Return to Transcripts main page
State of the Union
Interview With Former President George W. Bush; Interview With Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick; Interview With New York Congressman Peter King; Interview With New York Senator Charles Schumer
Aired December 14, 2014 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR: A miracle on Pennsylvania Avenue. Congress passes a compromise budget, keeping most of the government operating through September of 2015.
Today:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The yeas are 56. The nays are 40.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: Senator Chuck Schumer on Capitol Hill's strange bedfellow moment and what it says about Washington and the campaign trail.
Then, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick joins us for a conversation on America's great divides, race and politics.
Then: the nation's premiere spy agency condemned for brutal interrogation of terrorist suspects in the immediate post-9/11 era.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BRENNAN, CIA DIRECTOR: There were no easy answers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: Where does the CIA go to get its reputation back? Congressman Peter King joins me.
And he walks two worlds now, shaping history, defining his own future -- more of our conversation with George W. Bush on the CIA, his father's legacy, and the new family business.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mother called and said, "I hear you're a painter."
I said, "Yes."
She said, "Paint my dogs." (END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: This is STATE OF THE UNION.
Good morning from Washington. I'm Candy Crowley.
A $1 trillion spending bill is on its way to President Obama's desk after clearing the Senate late last night. In addition to keeping the government open, the Senate is on track to approve a new number two at the State Department, a new head of the Social Security Administration, and maybe even a new surgeon general.
Joining me now is Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.
Thank you for being here.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Thank you.
CROWLEY: It's a pleasure to have you in house.
SCHUMER: Candy, before -- before we get into -- I just want to congratulate you. It's been an amazing 27 years. You're the best of the old-school journalism. You study it thoroughly. You ask the hard questions. You get the answers. And there's no gimmicks or anything else.
We are all going to miss you, Democrats, Republicans, everybody.
CROWLEY: Oh.
SCHUMER: So, job well done.
CROWLEY: Thank you very much. And I didn't -- I didn't pay him to say that or anything.
Thank you. That's very -- that's very...
SCHUMER: She didn't even know.
CROWLEY: No, that's very nice of you. Thank you.
Let me ask you to step back and look at how this bill passed. You know full well what the arguments were. You had in your party the Warren wing, as we call it now, and then those looking to compromise in the leadership. Then we had in the Republican Party the Tea Party at odds with their more moderate wanting to do a compromise.
So when you look at it, what does this "cromnibus," as we now call it, tell you about the state of the Democratic Party?
SCHUMER: Well, I think it shows that Democrats will work together with Republicans when we get things -- when they want to get things done in both cases.
CROWLEY: Some of them.
SCHUMER: Well, certainly enough to make the majority.
But I think the big news today was the fight, the open fight between Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz on the -- there are huge differences in the Republican Party. On the floor of the Senate, we saw the soul of the Republican Party being debated.
Ted Cruz was in the well pushing his so-called constitutional point of order, which risks shutting down the government. Five feet away from him was Mitch McConnell imploring senators to vote the other way. And the vote, unfortunately, was about 50/50 on the Republican side.
And so that makes me worry a great deal, because if, after the terrible, terrible brickbats Republicans took when they shut down the government a few years ago, half the Republican senators are still willing to risk it again, despite the fact that their leader went against it, I'm worried about the next two years.
The chasm in the Republican Party is huge.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHUMER: And one more point. It's going to get worse because, first, you have the presidential candidates in the Senate pulling things to the right. Second, when they're in the majority, the Tea Party is going to feel its oats.
We want to work with the Republicans to help the middle class, but I'm worried the Tea Party is going to pull them much too far over.
CROWLEY: OK. Let me -- I want to -- since you -- you brought up the schism in the Republican Party, I want to show you something that we have, and it's about how the potential 2016 candidates voted on this bill.
Now, these are the candidates who voted no, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz and, from your side, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders.
So there was commonality among 2016 candidates. They didn't like this bill. Isn't that representative of the Democrats also having a problem with their...
SCHUMER: No.
CROWLEY: Well, you did -- you do have the Warren wing.
SCHUMER: Yes. But...
CROWLEY: You did have her trying very hard. You had Nancy Pelosi on the House side.
SCHUMER: Yes, let me say this.
I think that the differences between -- among Democrats are small compared to the huge chasm of Republicans. On the fundamental issues that face us, the economic issues that we need to address to get the middle class moving again, to get middle-class incomes going again, there's amazing unity on the Democratic side, from Elizabeth Warren, through Hillary Clinton, all the way to Joe Manchin and some of the more conservatives.
You look like -- on issues like minimum wage, and equal pay, and infrastructure construction, helping people pay for college, the Democratic Party is unified. And if we put together a strong economic message aimed at the middle class, not only will it unify our party, as the Republicans are truly divided, but we can actually, actually do really well in 2016.
CROWLEY: Well, let me ask you about that, because Nancy Pelosi on the House side tried to get her folks in the Democratic Caucus to vote against this bill. They were upset because they thought Wall Street was getting a big old break in here. And the president disagreed with it.
I want to play you two quick bites of both of them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think what the American people very much are looking for is some practical governance and the willingness to compromise.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: I'm enormously disappointed that the White House feels that the only way they can get a bill is to go along with this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: Now, when the majority leader of the Democrats says she's enormously disappointed in the Democratic president, it's more than enormously disappointed. She's upset with him, as are Democrats from Elizabeth Warren...
SCHUMER: Well...
CROWLEY: ... and on the House side.
Tell me about the relationship between Democrats...
SCHUMER: Yes, OK.
CROWLEY: ... and the president.
SCHUMER: OK, let me say this first.
I think that what happened in the House, I thought Nancy Pelosi handled it extremely well. She knew the government couldn't be shut down.
CROWLEY: She lost, right?
SCHUMER: But she also knew that she had to show that Democrats are needed. And so she provided a veto-proof, a veto-sustainable group to say no.
What -- anyone who thinks that Democrats are going to be irrelevant in the upcoming Congress, if you look at the House and the Senate, in both cases, the Republican leaders needed Democrats to actually get the government moving. Their great plans of showing they could govern fell apart when their right wings deserted them and they had to turn to Democrats.
So I thought Pelosi handled it well. There may have -- and I think the idea that the bill passed, but at the same time House Democrats showed that they could sustain a presidential veto, because on almost -- most of the major enemy combatant issues, as I mentioned, we're going to be united, was a very, very good thing.
CROWLEY: Well, overriding a presidential veto from your own party would be -- would be a big deal.
But let me ask you, as -- as we run out of time, as always, two questions. The first is, you would argue with the fact that there is an equal amount of battle in the Democratic Party for the soul of the Democratic Party. You don't think that's what's happening...
SCHUMER: No. No.
CROWLEY: ... with the people pushing Elizabeth Warren to run?
SCHUMER: I think the soul of the Democratic Party is economic issues.
And I think, on economic issues, we are united. And Elizabeth Warren is -- even if people don't agree with her, she's constructive. She's not like Ted Cruz and say, shut down the government or don't fund things if I don't get my way. She's working hard to move things in her direction. And that's a good thing.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, he -- people say he's a great political mover and shaker. He made huge mistakes yesterday. He helped -- he mis...
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: Helped you with your -- with your nominees.
SCHUMER: Ted Cruz misfired.
He helped us get nominees that Republicans didn't want. He embarrassed Mitch McConnell, who had gone home Friday night and said, see you on Monday. And he got Republicans publicly for the first time talking against him.
So I think comparing the two wings of the party is like night and day.
CROWLEY: And just finally and really quickly, I know you want her to run.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: But is there any doubt in your mind that Hillary Clinton will run?
SCHUMER: Well, look, Hillary hasn't asked -- told me, and I haven't dared ask her.
But I will bet she's running. I will bet she will be a great candidate. I will bet she will win by a large majority. And then Democrats can help the middle class, whose incomes have been declining for 15 years, in a very united way.
Indeed, the program that Hillary, if she's the candidate, will put together will have the support of every wing of the Democratic Party. On economic issues, the key issues, we're united, they're very divided, and need us to get anything done.
CROWLEY: I think you got your message across.
(LAUGHTER)
SCHUMER: Hope so.
CROWLEY: Senator Schumer, thank you so much for being here.
SCHUMER: Godspeed.
CROWLEY: I really appreciate it. And thank you so much.
SCHUMER: Thanks.
CROWLEY: When we come back: race, justice, and fixing the Democratic Party with Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: We will never be defeated! United, the people will never be defeated!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: Thousands of protesters gathered here in Washington Saturday for what organizers call a Justice for All March.
Demonstrators heard from the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GWEN CARR, MOTHER OF ERIC GARNER: Our sons, you know, they may not be here in body, but they're here with us in each and every one of you. If they don't see this and make a change, then I don't know what we got to do. SAMARIA RICE, MOTHER OF TAMIR RICE: I want to thank the nation
and the world for the support, because that's the only way I'm standing up right now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't have to tell not one single African-American about racial profiling, because you guys know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: A demonstration was also held in Boston this weekend, the hometown of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.
And he joins me now.
Thank you so much for being here.
GOV. DEVAL PATRICK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: It's great to be with you, Candy.
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: Good to see you.
PATRICK: Thank you for having me.
CROWLEY: For several months now, the question has been, will these horrific incidents lead to a movement? Will they be moments that lead to a movement, or are they just horrific moments that we look back and say, oh, what -- whatever happened with that?
PATRICK: Yes.
CROWLEY: What do you think?
PATRICK: Well, I hope they lead to a broader and deeper kind of understanding, you know, not just the much-vaunted conversation on race, but some real examination of the differences in the way people experience interactions with the police, the concerns that police have, the kind of fear that is out there in so many camps from so many different perspectives.
I'm hopeful, because I think we have had -- we have had moments in our past where we were facing what seemed like insurmountable gulfs between us, black and white, and all kinds of other differences.
And, as a nation, we have rallied back around our ideals of equality and freedom and opportunity and fair play and taken big steps forward.
CROWLEY: But government can't -- if you look to the -- if we're looking at the government now in this -- and you have talked a lot about neighborhoods and how that's where it starts...
PATRICK: Community.
CROWLEY: ... and community. But if you look at the government, they can't legislate un-fear.
You know, they...
(CROSSTALK)
PATRICK: Well, it's not -- I don't think it's all about legislation and fairness.
I think there are -- there are certainly responsibilities that government and government leaders have to take in terms of the appropriate training and preparation of law enforcement.
But there's a -- there's a listening that we don't do very well in the United States today. That's not just in government. I think that's in -- among average citizens. And we're going to have to listen a lot more closely to each other.
CROWLEY: What's the goal, do you think? If this is -- I mean, movements need to have goals...
PATRICK: Right.
CROWLEY: ... whether it's the Civil Rights Act in the '60s or -- and so what is the goal here?
PATRICK: Such a great question, because, you know, and yesterday in Boston, we had demonstrations as well. And I -- we went to great lengths to try to connect with the organizers, to the extent they were organized, to get a sense of what they needed, so that we could accommodate the protests and respect -- respect that right.
And they weren't interested in engagement, because part of the point was to be disruptive. And I think it does beg some questions, what is it we're trying to accomplish beyond disruption? Certainly, part of it is to make sure people understand just how broadly the concern lies around being understood, and not being fearful, either as unarmed black men or as police. And that huge chasm of misunderstanding between the two has got to be bridged.
CROWLEY: And there is -- there's issues, say, as just such a sort of broad group and you're not really sure what groups are showing up to protest.
And movements need leaders. You know that. They need charismatic folks that can lead them. Do you think -- and we have seen the Reverend Al Sharpton step into this role. Is he an appropriate person to take this over and try to make this into a more than a conversation or more than disruption?
PATRICK: I think there are going to be many leaders, and some probably who haven't emerged yet, some very much happening at the grassroots. That's a very strong kind of leadership.
And, by the way, that was a feature of the civil rights movement in the '60s as well. We pay a lot of attention -- and we should -- to Reverend Dr. King and some of the other noted leaders, but, in fact, there was an awful lot of very strong leadership that came from the grassroots. And I think we will see that and have seen that in this movement as well.
CROWLEY: Let me move you on to the elections -- Democrats got pretty well drubbed in the midterms -- and moving forward.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: I read some of your comments about it, and you said that you felt the president had not been strong enough in pointing out what things had improved and how the economy had improved, and, you know, that there should have been more discussion about that, right? Would you say that...
(CROSSTALK)
PATRICK: I do believe that. I don't think that was the reason for the outcome in the election.
CROWLEY: What was the reason?
PATRICK: I think the reason in the outcome in the elections is because Democrats didn't stand for anything.
And the Democrats who lost are the ones who were saying, look, we're just not as bad as the other guys and gals. I think that we are a party that believes in the American dream. We believe in the collaboration between government and the private sector to enable the American dream.
It's a broad-based party. We are very specific about the things that we need to do economically and socially to enable people to get a toehold in the middle class and to hang on once they get there. And I think that that's a very powerful story. It is around convictions. And when we tell it, we win.
CROWLEY: We are now seeing at least playing out in the Senate what many hope to see play out in the Democratic primary, which is a battle for sort of the Elizabeth Warren wing, the more progressive wing of the party, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, you know, vs. more mainstream.
And in many ways, this does mirror the Republicans, who have this fight about, well, the reason we lost the presidency is because we had the wrong candidate. They are moderates. We need to really -- we need to go really more conservative.
PATRICK: Yes.
CROWLEY: Now you're hearing some Democrats going, we need to be more progressive here. We don't need to be like Republicans.
So, they do seem to me to be mirror problems. All right, do you think the Democratic Party is more Elizabeth Warren...
(LAUGHTER) CROWLEY: ... or do you think it's more a moderate vein?
PATRICK: Well, I love Senator Warren, but I have to tell you, I don't think, Candy, in fairness, that it simplifies -- it's quite that simple.
I describe myself as a pro-growth -- pro-growth progressive. We have at home been very disciplined about investing in education, in innovation and in infrastructure. We have done that together with the private sector, and we have emerged as number one in the nation in economic competitiveness.
CROWLEY: Are you business-friendly?
PATRICK: Of course I'm business-friendly.
CROWLEY: Because you know that's an anathema sometimes to...
PATRICK: I was in business. That's -- you know, this is the only elective office I have ever -- I have ever held. I'm a -- I'm a capitalist. I say that without -- without apology.
I just don't believe that markets solve every problem in everybody's life. And I don't think government solves every problem in everybody's life. I think they have to work alongside each other. And because we have been very disciplined and very collaborative and clear about our convictions, we have -- we lead the nation in education, health care, energy efficiency, and economic competitive, entrepreneurial activity, and much, much more.
CROWLEY: There are no more Southern Democratic senators. Why is that?
PATRICK: That will change. Democrats...
CROWLEY: Why do you think they have been sort of run out, though?
PATRICK: Well, I don't -- you would have to ask Southerners about that.
I have spent a lot of time in the South. I know a lot of people in the South. And I mean not political people, just regular old folks who are, I think, also, just like people everywhere else in the country, willing to respond to those who come to public life with conviction and...
CROWLEY: And who respond to their problems.
PATRICK: Sure, absolutely.
CROWLEY: Because part of the -- part of the..
PATRICK: And who listens.
CROWLEY: Right. Part of this, which is part and parcel of the same thing, right,
listen and deal with their problems.
PATRICK: Right. Right.
CROWLEY: Because I think the question that is out there now, as we have talked so much about how can Republicans, you know, be a party if they don't connect with other voters, with minorities and women, the question now to the Democratic Party is, do you think you can be successful if the Democratic Party cannot reach out to white males in particular and senior white voters, including those blue-collar, particularly men, with a non-college education?
You have lost them completely. West Virginia is pretty much Republican now.
PATRICK: You know what? I just -- I just don't buy that as a portrait of the future. And I will tell you why.
CROWLEY: But, for now, you have. And I'm wondering how you get them back.
PATRICK: Well, so I think that, you know, in Massachusetts, we're frequently described as a reliably blue state.
In fact, we have more unenrolled independents than we do registered Democrats and registered Republicans combined. And I think that reflects what's happening in the rest of the country, which is that most people aren't buying 100 percent of what either party is selling. You know...
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: So they sit at home.
PATRICK: They -- and they -- well, they stay home. That's part of it. That's a big, big part of it, by the way.
And if we don't offer people something to vote for, rather than against, then I think more people will continue to stay home.
CROWLEY: I need a yes or no because I got to move on.
PATRICK: Yes.
CROWLEY: Should Elizabeth Warren run for president this time around?
PATRICK: Well, that's -- don't -- you have to ask her that question.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: Yes, but what do you think?
PATRICK: But I -- I'm a great admirer of Senator Warren, as I am of Secretary Clinton, and the others who are -- who are circling around...
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: You are a big help.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: That's why you're a politician.
PATRICK: No news today.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: Senator Deval Patrick, thank you so much for coming by. Good luck in your stint in private life. But I expect we will see you back.
PATRICK: Thank you. Thank you.
CROWLEY: Thank you, Governor.
PATRICK: And I wish you well. Thank you so very much for having me.
CROWLEY: I appreciate it so much. Thanks, Governor.
A Senate report concludes the CIA committed torture against terror suspects. What now? House Intelligence Committee member Peter King is here next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: Critics of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on torture say its release hinders the CIA's ability to do its job and gives ammunition to U.S. enemies.
Joining me is Congressman Peter King, a member of the House Intelligence and Homeland Security committees.
Congressman King, thank you for joining me.
I wanted to try to move this conversation forward a little bit and ask you a couple of questions about the future. If -- and we all fervently hope this won't happen -- a U.S. soldier is taken prisoner by a member of ISIS or a member of al Qaeda, do you think the U.S. has lost the high ground in what is acceptable behavior for people who capture our folks?
REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: No, not at all.
First of all, what ISIS does is behead people. They carry out the most brutal type of attacks, rape, sex slaves, all of that. And for anyone to be comparing what the CIA did to what ISIS does, what al Qaeda does is just wrong.
I think we have caused tremendous damage to the U.S. reputation, but this is a self-inflicted wound with a very partisan, selective report, which I think does a terrible injustice to the men and women of the CIA.
CROWLEY: And regardless of how one feels about the report, I think, on both sides, there is an agreement that this does harm to the CIA, which is this -- good heavens, they do entire TV series around the brave men and women of the CIA.
So where does the CIA go to get its reputation back, whether you feel it's been unfairly taken away from them or not? How does it fix this?
KING: Well, it would be very helpful if people on the outside helped, if the president of the United States, if leaders in the House and the Senate came forward and gave the CIA credit for what it did.
It's going to be difficult to overcome the damage that was done by Senator Feinstein and her report. I think it's important for people like myself and people in the media to speak out and say that the CIA did an excellent job, that the CIA operated under the most extenuating circumstances, that they're responsible for stopping the attacks against the United States, and that we have to stop the self- loathing.
I mean, this is -- to me, the burden is on us. The burden is on people in positions of influence to stop hating ourselves and to stop hating those who we ask to do the job.
And so I -- listen, I feel for the men and women out there in the CIA who -- they're wondering, if they're doing today what they're told to do, five years from now what's going to happen.
For instance, with President Obama, I support his drone policy. Suppose five or 10 years from now, a Senate report comes out and says that he's guilty of human rights violations, he's guilty of war crimes because of all the innocent people that were killed by drone attacks? What happens to us then?
I mean, as Americans, we have always stood together. During World War II, many, many civilians were killed by American forces in Dresden, in Tokyo, other places. But, as a country, we didn't tear ourselves apart.
CROWLEY: But, Congressman...
KING: ...until (ph) we had the moral standing.
CROWLEY: Right.
What I was going to ask you, the truth is, you know, perception whether in Washington or across the globe, sometimes can be more powerful certainly than the reality any of us see. So the report is out there, the feeling is that the CIA crossed the line, did some pretty horrific things. Going forward, I wonder if there is some way to right this ship.
And I want to read you something that was part of an op-ed that former senator Bob Kerry wrote. He was on the Intel committee.
KING: Right.
CROWLEY: I'm sure you know him.
And he wrote, "Our intelligence personnel who are once again on the front lines fighting the Islamic state need recommended guidance from their board of governors, the U.S. Congress." How about that?
KING: Yes, and they got the guidance back in 2002. They were told what to do by the U.S. Congress back in 2002. They did it and now they're being attacked for it.
I think Senator Kerry also said, I give him tremendous credit for this, Senator Kerry also said he thought this is a very partisan report basically written by a very partisan staff. And I think it's important to point that out. And the Congress did tell the CIA what to do. The CIA told the Congress what they were doing and Congress, the people in positions of power, approved it and now they're turning on them. And I find that totally hypocritical.
CROWLEY: Congressman Peter King, we thank you so much for joining us on this Sunday morning. I appreciate it.
KING: Thank you, Candy. And good luck to you, Candy.
CROWLEY: Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
KING: Thank you.
CROWLEY: I want to turn to Colonel Steven Kleinman. He is a retired air force intelligence officer who has conducted and studied interrogations.
So I think the question here is could there -- just coming off with the congressman just said, what about a clear set of rules that is out there in the public?
COL. STEVEN KLEINMAN, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): There absolutely needs to be a clear set of rules because the nature of interrogation lends itself to this type of us to this depravity and I use that term specifically. It's not a science-based approach.
What we see outlined in the interrogation report is not an evidence-based approach. This is really coming out of left field. It's a learned helplessness model that they came forth in the Kubark manual of the Vietnam era (ph) of CIA. I mean, this is not even the first, this is the third time for the CIA going down this path and they are still - the scientific support for that type of model.
CROWLEY: Colonel, I guess the problem that you're hearing from the congressman -- from others is, wow, why can't we settle this, you know, behind closed doors? Why can't we figure out who did what and why can't we give these specific rules without harming the reputation of the U.S.? Do you think this sunlight is damaging?
KLEINMAN: I think in the near term perhaps. In the long-term, just the opposite I think will occur.
I think the strategic consequences of this type of openness is the first step towards what we call American exceptionalism. It's very difficult but I don't think it --
CROWLEY: Now, we need to be better than this.
KLEINMAN: We need to be far better than this and we can be.
CROWLEY: And your other - in what you alluded to earlier, you say it doesn't work. Not only is it sort of not you believe what the U.S. ought to be doing, whether it doesn't work. You're sort of for lack of a better word, this is sort of a kinder, gentler form of interrogation. Tell me about interrogations that you have done, not the specifics...
KLEINMAN: Right.
CROWLEY: ...but what is - what is your best approach and what is the most what we would consider most aggressive sort of enhanced interrogation that you've ever done?
KLEINMAN: Well, first of all, interrogation is not for indications and warning. We keep going through this ticking time bomb scenario. That's a statistically improbable event.
What we need to do is look at interrogation as a science-based, strategic thought based even human rights compliant model. Because our respect for human rights will have long-term strategic consequences and the behavioral science also says literally in interrogating al Qaeda suspects, there's a study by Lawrence Ellison (ph) at the University of Liverpool, 181 interrogations of al Qaeda- related terrorists showed that empathy, respect, and an adaptive approach ended up systematically reducing counter interrogation strategies itself. That's what (ph) - that's --
CROWLEY: Is that -- and that generally is when you did interrogations, oversaw interrogations, that was the approach you took?
KLEINMAN: Yes.
CROWLEY: It's sort of like a, for lack of a better word, friendly approach. Because I can hear people's hair, you know, hair raising all over going, wait a second.
KLEINMAN: Right. And see, that is the misperception about interrogation. Interrogation does not require force. Interrogation is just a systematic question of someone you suspect holds information of intelligence value (ph) and they held it in their memory. So, my approach is always respect the fragility of human memory. I use techniques like the cognitive interview, which will enhance somebody's ability to recall. I use principal persuasion the same that drives the multibillion-dollar advertising industry to win cooperation.
CROWLEY: And what would you -- in your experience, what is the most aggressive you have seen or practiced in terms of interrogation?
KLEINMAN: Well, what I've seen, when I was in Iraq in 2003 I saw forced nudity. I saw slapping. I saw prolonged standing, stress positions, things that I think are clearly violations of the law of armed conflict. And at the same time why are we doing this, because there's absolutely again no evidence, no data to suggest this course of model ever reliably obtains useful information.
CROWLEY: Did you feel free to voice your opinion at the times you saw these interrogations?
KLEINMAN: Yes, ma'am, I definitely did, yes.
CROWLEY: Colonel, thank you so much for being with us and bringing your perspective. I know it's from one who has been there and seen that.
KLEINMAN: Well, it's an honor to be with you. Thank you.
CROWLEY: I appreciate it.
When we return the rest of my conversation with George W. Bush, the former president reflect on lessons from his dad's war service, his new book about his father, and the CIA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: As we noted last week in part one, George W. Bush is the author of a new bestselling book, it's called "41: A Portrait of My Father."
I caught up with the son at a book signing at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia. In part two, I asked him about the CIA, although we spoke before the release of the Senate intelligence committee's torture report. He offered up a strong defense of the agency.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: First of all, as I understand it, it will be critical but there's also going to be a report of -- a counter report coming out of the agency.
Here's what I'm going to say, that we're fortunate to have men and women who work hard at the CIA serving on our behalf. These are patriots, and whatever the report says, if it diminishes their contributions to our country, it is way off base. And I knew the directors. I knew the deputy directors. You know, I knew a lot of the operators. These are good people, really good people, and we're lucky as a nation to have them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: The former president also shared what his parents think of his new book, the challenges of his own post presidential hobby and how being a war veteran shaped his dad.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: One of the things that you write about is your dad's war service.
BUSH: Yes.
CROWLEY: You know, the plane went down, you talk about the team that came in to sort of keep him from falling into the hands of the Japanese. When you look at the makeup of the Senate or the makeup of, you know, those making decisions now, very few folks with military experience, the good news is that's because we haven't had, you know, a service that required everyone to come in.
BUSH: Right.
CROWLEY: Do you think it makes a difference in decision-making, if someone has experience in the military?
BUSH: Well, first of all, I think that when you make decisions about war and peace, you're listening to people who are in the military. And so the -- when the questions for qualifications, I think for a good leader, somebody who can determine, you know, to take advice, and to figure out how that advice fits into an overall strategy. And so you have to be in the military to have done that? Not necessarily.
CROWLEY: And you also wrote that your dad felt so deeply and continues to feel so deeply about the crewmen...
BUSH: Yes.
CROWLEY: ...that he lost on that - on that day.
BUSH: Yes.
CROWLEY: Do you feel similarly when you talk about Iraq? Did he feel similarly when he talked about those, that died in the invasion into Kuwait?
BUSH: You know, my heart aches for people who have lost a loved one, still does. And to that end, I try to help our wounded vets as much as I can at the Bush Library there at SMU. His, of course, was even more personal, because Delaney and White were not only his crewmates but friends. He lived. They didn't. And so it's a much more in some ways much more emotional for him, and you're right, to this day, he still thinks about it. And when Jen on his 90th birthday interviewed him, competition for you, by the way.
CROWLEY: Before me.
BUSH: She asked is he still thinking about them? He said all the time. I thought it was a very interesting answer.
CROWLEY: It is. It is. What does your dad think of the book?
BUSH: I think he likes it. He doesn't comment on it. Mother -- CROWLEY: He hasn't told you what he thought of the book?
BUSH: He said he liked it, but no, not really. Mother has, of course. She --
CROWLEY: And she said?
BUSH: She said "change this part, will you?" and she saw the rough draft. No, she liked it a lot. She really did. I think she thinks it captured him which is what she's most interested in, does it really capture George Bush the way she knows him. And I think she thinks it did. And anyway, she was - she was an important test to pass.
CROWLEY: Yes, probably the test to pass.
BUSH: Yes.
CROWLEY: Sounds like he's a little easier going on you in some ways.
BUSH: Yes, it's hard for me to describe what he's like these days. Because you knew him as an energetic kind of engaged person.
CROWLEY: How is he now?
BUSH: How is he? He's good. You know, he's joyful. And he doesn't complain. He is -- on the other hand, he doesn't reflect a lot. He is -- when the grandkids are around, he's playful and says he loves them, and you know, but he is just not that reflective. He may be reflective but (ph) just not talking about how reflective he is.
CROWLEY: Right, which is in character with the man that you describe in the book.
BUSH: It is, in many ways, but you know, even less so today than in the past.
CROWLEY: In terms of what you wanted to accomplish with this book.
BUSH: Yes.
CROWLEY: Are you satisfied that he's gotten whatever message you intended for him to get?
BUSH: Yes, I do. I do.
I think a lot of his friends have read it and said, you know, George has written a wonderful, wonderful story about you, and it's true. Yes, I think so. I think people are, you know -- and more importantly what I was trying to get across is not only say I love you to him, but he knows that, was just to tell people around the country what a unique person he was, and how fortunate we were to have him as president. This guy is unbelievable, when you think about it. The fact that
he and Clinton are friends, for example, the fact that he never won his own home state and yet ends up, until he beat Dukakis is in '88. I mean, it's a -- the fact he lost a child early in the marriage and marriage is one of the unique great love stories in political history.
CROWLEY: How many years he's married, 70?
BUSH: Well, let's see, I'm 68. It's more than 68.
CROWLEY: Not quite. I think it's 70.
BUSH: I think it is, yes.
CROWLEY: Do you want to go over and look at this one?
BUSH: Yes.
CROWLEY: So, tell me what you get out of painting?
BUSH: The idea of I'm driven to be as good as I can be, you know, and I'm, a task-oriented person, and every painting is a task in a sense. I get excitement out of painting because I'm beginning to learn -- when I first started painting I was like, you know, trying to be like a Polaroid camera.
CROWLEY: Right, get it exactly right.
BUSH: Yes.
CROWLEY: Instead of the feel.
BUSH: Instead of the feel, and I'm learning, and how to work colors to get to a different feel and it's -- it -- you know, I don't know what I'd be doing. I don't drink anymore. I guess if I were a drinker I'd be you the there at night drinking away, but now I'm painting away.
CROWLEY: So, that's probably a better hobby.
BUSH: I would think it would be. A little more constructive.
CROWLEY: You painted your dad in this book?
BUSH: I did. Yes.
CROWLEY: Right?
BUSH: Yes, I did. It's in the book.
CROWLEY: And?
BUSH: Yes, I think it's nice. Mother kind of wasn't -- I know, but you know.
CROWLEY: You can't please mom all the time. BUSH: Never paint your wife or your mother.
CROWLEY: Have you painted your wife?
BUSH: Yes.
CROWLEY: She didn't like it?
BUSH: Well, she said -- no. And neither did my daughter, so I just scrapped it.
CROWLEY: Really?
BUSH: Yes, I kind of chunked it.
CROWLEY: What does that mean?
BUSH: Well, I'm not going to be painting it -
CROWLEY: Showing it.
BUSH: Yes. I may have saved it although they probably think I destroyed it.
CROWLEY: So, we won't -- that's between you and me?
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Yes, don't tell anybody. Anyway, so mother called and said I hear you're painting. She said paint my dogs. OK. So I painted her dogs and it was fun to paint something for somebody you care about. And so I painted the dogs for her and then I painted a garden scene for her and painted other things for her and she likes it and appreciates it.
CROWLEY: Now, the plane on your (inaudible), this is your vintage, right, not quite your plane?
BUSH: Dad.
CROWLEY: Dad, I'm sorry.
BUSH: He flew, this is a fighter and his was more of a bomber, torpedo bomber.
CROWLEY: Right, right.
BUSH: You know what's amazing about him? Is I've thought, I can think back when I was 19. I put in - I put in the book, you know, they grew up a lot faster than we did, that's for sure in my case..
CROWLEY: Yes.
BUSH: But imagine being 19 floating off the coast of a Japanese island.
CROWLEY: By yourself.
BUSH: Yes, wondering whether you're going to live.
CROWLEY: Yes. It's an amazing story you have.
BUSH: But you know here's the thing about it, that's interesting, Candy. It's not the only story of World War II. There's thousands of stories that way. And not to be on a high horse here, I think the word hero is overused, and I think the World War II generation guys have handled it well. He said, we weren't heroes, we did what we were asked to do. And now everybody is a hero at some point in time and they (ph) say (ph) that (ph) they're not. They're living life the way it's supposed to be lived is not heroic.
CROWLEY: It's what you're supposed to be doing which is how your father looks at it.
BUSH: That's exactly - and it wasn't just him, it's a lot of people his age.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: Our thanks to the former president and to the folks at Moody Air Force Base. We really appreciate your hospitality.
Now despite partisan politics, 'tis the season on Capitol Hill. Holiday memories from the hallowed halls, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: As we saw last night, lawmakers can be a grumpy bunch but the holiday spirit is still alive and well in Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R), ILLINOIS: It was the night before Christmas and my grandpa thought that it would be great for me if he took a little elf and shone a light on it and ring (ph) Jingle Bells in the middle of the night. And it terrified me. So, he started doing this and I remember screaming bloody murder because I thought there was this miniature little elf coming to murder me the night before Christmas. So, he has passed since then but every Christmas I reminded him of him terrorizing me for that wonderful holiday.
SEN. BOB CASEY (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, Christmas Eve more than Christmas day, my mother and father's families used to have oyster stew. It was more like -- more like watery oyster soup with oysters in it. I never liked it and I still don't. Just don't tell my mother.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D), MINNESOTA: My daughter was about 4 years old. We went and got our tree and we brought it back and somehow it just fell off the car and the car kept going and the tree was in the middle of the street. We went back and my daughter claims that my husband stuffed the entire tree into the trunk because he was so mad. And somehow we got the tree which then was a little bent to our home and put it up and all was fine but that was the day the tree fell off the top of the car.
REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R), TENNESSEE: You always have to make certain that there is -- that there are two trees, one has an angel on top and one has a Santa on top.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It pleases everybody?
BLACKBURN: It makes everybody happy.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D), WEST VIRGINIA: This will be my first Christmas without my mother. She passed away this year and so we're all going to miss that very much but we're going to keep the tradition alive if we can. But we bring all the different traditional (INAUDIBLE) coming from a large Italian family, they bring a lot of Italian food.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: For the last five or six years, I have been honored to light the world's largest Hanukkah Menorah on 59th Street and Fifth Avenue. We go up in a cherry picker and we say the prayers over the lights there acetylene -- with an acetylene torch we light these gas lamps and there are thousands who look on. So, it's a great tradition.
REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: When I was 7 years old, my father had been laid off. On Christmas morning, we came down and there were no toys. And there was my father sitting under the tree that he had just bought the night before. It was so scrawny that, I mean, you could see right through it. But I'll never forget the words that he said that day. He says, you know, Santa didn't come this year because he didn't have any money. He said, but I want you to know that my presence in your life is presence enough.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CROWLEY: Thanks for watching. I'm Candy Crowley.
Fareed Zakaria, "GPS," starts now.
