Negotiation. We have been ready to negotiate under the right set of circumstances with iran for the last several years with our friends and allies so, force is the table but im glad we have people like the president and like chuck hagel who will be very careful when you start throwing around the terms he says its not feasible. Do you agree it is not feasible. What is the not feasible . Military option . Military option is always feasible, you tell me what the option is. Are we going to blow up tehran or go after facilities that might be well protoerktd hidden . And i think bob gates, the previous secretary of defense, who pointed out the difficulty of striking these places is a real one. So any military option is feasible in terms of dropping bombs but what is the result of that military attack . With respect to the revolutionary guard, he has reasons for why he didnt go along with that resolution at the time and that will be explored in the confirmation hearings. The last three weeks, we have had dueling op eds, dueling blogs and dueling different groups coming forward but most of the National Security community in retirement that i know and many of the secretaries of defense and state i know, National Security advisers, distinguished ambassadors, who served in the middle east think that chuck haigle is a solid guy who speaks his mind. Hes a good supporter of israel. He has been there and the record will show that but he is not reluctant to disagree when he thinks disagreement is appropriate. You brought up israel. He referred to a jewish lobby saying it intimidates a lot of people on capitol hill what kind of thinking does that reflect . Can you understand proisrael senators being concerned by that comment . They shouldnt be that concerned that term slips out from time to time. There was an article this week that the israeli newspaper, har rhettz, occasionally used the same thing. So, chuck should have said israeli lobby, not jewish lobby and perhaps he needs to write on a blackboard 100 times it is the israeli lobby. But is there an israeli lobby. There are people who very supportive of the state of israel. I am very poretive of the state of israel. So is senator hagel and you will see this in the confirmation hearings but it doesnt mean you have to agree with every single position that the Israeli Government takes. Fair enough, but on a couple of measures, it seems very important, he seemed so feel so strongly about his views about israel that he was a distinct minority in senate. For instance, one of only four senators in october 2000 who would not sign a letter expressing solidarity with israel because there was an intifada going on. Only one of a few senators renewing the libya sanctions act. He came back from a trip in 1998, he was critical of israel and the Associated Press report it this wake the headline, senator blames israel for the peace impasse. Must do what it can to reenergize the peace process. Israeli Prime Minister netanyahu, quoting hagel, stop the process, the Israeli Government systems to play games. What i feel more today is desperate men do desperate things. You take hope away i hagel said you where the palestinians are today. He views this in an evenhanded way, amongst his critics, share the blame,somes and palestinians for a failure to achieve peace s that his view . He should be able to give his views what he will do at the confirmation hearing. I dont believe theres moral equivalency between the two sides which is the suggestion of that article. He believe there is moral equivalency . You will have to ask him what he believes. My judgment and knowledge of chuck chuck and my suggestions with chuck would suggest that he wants to see both sides come to the table and find a solution. He spores the peace process. But he is upper most, a very, very strong supporter of the state of israel. He has voted for billions and billions of dollars of aid to israel. I have no question when it comes to challenges that have anything to do with putting israel at risk, chuck hagel will be on israels side. Remember, he is working for a president. And he will follow the poll so i was that president. The renew deed bait about iraq is also occurring. The New York Times writes about that today. In his memoir, he writes something very poignant about the iraq war. He writes, it all comes down to the fact we were asked to vote on a res lation based on halftruths, untruths and winful thinking. I voted for this resolution that gave the president the authority to go to war in iraq. If all diplomatic efforts were exhausted and failed, unfortunately, it was not his intention to exhaust all at this point blow mattek efforts. He is talking about the diplomatic efforts you were engaged in as secretary of state in the runup to the war of iraq. We disagree with his characterization. We were basing all of our actions on a National Intelligence estimate that the Congress Asked for and was provided to the congress by the cia. And all of us in the Bush Administration at that time accepted the judgment of our 16 intelligence communities. I present it had to the u. N. Three months before i present it had to the u. N. , Congress Passed a resolution, also supported by senator hagel and many other senators that would give the president the authority to go to war. Werent halftruths is what we were being told by the intelligence community. We subsequently found out that a lot of that information was not accurate and that is very unfortunate but thats the way it unfolded. Was he wrong on iraq . With respect to what . With respect to what he ultimately called a huge Foreign Policy blunder . He thats his characterization and if people want to challenge his characterization, they will have that opportunity. In your judgment, was he wrong on iraq . I would not have called it that h i would have said i think the president had more than sufficient basis to believe there were weapons of mass destruction that were a danger to the world and possibility of those weapons going to terrorists. And so, he undertook military action. I think that was the correct thing to do and it was well supported by the intelligence. I think we did not execute the operation well. Once baghdad fell. There w once baghdad fell, was a feeling that was the end of it. It was not. It was just the beginning for it. He was controversial for comments he made gays, add said about a ambassadorial nominee during the clinton administration, he was aggressively gay and detract from his effectiveness. He apologized for those comments. The apology accepted by the ambassador. But he the question that has been raised is can he, as defense secretary, forcefully implement the reversal of dont ask, dont tell, at a critical time, especially when they have not resolved samesex partner benefits, for instance . Dont ask, dont tell isnt there anymore. It doesnt have to be reversed. Its gone. And i think that what senator hagel will do he has said irk as he will certainly testify at the confirmation hearing, that he will fully implement dont ask, dont tell there are still issues that have to be resolved but i think he will go after these issues in a way that will be very consistent with the administrations position with the law and with thes i aspirations of our gay and lesbian men and women in military. He is not responsible for them. He is not responsible for them having a proper environment in which to do their jobs and that will include making sure that dont ask, dont tell and elimination of dont ask, dont tell is fully implemented. With regard to the military budget, he has called the military a bloated organization. Chairman of the joint chiefs, martin dempsey, said this week that we are on the brink of creating a hollow force. Would a secretary of defense hagel proprovide over the hollowing out of the Defense Department . The biggest concern with respect to who will league out is this sequester thats hanging like a sword over the department. Thats what they had tried have to not let that happen but with respect to going in and finding things within the department of defense that perhaps you dont need or you can eliminate, if thats what you mean by bloat, i hope he does find bloat and gets rid of it. Agree with his characterization that its bloated . Bloated doesnt necessarily mean the whole department is bloated. Bloated mean there is are probably things in the department that you can take a hard look at and determine whether or not you need it in light of the Current Situation and the strategy we are implementing. When i was chairman, we saw the end of the soviet union, completely different change in our strategic positioning. And we eliminated 1 million troops and cut the budget 25 . Thats not the case now. But theres no reason why a secretary of defense should go into office thinking cant change anything, cant cut anything. You know, the people who say that, oh, thats terrible, he is going to try to find things to cut in the department are the same people saying we have got to cut spending, we have got to cut spending. Everything has to be looked at, entitlements, more revenue, yes, tough look at the defense don top see if there are opportunities for savings. Bottom line, does chuck hagel get confirmed . I think he gets confirmed. Ultimately superbly qualified based on his overall record, based on his service to the country, based on how he feels about troops and veterans and families. I think he will do a great job as secretary of defense. And i think in his confirmation hearings, all of these issues that you have raised, others have raised, he will be prepared to deal w i have read some of the responses that he has already put together and i think would he make a version very spirited defense secretary in his position and be broadly confirmed. More broadly talking about the National Security team. Interesting the president chose this political fight over chuck hagel. Declined to have it over susan rice. What was your view of her treatment in this whole process . I think it was not handled well. One of the problems with ambassador rice and chuck hagel, these signals come out saying this is who we are thinking about and you are left out there to dangle for weeks. Well, if this is who you are going to nominate you nominate them and lets get on with the process. You feel like the president hung her out to dry . In both the susan rice case and chuck hagel case, if they were sure that is who they were going to nominate, i think it should have been done promptly but all these sort of test nominations that they send out there, i think just cause the media to naturally focus on it and potential opponents of that nomination just pile on. Outgoing secretary of state Hillary Clinton, she is facing pressure to testify on the benghazi matter. Do you think that benghazi episode is a blot on her record as secretary of state . Do you think it will affect her political future . I dont think so. I dont know what she knew about it or didnt know about it or where she was and so we will have to wait and see how the testimony goes. But i think she has had a distinguished record and i dont think this one incident, one of these things that those of us you in government have been through many, many times, where suddenly an action happens late at night, youre surprised. Somebody gets killed. Something gets blown up. And then the afteraction reports start and everybody wants to know who was at fault, who was responsible . Why didnt keep this from happening . You cant keep everything from happening. Benghazi was a very, very difficult one in a difficult situation and maybe they shouldnt have been there in the first place. And i think that we have had a good review of that by ambassador pickering and admiral mullin and i dont know whether the congress in their examination of mrs. Clintfind something that they find distas distasteful. I dont think it is a blot on her record. Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president . I think she would be good in whatever does does f she is interested on that or not, i will let her opine on that. The broader issue of the Foreign Policy team, as i was just reflecting on, the mess damage appears to send. The Financial Times in summed it up this way, hagel selection seals end to bushs policies. This does not look like a lets invade iran teams says bruce reidel, a longtime cia officer, advised president s on counterterrorism. Looks like a fine alternative to military action team, primarily a political solution. It seems like it is a rebuke to neoconservatives, those in the Republican Party feel there is Unfinished Business in the middle east and continue to project american power. Do you view it that way . The First Obama Administration was also not an administration saying lets go find some place to bomb. Neither, for that matter, was president bushs eight years. We fought the wards that we felt were necessary. President bush worked hard to try to solve other problems through diplomatic means. And so i think its a little too stark to make this kind of characterization. I, as you well know, always believed that we should try to avoid war. We should be willing to talk to friends and willing to talk to enemies. And try to find a solution thats peaceful. But when do you find it is necessary to use military force, use it with a clear political objective in mind and use it for a decisive result. Thats the kind of attitude that chuck haiglogical bring to the equation. We will be careful. He will give the president his best advice on the use or nonuse of military force, how to solve the problem diplomatically. Im sure he will be a great companion with mr. Er can any that regard. Its a good team. I think its a very, very good team. Now, a lot of my friends in the community who are of a more rightist persuasion, ones who have been hawking the hawks. The hawks, you think they are out of line in their criticism . No. Its their fair criticisms. They can make all the criticisms they want. When they go over the edge and say because chuck said jewish lobby is antisemitic, it is disgrace riverview. We shouldnt have that kind of language in our dialogue but they are fully entitled to their views and didnt ever think they would go away and not be heard from again. But they have to remember one thing, its president obama, not president mccain and not president romney that lost two elections. The American People have made it clear that they are not particularly interested in finding new conflicts to get into. And not particularly interested in saying, you know exsanctions are just a road bump on the way to bombing. We should be very, very careful when we sort of toss around theories of use of military for situations that might be resolved in other ways. The other thing i would like to say about iran, we dont want them to have a Nuclear Weapon we are punishing them severely now with the sanctions. We ought to keep it up. Multilateral sanctions, whatever unilateral things we want to do. And also remember, this is a country in deep trouble, does not have a Nuclear Weapon yes. We dont want it to have one. But remember what we v i still am an oldfashioned realist that says deterrence still works and they should know what the consequences to them would be if they ever were to use or cause us to believe they were going to use such a weapon if they had it and they dont have it yet. To mix in Foreign Policy with some politics, im struck when you talk about republicans as they. I know you insist despite voting for president obama twice now that youre still a republican. But as i go through your record on some social issues and even Foreign Policy issues i challenge to you say on what basis are you still a republican . Do you feel like this Republican Party has left you or have you left it . I think the Republican Party right now is having an identity problem. And im still a republican. Im a republican who grew up along with george bush xli. I grew up with ronald reagan, cap weinberger, Frank Carlucci that Republican Party, the problemen party of dick lugar and john tower. But in recent years, theres been a significant shift to the right and we have seen what that shift has produced, two losing president ial campaigns. I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is take a very hard look at itself and understand that the country is changed. The country is changing demo graphically. If the Republican Party does not change along with that demographic, they are going to be in trouble. So, when we see this in one more generation, the minorities of america, africanamericans, hispanic americans, asianamericans will be the majority of the country, you cant go around saying we dont want to have a solid immigration policy. We are going to dismiss the 47 . We are going to make it hard for these minorities to vote, as in the last election what did that produce in the court struck that down and most importantly, it caused people to turn out and stand in line because these republicans were trying to keep us from voting. Theres also a dark a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party what i do mean by that . I mean by that that they still sort of look down on minorities. How can i evidence that . When i see a former governor say that the president is shuckin and jivin, thats racial era slave term. When i see another former governor after the president s first debate where he didnt do very well, says that the president was hazy. He didnt say he was slow. He was tired. He didnt do well. He said he was lazy. Now, it may not mean anything to most americans but to those of us who are africanamericans, the second word is shiftless and then theres a third word that goes along with t birther, the whole birther movement, why do senior Republican Leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the party . I think the party has to take a look at itself. It has to ta