Get Adobe Flash Player to see this content.

About This Video

Numbers Game

Title:

Numbers Game

Published: Wed, 11 Nov 2009

Description: What sending a reported 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan would mean

-

Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

" President Obama holds a high level meeting that his national security team on the table the war in Afghanistan. President Bob was given for options by his team today. And according to the Associated Press the president rejected all the options meanwhile the AP reports that the US ambassador to Afghanistan. Has a forceful reservations nobody troop surge because he still has so many questions about the leadership of Afghan president Hamid Ahmed Karzai's. So what should the president do for Maria Sebastian UN John Bolton joins us live investor nice to see you and you know you -- get that report in August and still wound we still have an answer from the president and there are soldiers over there at a higher risk. What's that I mean am I like that he's taking time to think about it but I you know I've -- we -- help these people over there are soldiers."

" Right well that this is like AS slow motion train wreck watching this decision making process and it really is having a debilitating effect I think on troop morale in Afghanistan. And globally it's having a debilitating effect on America's reputation it's not just the presence indecisiveness. And Afghanistan but his weakness and indecisiveness and other areas and well that gives the reputation that that he's got -- problem making hard decisions."

" I'm less worried big picture about his reputation making decisions and and then -- admitted -- look like it's indecisive. I'm really more worried about the men and women on the ground there. Who you know then they may even nation to -- initially pulled out they need reinforcement or something with a one thing we do know. The status quo is bad the numbers are up in terms of casualties and injuries. Are catastrophically. Higher than they have been so something needs to be done and that's the that's still a question I have is that we need to make some decisions."

" Well I think we have to focus on what America's strategic interest are Afghanistan I think they're basically two. One is we don't want Taliban and al-Qaeda retaking control of the country uses a platform. To launch terrorist attacks and number two I think more important now we don't want the situation in Afghanistan. Contributing to instability in pockets on that could cause that government to fall into radical hands and with -- a very substantial supply. But nuclear weapons we don't have an unlimited amount of time. And our strategic interest exists regardless of the performance of the government of Afghanistan our interest can't depend. On how well they do and I think to the extent. That the president is looking for ways to lay this off on the government in Kabul he's missing the real point of why we were there in the first place."

" About you know what is already spilled over we were in Pakistan a week -- hundred plus blown up at a market -- say that that instability in in Afghanistan has already poured into that nuclear armed country of Pakistan. Seven we have we are you know perilously beyond that point."

" but that's precisely why we need a steadfast strategy in Afghanistan to grind the both the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban organizations between the Pakistani military on their side of the border. And US and NATO forces on the Afghan side of the border. Because if we're not able to bring this under control I think there's very grave question and in the fairly near future. That we would see even more instability in Pakistan and the possibility that the government would fall which would be. An enormous. Setback to US and other interest around the world."

" Not not to mention scary indeed -- are out. Did it APR that's something caught my attention tell me this is significant or not it says this talk about the the ambassador to the US ambassador Afghanistan. It says in a strongly worded it classified cables to Washington. The ambassador said he had misgivings about sending new troops while they're still so many questions about the leadership of the president. That the question I have said he strongly worded classified cable. -- fact that the American that the Associated Press has that means that they are there are leaks that there is you know this -- this is this is -- a situation where where people are talking in the you have leaks we have dissension. You don't have weeks and everybody's happy and on the same page. Right."

" I think the only thing more troubling than they could disorder in the administration's decision making processes the media's. Reporting of how it's going on because I don't think it necessarily portrays. Accurately how this is being. Thought out the fact that cables like that are being leaked. I think demonstrates that that whatever decision is reached there will still be disagreement after it's over and I think that could have. Further unfortunate effect no matter what troop increase the president. Decides upon because it means that he is not leading his team at least not so far. Toward a coherent decision despite working on it for almost four months. -- thank you sir. Thank you up next."

More Videos From FOX News

John Bolton

John Bolton

Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. on North Korea enriching uranium to build A-bombs

Video|Mon, 15 Jun 2009|More from Your World
|north koreafound at0:00, 0:24, 1:01, 1:19

Well I think with respect to North Korea they've now made it very clear that dead they're determined to have nuclear weapons one way or another that the six party talks are dead. That the President Obama is outstretched hand is not going to be reciprocated so. I think there it's time for the US to torque up the pressure to use the proliferation security initiative. In force the UN Security Council sanctions going back to October. But 2006. Cut North Korea out of international financial markets and most important go to China and say. You need to use your leverage either to change this regime and end its nuclear weapons program.
Well North Korea that's another issue and that country going nuclear expanding its weapons program now saying that it is indeed enriching more uranium to build. Atomic bombs Iran and North Korea both going ballistic of the same time generally not. US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton not surprised. On what we
All right but we. North Korea has to be the most sanctioned country on earth and and and in Iran I mean they've gotten sanctions thrown at them
Well remember North Korea's trade and assistance with China have continued undiminished unaffected by sanctions China supplies. 90% of North Korea's energy it favored a cut that off they're -- change you can believe it.
Inching Toward War?

Inching Toward War?

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton on rising tensions in the Middle East

Video|Fri, 11 Jul 2008|More from Hannity & Colmes
|nuclear devicesfound at2:55

weapons capability and -- country as small as Israel. Two or three nuclear devices means the end of the country so faced with the nexus central thread yes I think Israel will use force they have
John Bolton chimes in on McCain's rejection

John Bolton chimes in on McCain's rejection

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton speaks about John McCain and his op-ed being rejected by the New York Times.

Video|Mon, 21 Jul 2008|More from Latest Video
|Senator Obamafound at0:12, 5:40

the very beginning of your talk with Sean. About campaign financing was John McCain . -- campaign finance reform he's the one who would be -- you have a -- about the first one -- one of -- single biggest disagreements with Senator McCain and and it's too bad but he's on the wrong side effect that his position on is similar to the New York Times well -- not getting out and he's flip flopped on his -- campaign financing. Well so Senator Obama this is said the best thing I can say about senator Obama's decision not to accept public financing. Is this may be what we the the final conclusion what we started out and we brought Buckley against slam in 1975 the end of the public financing system by -- New York Times . The New York Times -- look we work with our authors are -- we want to get a revised draft by the hotel and I -- we would be happy to publish it. You gotta work for this to revise the way we want to -- any editor of any his face Alan I've published up beds in the New York Times I may never publish another that the New York Times after this but I'm telling -- if they'd come back to stay with that kind of comment. I just said stick it
in a shocking and revealing display of their left wing bias the New York Times is refusing to run. An Op Ed piece by Senator John McCain about the war in Iraq now this comes only a week after Senator Obama rolled -- piece on that same topic. That the newspaper did decide to publish. -- McCain submitted a piece for publication. But editor David Shipley rejected the peace say that he would be happy to look at future drafts. So long is it adhered to the following criteria are and here I quote. From the email that he sent to the McCain campaign -- The article would have to articulate in concrete terms how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. We'll also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory with troop levels timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senators Afghanistan's strategy spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan so. And north for the peace to appear in the times Senator McCain would have to take positions that he doesn't believe in like timetables. Excuse me. This does not less liberal bias than it