Liberals' history of turning on our warriors exposed

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," December 11, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Today, a rare news conference. CIA Director John Brennan spoke. He was defending post-9/11 CIA interrogation tactics.

Yesterday, Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats releasing a new report accusing the CIA of using torture and produce no useful information. Here's part of Director Brennan's response today:


JOHN BRENNAN, CIA DIRECTOR: It is our considered view that the -- subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided information that was useful and was used in the ultimate operation to go against Bin Laden.


VAN SUSTEREN: And Major General Bob Scales also responding to the CIA report, saying there is an historical pattern of liberals turning on our warriors.

And General Scales joins us. Nice to see you, sir.


VAN SUSTEREN: OK. So, wht do you mean by that?

SCALES: What I mean is it's an academic term, that's called moral equivalency. Early in a war, the antiwar liberals don't object to the war, because they are afraid and the American people are behind the war. Then, after the war, when people feel safe, it starts. And the narrative is consistent throughout the last century.

OK, Hitler was a bad man. He killed 28 million Russians and 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust. But we bombed Dresden in 1945.

Yes, the Japanese did terrible atrocities but the argument then of moral equivalency becomes -- yes, but we dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima. And this is a similar sort of thing, you know?

VAN SUSTEREN: But it's sort of interesting. By the way, former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, he agrees. He said in the wake of 9/11, everyone wanted torture used.

SCALES: Right.

VAN SUSTEREN: But there are a couple things. Number one is whether it worked. Two is, who knew about it?


VAN SUSTEREN: Three is that everyone who is supporting it now is saying that a legal memo of the Justice Department okayed it. And I'm not sure why we have a couple lawyers at the Justice Department making the decision for the nation. I sort of want the president and in a debate in Congress. So, you know, that's where the discussion lies now.

SCALES: Yes. But isn't it interesting that we wait until al Qaeda is on the run and the terror threat has been minimized. It's been 13 years before all of a sudden everyone wakes up to the problem. Where were they in 2004?

VAN SUSTEREN: I don't think anybody -- I mean, I didn't know about it then.

SCALES: Well, I think most of us who followed it closely knew that some form of intense interrogation was going on. I think it was fairly common knowledge, certainly in the military, for sure in the CIA and probably on the Hill. And I think the American people out of fear -- out of fear of perhaps a terrorist nuclear attack. Perhaps a reprise on the West Coast were standing back and allowing this type of thing to go on.

VAN SUSTEREN: I think -- I mean, I agree, we shouldn't look at incidents 2014 eyes. We should look at it during the eyes of when it occurred can.

SCALES: Exactly.

VAN SUSTEREN: And what was going on. But there is some things -- rectal hydration. I mean, there were just some things that are so bizarre that like, what in the world do we think we get with that?

SCALES: Well, first of all, I don't know. And if you talk --

VAN SUSTEREN: That is pretty gruesome.

SCALES: If you talk to the CIA people, they will say that whole thing had a different purpose other than torture to it. But the point is that all of a sudden, folks start turning on the warrior class. It happens after every war when they feel safe enough to go back and parse every action that was made in extremists, in the height of combat, at a time when America was frightened, turning to the military and the CIA to keep them safe. And then once they feel safe, then it's time to go back to moral equivalency.

VAN SUSTEREN: I read one report, $80 million was paid to two psychologists to come up with this interrogation process. $80 million? I mean, who authorized that? And for frankly 80 million bucks try to chase somebody with a hatchet, you know, if you want to scare somebody. I mean, like, I don't understand that $80 million, $75,000 a day or something.

SCALES: Yes. I guess my take on that is that the military has had rules in place, actually had a manual in place for over 40 years about how to do interrogation legally. The CIA actually borrowed it in 2006 when they got their act together.

VAN SUSTEREN: $80 million?

SCALES: At $80 million, that's ridiculous. But then, again, it's also the Pentagon.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, next time the Pentagon wants to know what to do, come to me. I will do it $40 million. I mean, we do it for --

SCALES: I will do it. I will do it.

VAN SUSTEREN: Fifteen thousand.

SCALES: OK. I will do it for $10,000.

VAN SUSTEREN: Anyway. General Scales, always nice to see you, sir.

SCALES: Thank you, Greta.