarian -- totalitarian regime stay in power by isolating their opponents mass communication over the Internet Twitter and all the rest of it. Prevents that so -- take military action which you'd have tremendously negative repercussions when we see already in progress of things and probably bring down the government. But we have no idea how long that will be there were riots and demonstrations in revolutions in Europe in 1956. Who is another 25 years before. The Soviet empire fell a long before then Iran will have nuclear weapons and -- Sobel others in the Middle East Egypt Saudi Arabia Turkey. Proliferation it will be even more dangerous than just on haven't Bom we're burning a lot of money from China with who've been a part of the world the president this week. -- you know spoke he spoke with representatives from China. He spoke about China and the importance of that will."
" You gonna have to -- and the rest of the interview we. It's like that let you make the rest up that's that we you know we ran out of -- gonna tell him with its we're saving money it's the bad economy. That's how it -- anyway."
More Videos From FOX News
North Korea fires four new missiles, but should U.S. be worried?
Video|Thu, 2 Jul 2009|More from Latest Video
|north koreafound at0:04, 1:04, 2:24, 2:58, 3:49
How should the U.S. respond? Amb. John Bolton weighs in
Video|Mon, 14 Jul 2008|More from World
|North Koreafound at4:28
'Strategy Room' panel discusses Obama's 'global wave' against nuclear weapons
Video|Wed, 9 Sep 2009|More from Web Originals
|nuclear weaponsfound at0:29, 1:03, 1:57, 4:11, 4:57