Election 2008 Obama vs. McCain | Clinton vs. McCain | Latest 2008 Polls | Latest 2008 News

December 04, 2007

Fred Thompson's Hour With Charlie Rose

Charlie Rose

CHARLIE ROSE, HOST: Welcome to the broadcast. This is the fifth episode of our special edition series, "The Candidates." An hour of conversation with the candidates in the 2008 election.

Tonight, Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee, running for the Republican nomination for president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE ROSE: There is a new assessment by American intelligence agencies that concludes that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.

What do you make of this?

FRED THOMPSON, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: And of course, much more recently than that, they`ve claimed to have 3,000 centrifuges up and operating. So people are wondering whether or not this is another case of going against what would be the conventional way of doing things and saying you had something that you didn`t have, instead of the other way around. Namely Saddam Hussein and following his pattern.

Nobody knows. I doubt if our intelligence knows, unfortunately. It`s one of the problems that we`ve got in this country.

But we`re just going to have to wait and see. Why they would be -- why they would start it up and then they would move away from it without telling anybody. Unless they of course have leaked this themselves.

So just a bunch of unanswered questions. We`ve got to assume that what they`ve said publicly is probably more accurate, and that they are developing a nuclear capability. And this is perhaps a weak faint or weak attempt to cause us to divert our attention a little bit from what they`re doing.

CHARLIE ROSE: Suppose you were president and you got that assessment, what would you do?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, I would continue to work and make sure the assessment was right. If I got the assessment that they had quit their activities...

CHARLIE ROSE: In 2003.

FRED THOMPSON: That they -- I would try to find out why. I would try to find out what their thinking was, what their intentions are.

The use of intelligence, I think, coming out of Iraq, is going to be one of the most important things the next president is going to have to deal with. It`s always caveated. It`s very seldom straightforward. I was on the Intelligence Committee. I`ve seen quite a bit of their work product. There`s usually always more than one opinion. It`s maybe this. It`s maybe that.

And what you do often, ultimately, as president, is based upon what you take away from all of that. But there`s never a clear blueprint. And I can only assure you of one thing that I`m certain of, and that is no one is giving the president information today that says definitely they`re moving toward that program or definitely they`re not. It`s going to be a mixed report. And we`re going to have to strive mightily to make up for a weakened intelligence capability that`s been developing over a long period of time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE ROSE: Episode 5 of "The Candidates" with Fred Thompson, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHARLIE ROSE: Tonight, we continue our special edition series, "The Candidates," with Fred Thompson, candidate for the Republican nomination for president. He represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate from 1994 to 2002.

Many Americans also know him as a character actor on television and in films. He`s played authority figures, including District Attorney Arthur Branch in the television series "Law & Order."

Fred Thompson first came onto the national scene as the chief Republican counsel in the Senate Watergate committee, working alongside his friend and mentor, Senator Howard Baker.

In his presidential campaign, Thompson seeks to appeal to conservatives dissatisfied with the records of some GOP candidates.

Immigration is the centerpiece of his campaign. He calls for the federal government to strip funds from states and cities that don`t report illegal immigrants.

The "Washington Post" called his Social Security reform plan the most courageous proposal of the campaign. He`s also called for a flatter tax policy, with just two rates, as some conservatives have praised.

He is ranked second in many national polls, but he trails further behind in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

I met with him in Virginia yesterday, and here is that conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHARLIE ROSE: Senator, thank you for doing this. It`s a pleasure to have you on this program.

FRED THOMPSON: My pleasure. Thank you, Charlie.

CHARLIE ROSE: There is a new assessment by American intelligence agencies that concludes that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.

What do you make of this?

FRED THOMPSON: And of course, much more recently than that, they`ve claimed to have 3,000 centrifuges up and operating. So people are wondering whether or not this is another case of going against what would be the conventional way of doing things and saying you had something that you didn`t have, instead of the other way around. Namely Saddam Hussein and following his pattern.

Nobody knows. I doubt if our intelligence knows, unfortunately. It`s one of the problems that we`ve got in this country.

But we`re just going to have to wait and see. Why they would be -- why they would start it up and then they would move away from it without telling anybody. Unless they of course have leaked this themselves.

So just a bunch of unanswered questions. We`ve got to assume that what they`ve said publicly is probably more accurate, and that they are developing a nuclear capability. And this is perhaps a weak faint or weak attempt to cause us to divert our attention a little bit from what they`re doing.

CHARLIE ROSE: So you think they may be behind this, even though it`s a U.S. intelligence estimate?

FRED THOMPSON: Could be, yes. Yes. I think that`s one of the things you have to consider.

None of it makes any sense. I think that if you look at what is in their long-term interest as they view things, if they view us as an enemy, they have declared us to be an enemy. They have been killing our people one way or another for a long time, through Hezbollah and through other means. If there is interest in Iraq and what happens there and their influence in Iraq and wanted to expand it, if they`re interested in wiping Israel off the face of the earth -- all of the things that seem to be what they perceive to be in their interest, it would only make sense that they would be developing a nuclear capability. And we have to operate under that assumption until we learn better.

The real significant part about it is that if our original assessment was true, that we don`t have very much longer before they reach a critical stage, if this news item that we`re talking about now is true, then it could be several more years before we have to worry about it. So it is something we`re going to have to get to the bottom of.

CHARLIE ROSE: This is an assessment by American intelligence agencies. Suppose you were president and you got that assessment, what would you do?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, I would continue to work and make sure the assessment was right. If I got the assessment that they had quit their activities...

CHARLIE ROSE: In 2003.

FRED THOMPSON: That they -- I would try to find out why. I would try to find out what their thinking was, what their intentions are.

The use of intelligence, I think, coming out of Iraq, is going to be one of the most important things the next president is going to have to deal with. It`s always caveated. It`s very seldom straightforward. I was on the Intelligence Committee. I`ve seen quite a bit of their work product. There`s usually always more than one opinion. It`s maybe this. It`s maybe that.

And what you do often, ultimately, as president, is based upon what you take away from all of that. But there`s never a clear blueprint. And I can only assure you of one thing that I`m certain of, and that is no one is giving the president information today that says definitely they`re moving toward that program or definitely they`re not. It`s going to be a mixed report. And we`re going to have to strive mightily to make up for a weakened intelligence capability that`s been developing over a long period of time.

CHARLIE ROSE: Some people are now arguing that with respect to Iran, that you could contain them with a nuclear capability in the same way that mutually assured destruction worked with the Soviet Union. Do you buy that argument?

FRED THOMPSON: Not really. It`s a different kind of threat. Iran is not your typical nation-state that operates in its traditional, what one considers to be a traditional national interest. Nationalism is not a big part of their motivation.

If you listen to their leaders, if you read what they`ve written and listen to what they say, you see that in large part, it is religiously motivated. They consider us to be a mortal enemy, that they are willing to sacrifice large numbers of people in order to achieve domination. They`re looking forward to the return of the 12th imam, and if a lot of innocent people have to die, including their own, they`re willing to continue in that direction if that`s what it takes to bring us down. That`s not traditionally what we`ve faced. That`s not the way that the leaders of the Soviet Union behaved or looked at things.

So their motivations are different. The challenge they present to us certainly is different than what we`ve ever faced before.

CHARLIE ROSE: What are the lessons from the Iraq war so far?

FRED THOMPSON: Certainly we must have better intelligence than what we have. The failure has had great consequences in many respects, but perhaps not as great as a lot of people think. Because if we remember, it was a bipartisan, multi-country failure in many respects. The whole Western world was caught short with regard to what Saddam had and what he did not have. So that`s one lesson.

Another lesson is that our intelligence must be able to give us better guidance as to what we face when we go into an unknown situation. Nobody ever knows exactly how things are going to pan out. It`s been true of every war. Mistakes have been made. Certainly we`ve had setbacks and so forth, but here we really had no concept of what we were going to be dealing with in the future.

I think that we knew, of course, that strategy was important, but I think that we know now that that particular strategy and that particular place was flawed for a long time. Kind of holding things in place and giving the Iraqi army a chance to build up to take care of the problems themselves. We stayed in that strategy for too long.

We learned that numbers do count. A lot of people were saying that we simply did not go in there with enough people and we did not add enough people soon enough. And we`ve seen now when that occurred that we`re getting different results.

CHARLIE ROSE: You`ve been critical of some of the generals.

FRED THOMPSON: Well, yes. Those who recommended and carried out that previous strategy.

CHARLIE ROSE: That would be everybody before Petraeus, wouldn`t it?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, it`s -- yes. There was a period of time there when I don`t think it was obvious to anyone what was going to happen. But after it became obvious that what we were doing was not the correct way to go is when I would assess blame, if we must assess blame there. Not from day one.

I think actually going in there was a decision that had to be made for weapons that far exceeded weapons of mass destruction. I think that we must compare what the situation would be today if we had not gone in.

I think we were facing a situation where a man and his two sons, having defeated the United States, having defeated the United Nations, clearly having intentions with regard to a nuclear capability, would have continued to wreak havoc in that particular area, would have remained, would have become really the new Saladdin of that particular part of the world, with the prestige that comes with that. I think it would be an even tougher situation today if we had not gone in.

But we`ve had our setbacks. We`ve learned our lessons. I think that things are looking a lot better now. Even a lot of the detractors acknowledge that. So there is a good chance now of our being able to withdraw from there as a part of a success scenario instead of defeat.

CHARLIE ROSE: You have said you think that what it needs is a military solution, while many people have said that in the end -- even some military people -- that what you have to have is a political reconciliation and a political solution.

FRED THOMPSON: Yes. Well, I think ultimately, of course, you have to have both. They`re not totally divorced. But I think it`s a fallacy to say that, you know, we`re going to kind of sit back and let the military situation take care of itself, while the politicians meet in a room. I think it has got to be the other way around. I think that you have to have stability.

And the reconciliation issue is an interesting one, because a lot of it seems to be taking place out in the field, so to speak. A lot of people, the Sunnis, for example, had a chance to live under al Qaeda domination in some of these areas. They`ve seen what al Qaeda does. They`ve grown tired of living that way and are coming to our side. Sunnis and the Shiites on several occasions have come together and are talking in ways that they haven`t before.

There`s always the question of the future. But in terms of right now, we can`t say that because there`s no reconciliation at the top, among the national leaders, that there are not some really good things happening out in the country. It would be kind of like saying there`s no progress in the United States unless the right thing is happening in Washington. And we know that`s not true.

CHARLIE ROSE: Spoken like a true federalist.

Tell me about that. As you look to the future of America`s problems -- I want to come back to some crisis in confidence. How you see the way government functions? And what`s the responsibility of the states and what is the responsibility of the federal government?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, our founding fathers laid the groundwork for us. And it`s not an idea that I came up with. It`s the way that I look at the Constitution and what history tells me. The founding fathers came here with a firm notion that too much power in too few hands is a bad idea. They lived under that.

So they took account of human nature and they took account of the wisdom of the ages, and they crafted something very special when they divided power among the three branches on the federal level.

And then they divided it further between the federal level and the state and local level. And they we got the 10th Amendment, which basically set it all out, based on the notion that we`re a diverse country; we`re a large country. It`s good to have that power dispersed. It`s good to have states competing with one another. It`s good to have these 50 laboratories out there coming up with various solutions for various problems. Sometimes even the federal government can learn from it. And that served us well for a couple of hundred years.

The tendency is always for national politicians and national leaders to want to federalize most any problem. If someone has got a problem, the easy thing to do is to come up with a program, and it`s always a federal program.

But the first question of government always should be, should the government be doing this? And the second question ought to be, if so, at what level?

CHARLIE ROSE: What`s the federal government`s role in education?

FRED THOMPSON: Limited. Times change. And you have to acknowledge. Some things that were not much of a federal issue in times past have become more federal issues. For example, transportation and communication obviously are different than they were when our country was founded. And things involving interstate commerce and so forth are appropriate federal issues.

Education, frankly...

CHARLIE ROSE: Social Security being the most...

FRED THOMPSON: Obviously. Education is one of those things that I must confess I look at somewhat differently. I think that`s more of a national concern than it used to be from a standpoint of economic competitiveness in the global economy. We`re falling behind in that respect.

CHARLIE ROSE: Elaborate on that, because I want to come to what you might do. How are we falling behind and what is the responsibility...?

FRED THOMPSON: We clearly are falling behind in terms of K-12 education, in terms of standards, in terms of test results, in terms of people who are dropping out or not going to high school. And we`re competing not with the guy down the street; we`re competing with the guy on the other side of the world nowadays, and education is a large part of that. So it becomes more of a national concern.

My biggest concern is not that it is not -- it`s not a proper issue for the federal government to address, because I think to a certain extent, it is -- it`s that the federal government has no solutions there. The federal government is not competent to deal with that.

We have hundreds of education programs now. We`ve been increasing federal funding for over 40 years. If federal funding was directly related to results of our students, they`d all be Rhodes scholars by now. That`s clearly not happening. The federal government spends less than 10 percent, 8 or 9 percent of our educational expenditures now. And it must be spent wisely, but there has been no program that you can say that should apply to the entire nation that`s proven to have worked.

We`re still falling behind. No Child Left Behind is no exception to that rule. That`s something I voted for that I don`t think has worked out very well. I think the answer...

CHARLIE ROSE: Why not?

FRED THOMPSON: I think the answer -- well, in No Child Left Behind, one of the reasons is that states are setting their own standards, and the better their students do, the more easily the federal money flows to them. So remarkably, all the students are doing very well, thank you.

CHARLIE ROSE: So the tests are not accurate, you think, because they simply want more money?

FRED THOMPSON: I don`t think the tests are accurate.

You can`t get away from what has worked for us in so many different areas in this country. And that is free people, free markets, and competition and experimentation. It gets back to the federalism issue. This has been the responsibility, education, of the state and local governments primarily for over 200 years. And to say that, OK, you had your try; now we`re going to absolve you of this responsibility because we have a great idea at the federal level, is not true and it`s not the way to go.

I think things like voucher programs and things of that nature are very, very good. I think you`ve got to say to parents, No. 1, and then to local officials, No. 2, and school boards and so forth, to provide this ingenuity, provide the funding, provide the good teachers and the good requirements, demand certain results, you know, at the local level. And we`ll do better in that regard.

The federal part of it should be the money should be used wisely. But not with the idea that we really are going to be able to come up with a program or a series of programs that is going to turn that education system around.

A lot of it is sociological. You know, the breakdown of the family, absentee fathers and things of that nature. That plays into it too.

CHARLIE ROSE: Socioeconomic factors are important.

FRED THOMPSON: Very, very important. Yes. I think, you know, you`ve got young men growing up, you know, without parental supervision, without a father or a father figure, you know, and they go to school sometimes and the teacher has to be the educator and the disciplinarian, both. And that does not work out. That`s not the whole problem...

CHARLIE ROSE: (inaudible) what about that problem? I mean, if that is a social issue...

FRED THOMPSON: I would tell the truth to where the responsibility belongs. I think that one of the great things about the presidency is the bully pulpit that it offers. And occasionally, it`s not a matter of proposing a program. It`s a matter of telling the truth. And that is to say to people at the local level, to say to a parent, don`t waste your time getting into the car, driving by the school house, driving by the school board, driving up to the state capital, drive past the state house out to the airport to fly to Washington, D.C. to tell a bunch of politicians some problem you have got with your kids` education.

First of all, be a good parent. First of all, you know, folks, if they would wait and have kids after they got married, and then we`d have two parents, you know, to the extent possible bringing the child up. And then hold the local officials responsible. And saying at the federal level with regard to certain kinds of issues, certain kinds of programs, we can provide money in a block grant form with -- without a lot of strings and without a lot of bureaucracy and so forth, you know, to assist in certain major areas. But the decisions have to be yours and the responsibilities are yours.

CHARLIE ROSE: Would you do away with No Child Left Behind or would you fix it?

FRED THOMPSON: I would fix it. There are proposals out there where moneys can be directed for the same purposes, more in a block grant form, without a lot of the strings attached. A lot of states have to build their own bureaucracies in order to just comply with the federal regulations and spend an awful lot of money that could otherwise be directed into better activities. So I think the money in a general direction can be something that all good people can agree on. The details of the program should be left to the people where the responsibility lies.

CHARLIE ROSE: Teachers? How do we get better teachers in America?

FRED THOMPSON: Same answer, I think. Part of No Child Left Behind had to do with certain things that the states and local governments had to do, and certain teachers had to have certain qualifications and so forth. You know, I think, for example, we`d do a lot better if we open our system up to people with expertise in certain areas that don`t necessarily have an education degree, or have gone through the educational establishment. Things of that nature. But again, that`s not something that the federal government should dictate.

CHARLIE ROSE: Let me just make sure I understand exactly where you`d put education in a Thompson presidency. Where is the priority for you?

FRED THOMPSON: Education, as I said, is very important. I think it`s -- I mentioned the international competitive example. And I think it is ultimately going to be very important from a social stability standpoint. We don`t want to ever get into the situation of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in this country. And getting poorer has a lot to do with education and not getting an education. And it makes the disparity greater.

If you go to school and at least get a high school education and play by the rules, you still have got a pretty good chance of achieving the American dream in this country. The IRS did a study recently of tracking people`s tax returns over a 10-year basis, and an awful lot of people, the majority of the people, moved from the lower rung to higher rungs -- not all of them reached the highest rungs, but -- we`re a mobile society, but it`s in large part based on education. And it`s of great concern.

But we shouldn`t delude ourselves to think that all of a sudden, because of somebody that`s come up with a brilliant position paper, that we`re really going to be able to change areas of responsibility and come up with a federal solution that is really going to change all that.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you think America is in decline?

FRED THOMPSON: No. I don`t think we`re in decline. I think that we have bumps in the road. I think we have some days better than others, just like we as individuals do. But no, I don`t think we`re in decline.

I think that, you know, we`ve had a pretty short run of it, actually, in this country as a democracy, as the most prosperous and the freest and the most powerful in the history of the world. And historians tell us that all great nations eventually decline. But I think it doesn`t have to be that way, and certainly after the brief run that we`ve had in this country, we shouldn`t be thinking in those terms.

CHARLIE ROSE: What do we need beyond education to maintain our competitive position in the world?

FRED THOMPSON: Strength, prosperity and unity.

CHARLIE ROSE: Prosperity. A lot of people look at the decline of the dollar today. And it worries them. And it worries them that we may be slipping into a recession. It worries them that the dollar, which has been the standard in international business, may lose its place. It worries them that there are countries that wanted to hold dollars, and they want to hold euros now.

What would you do about that?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, in the first place, about 70 percent of international transactions are still conducted in the dollar. So I don`t think there`s any reason to panic about that.

In the second place, ironically, our richness as a nation is in large part the reason for the decline of the dollar. We`re buying more stuff from other people than they`re buying from us. So that`s a part of the picture.

We -- it`s helping our exports now. I mean, every coin has two sides. And it`s helping our international....

CHARLIE ROSE: Some decline in the current accounts deficit.

FRED THOMPSON: That`s exactly right. But we have to be for and we have to have policies consistent with a strong dollar. And, you know, lowering the interest rate, which has recently happened in response to the housing bubble and all of that, you know, has been a part of it.

But none of these are permanent policies. And none of them are designed to deliberately cheapen the dollar. We are dependent -- we talk about our dependency on foreign oil. We`re dependent on foreign investment also. And we`re dependent on foreign creditors. And we can`t be for a cheap dollar. We can`t have policies that lead people to believe that it`s going to be -- that we`re going to acquiesce and the dollar falling even further. We don`t want people unloading those dollars.

CHARLIE ROSE: So what do we do to strengthen the dollar?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, you can`t snap your fingers and do that. I mean, one thing you can do is substantially raise the interest rates tomorrow. I mean, that would...

CHARLIE ROSE: Would you like to see the Federal Reserve do that?

FRED THOMPSON: No, no.

(LAUGHTER)

FRED THOMPSON: No. I think...

CHARLIE ROSE: Where do you put this in terms of an economic concern, and where do you put, you know, the idea that we may very well be moving towards a recession, partly because of the credit crisis and partly because of slowdown in economic growth and partly because of the dollar?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, I don`t know of -- well, I think the dollar may be more of a symptom than it is a cause. But I don`t know if any economists that really think that we`re probably going to head toward a recession. I do think...

CHARLIE ROSE: They think it`s about a 50-50 chance.

FRED THOMPSON: Well, I think that a pullback in growth somewhat is different than that.

We`ve got to put it in context. And we`ve had a very good run for about six years now. We`ve had economic growth, a sustained, good economy in terms of the growth, in terms of inflation, in terms of unemployment. All of those things, usually. We`ve had a couple of recessions or near recessions during that span of time, so we haven`t had that. It`s only natural that we have somewhat of a decline in growth over a period of time. Hopefully, that`s all that it is.

But the main thing you don`t do is overreact and do things like raising taxes and imposing new regulations and things of that nature. You do things that have always proven to provide for a stable economy, which is just the opposite of that.

CHARLIE ROSE: You recently made an economic speech. Would you change the -- other than not letting the present tax cuts expire in 2010, would you increase the number of tax cuts? How would you look at the revenue side?

FRED THOMPSON: In the first place, I don`t subscribe that a dollar in tax cut equals a dollar in revenue loss. That`s static accounting. It`s never proven to have been accurate.

CHARLIE ROSE: Are you close to being a supply-sider?

FRED THOMPSON: Yes. Very close.

CHARLIE ROSE: You might even be there.

(LAUGHTER)

FRED THOMPSON: No, I think historically, you know, you can go back for a long time -- the `20s or the Kennedy administration or the Reagan administration or this current administration -- and when rates have been cut, it`s fostered economic growth. And growth is the one factor that we have to be able to rely upon to solve any of these other problems.

But I would, yes, particularly I`ve got a paper out that deals with this in some detail. But I would point toward the corporate tax rate, for example. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. It`s all European countries and the Scandinavian countries and...

CHARLIE ROSE: What`s the corporate tax rate in...

(CROSSTALK)

CHARLIE ROSE: ... say, the United Kingdom?

FRED THOMPSON: I`ll tell you what it is in Ireland. It`s 10 percent. And it`s...

CHARLIE ROSE: They`ve had explosive growth in Ireland.

FRED THOMPSON: And it`s 35 percent here. And Japan is the only one higher than us and they`re talking about lowering theirs.

The point being they have discussed...

CHARLIE ROSE: The only major industrialized country that has a higher corporate tax rate than the United States is Japan?

FRED THOMPSON: Right. Right. And that indicates that they have caught on to the fact that when your tax rate gets to a certain level, it hurts you in terms of where people locate their businesses, in terms of jobs, in terms of international competitiveness, and in terms of the revenue that the government brings in.

I mean, a lot of people think that we`re losing revenue by having a rate that high. So that`s another area that needs to be looked at.

CHARLIE ROSE: Immigration. You`ve gotten -- it`s become the third rail in American politics. "Wall Street Journal..."

FRED THOMPSON: We`re making progress. Social Security used to be.

CHARLIE ROSE: That`s true. You know, and by the way, credit where credit is due, at least if it matters, "The Washington Post" has editorialized about your own clear thinking on Social Security and for attacking a very, very difficult issue with some progressive ideas for change.

And this is what "The Wall Street Journal" said about immigration and you. "Unfortunately, Fred Thompson continues to channel Tom Tancredo, the nuisance candidate who blames every problem in America on the illegal immigrants, who constitute roughly 5 percent of the U.S. labor force. Mr. Thompson promises to punish employees for failing to detect illegal alien workers who have already slipped by the feds. He also wants to cut all federal funding to cities that refuse to turn local cops into appendages of the Border Patrol, as if those cops don`t have far worse offenders to pursue. This is reactionary populism masquerading as conservatism. It`s even more disappointing to hear it from Mrs. Romney, Giuliani and Thompson, because all three have political histories that reveal more sensible immigration views."

FRED THOMPSON: Most of my history when I was in the Senate on this issue had to do with legal immigration issues, something that I have strongly supported and making sure that our legal system was more efficient and brought in the people that we needed to have brought into this country.

Now, the illegal immigration problem is a big one. And I strongly disagree with the "Wall Street Journal" on this. They have been sounding this trumpet for a long, long time. They think businesses need the workers. And I`m sure that some do. But basically, what they`re saying -- they`re talking about sanctuary city there in their criticism of me -- basically, what a lot of these cities are doing is basically saying to their employees, "you may not inform the federal authorities when you run across illegals who are here illegally."

What does that say in and of itself? No. 1, the wisdom of having a sanctuary city where people can come and bring their families and be induced to come and bring more and more over the years, knowing that they`ll have safe haven. Terrorists, I`m sure, are aware of which cities are sanctuary cities. It`s bad policy for America.

Secondly, in 1996, we passed a bill, the United States Congress. It wasn`t just me and it wasn`t just a reactionary handful. The United States Congress passed a bill that made illegal sanctuary cities. Cities are violating that law every day, some of them are. And how you can be for the rule of law and reform of our legal system and all of that, you know, on the one hand, and say that we really should not enforce or even be for the enforcement of a law that`s on the books on the other is beyond me. I respectfully disagree.

CHARLIE ROSE: You obviously are against amnesty or whatever.

FRED THOMPSON: Um-hum.

CHARLIE ROSE: And you obviously say you cannot send back and deport those because you don`t know where they are and it`s almost an impossible effort.

So what future is there for an illegal immigrant in the United States and in terms of U.S. policy? Everybody seems to say we need to enforce the borders. Everybody seems -- and you especially -- say you need to hold employers accountable.

FRED THOMPSON: We -- we...

CHARLIE ROSE: What happens to immigrant children and...

FRED THOMPSON: Well, if they have emergencies or they need to be taken care of and so forth, you take care of them, but you don`t have policies that lure future immigrant children by the millions across the border, to become illegal here in this country. That`s not good for not only for us...

CHARLIE ROSE: In search of better jobs and security.

FRED THOMPSON: In search of whatever. That`s not good for us. It`s not good for them.

So we have to look at what`s in the best interest of our country and observe to our friends from Mexico, for example, that what does it say about them when one of the things that they have to depend upon so strongly is the exportation of their own citizens? I don`t think it`s good for either side of the border.

But getting to the point of what we do about it -- some people have set up this false dichotomy of basically rounding everybody up and having a massive exportation effort on the one hand, or just saying, OK, you`re here, you got us, you win; we`ll put you at the head of the line, ahead of those millions of people over a period of years who have stood in line and played by the rules in order to get to come here and become a lawful United States citizen. That`s a false dichotomy.

I think that if we started applying the law as we should and enforcing the borders as we should, we would have attrition that would put things back toward the right direction. If we stopped providing sanctuary for illegal presence, if employers were required to not knowingly hire illegal workers, the situation would begin to reverse itself. Not overnight, by any stretch of the imagination, but I think you would stop the flow.

We`re talking about -- otherwise, we`re talking about huge increases in numbers ad infinitum, and bringing in folks who, you know, I`m sure by and large are very good people, as you say, searching for a better life. But you have the obligation to ask, what`s best for this country? The bringing in of millions more who have less education, who are added to those here who have less education -- we`ve been talking about that problem -- and to low-tech industries when we are a high-tech economy and a high-tech country trying to raise the educational levels and deal with the entitlement problems that we already have with our own citizens. We can`t go down that road. We have to begin to stop that process.

CHARLIE ROSE: You would not have supported the Bush legislation.

FRED THOMPSON: No. No.

CHARLIE ROSE: John McCain has been eloquent about torture. Do you agree with his sense that if America tortures, and waterboarding is torture, it is detrimental to the image of America?

FRED THOMPSON: As a general proposition, I do, yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: And, as you know, the attorney general, the new attorney general, was under severe criticism for that in terms of -- but was confirmed.

Tell me how you feel about this and about America as one aspect of America`s reputation, and how some people look at us today and say, you know, we seem to have lost some of our values, what we have stood for.

FRED THOMPSON: Here`s the way I look at that, Charlie. I mean, we`re engaged in a public debate now over a technique that very few people know anything about or its application or the circumstances are of its application and so forth. And that`s well and good. We`re an open, democratic society, but there are bigger principles involved here.

One is that torture is not our policy. Two, we do obey the law in this country. But there`s another one that we might as well face up to in this debate. And that is that any president -- and I dare say any presidential candidate -- if pressed, I would venture to say will tell you that if it comes right down to it and the lives of a lot of American citizens are at stake, the methods used will have to be consistent with the circumstances that are presented under those circumstances.

CHARLIE ROSE: So let me see if I understand you. It`s OK to torture and use those kinds of methods if it can save American lives?

FRED THOMPSON: I`m not going to sign off on any terminology, because it`s much too complex in order to do it. It very well may be that the circumstances presented from a legal standpoint will help define the activity, as to whether or not it`s torture under those circumstances.

But that`s a legalism. I`m just telling you as a policy matter, that as the president, if the lives of a bunch of American citizens were at stake and I thought that there was a good chance that an individual had information and could impart information...

CHARLIE ROSE: Torture would be the best way to get it out?

FRED THOMPSON: ... that would help save those lives, I`m just saying that I would do whatever was necessary to get that information from that person. I would authorize that.

CHARLIE ROSE: Whatever is necessary.

FRED THOMPSON: Whatever is necessary to save a number of American lives. You have to gauge the intelligence that you`ve got. You have to properly gauge who you`ve got, what information they have. There`s a lot that goes into it, Charlie. And I know we live in a soundbite world, but I`m telling you what anybody...

CHARLIE ROSE: This is not a soundbite world that I exist in.

FRED THOMPSON: No, you`re right, and I give you credit for that. That`s why I love this forum so much.

But you ask anybody. If American lives were at stake, if they were flat-out presented with it and they thought they had a circumstance there where information was probably available that would avert that catastrophe, would they do what was necessary to get it? I`m telling you that I would.

CHARLIE ROSE: Did you ever talk to John McCain about this?

FRED THOMPSON: Not personally, no.

CHARLIE ROSE: Colin Powell?

FRED THOMPSON: I may be mistaken. I don`t think John McCain disagrees with what I just said. He has not told me that. I don`t know that he`s ever been asked that.

I think John would recognize that there might be circumstances that a president would not wish on his worst enemy to be confronted with. It`s a horrendous situation for everybody concerned.

CHARLIE ROSE: The two areas that John McCain would point out -- one is he doesn`t necessarily believe that torture accomplishes the goal as you suggest, A. And secondly, he thinks that once you start doing that, then other people would do it to us, and therefore...

(CROSSTALK)

FRED THOMPSON: Those are all plausible things that John knows a lot about. I`ve talked to an awful lot of military people myself over the years. I served in the United States Senate and on the Intelligence Committee. So it`s not a situation I`m unfamiliar with. Those are all sound arguments. There are arguments on the other side.

But I`m telling you, when it comes down to it, if you`re going to be honest about it, if I`m going to be honest about it, I have to tell you that I don`t see that it`s a choice that a president has. The president has the obligation, first and foremost, to protect his country and protect his citizens.

CHARLIE ROSE: Tell me about how you see leadership and character.

FRED THOMPSON: Well, you just defined the most important part of -- or referred to -- the most important part of leadership. And I think it is character. I think it is integrity. I think that`s one of the things Robert McCullough talks about in "George Washington..."

CHARLIE ROSE: David McCullough.

FRED THOMPSON: I`m sorry, David McCullough.

CHARLIE ROSE: And "John Adams."

FRED THOMPSON: I think he`s right about that. And so many of the other founders. And it`s proven to be accurate throughout, you know, the rest of our history.

CHARLIE ROSE: Who was your favorite founder?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, I`m kind of partial to John Adams. I mean, when I was in college, for some reason, I wound up with....

CHARLIE ROSE: He`s a man from Massachusetts.

FRED THOMPSON: Yes, that`s right. He was a short, stocky man from Massachusetts, who -- an intellectual. And all the things I`m not. But yet, there was something about him.

He was a man of total integrity. As far as I can tell, he had only one confidant, and that was his wife. Didn`t particularly care what anybody else thought. And yet because of his intellect and because of his character, people were drawn to him.

And I wound up with a two-volume work, Page Smith (ph) I think was the author. And I read that more than once, because it made such an impression on me. I kind of wondered over the years why more people didn`t talk about him, refer to him. And then David McCullough did.

CHARLIE ROSE: You constantly say in this campaign that you are a conservative. What does that mean today? Is George Bush a conservative?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, let`s talk about me.

(LAUGHTER)

FRED THOMPSON: I thought we might get to that.

I think that it means things that are consistent with God`s design for man. It`s consistent with human nature. It`s consistent with the lessons of history and the lessons of the ages. They found form in the Constitution, I think, and what our founding fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error, and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing, that power is a corrupting thing.

CHARLIE ROSE: In all of that, you didn`t mention abortion, gay rights -- all things that have been part of recent presidential elections.

FRED THOMPSON: Those -- well, you`re talking about different things there. Those are issues that are before us, which derive from principles. I don`t consider them to be...

CHARLIE ROSE: Principles.

FRED THOMPSON: ... the first principles. But the principles are what guides you in coming to positions with regard to the issues.

You know, the Declaration of Independence said that our basic rights come from God and not from man. The founders talked about, you know, life and liberty and the importance of that. And everything is based on those basic principles.

And I take those principles, and you know, for example, I come to a pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues, you know, for eight years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion-related activities and things of that nature, you know, the application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no, properly.

CHARLIE ROSE: It`s an interesting political race when you talk about some of those principles and some of those specific issues. Pat Robertson`s endorsed Rudy Giuliani. You have the endorsement of one of the...

FRED THOMPSON: The National Right to Life.

CHARLIE ROSE: The National Right to Life organizations, I was going to say. Mike Huckabee seems to have the support in Iowa certainly of a lot of what`s called social conservatives.

Where is the evangelical movement today? Is it splitting up? Is it going in different directions?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, I don`t think it`s...

CHARLIE ROSE: Why is there so much...

(CROSSTALK)

FRED THOMPSON: I don`t think -- well, it`s -- you know, we`re a country of free people speaking our minds and doing what we think is best. And it`s not as if the candidates on the Republican side all have wildly divergent views on some of these subjects.

People examine the candidates` records. They look and see one guy that they think would be better in the future than another one, another one might make a better leader than another one. I don`t think it says anything about the movement.

It would be kind of strange, I think, under the circumstances, if everybody got behind the same person, unless of course it was me.

CHARLIE ROSE: How are you doing in this race? Are you glad you got in?

FRED THOMPSON: Yes, I am. I...

CHARLIE ROSE: You had a good life.

FRED THOMPSON: I have a wonderful life.

CHARLIE ROSE: Great marriage, two new kids.

FRED THOMPSON: Yes. It`s just, you know, blessings beyond description. And it`s a strange thing. I had an opportunity to run for president earlier. Of course, everybody does, I suppose.

CHARLIE ROSE: Over 35.

FRED THOMPSON: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

CHARLIE ROSE: But why put yourself through this? Do you have a mission? Is there a driving purpose you have beyond ambition?

FRED THOMPSON: I sat down with Geri, my wife. And we talked about this a lot. And it`s funny how that -- when your life is so full is the time you decide to do something like this.

But the question became, you know, what kind of a world are the kids going to grow up in? What kind of country are the kids going to grow up in? Am I at my highest and best use -- you know, I`ve done a lot of things. I got the chance to see my country from a lot of different standpoints. I was a federal prosecutor in my 20s in Watergate, and the Senate, made a few movies, and traveled around the world a lot of times, visiting foreign leaders and all.

But I`ve stepped up a time or two. And I think that it`s time I stepped up again, at a time when I can do it freely and openly, and be myself and do my things my way, which I`ve been roundly criticized for, and just basically say this: This is a guy I am, I`ve always been. I`ve been on the public stage since I was 30 years of age. And what you see is what you get. I`m concerned about my country.

CHARLIE ROSE: What are you concerned about, though? You`re coming off of a Republican administration for eight years?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, it`s the world we live in, Charlie. We`re going to need adults. We`re going to need someone that had the experience and knows this country and knows the people and knows the world.

CHARLIE ROSE: What Republicans aren`t adults?

FRED THOMPSON: The world is -- well, it`s how you approach things, I think, sometimes. The world -- we`ve not come to terms really I think as a nation with the world that we live in. Most of us think Afghanistan and Iraq are the war. It`s not. It`s a front right now and part of a challenge.

It`s going to cost us a lot more money, for example. And I say I can do it freely and openly and tell the truth and have the luxury of doing that, because of the way I`m approaching it. That`s part of it. It is going to cost us more money.

We`re talking about declining military budgets. It ain`t going to happen. It`s going to be more and greater. We need to level with the American people about where we are and what our challenges are. It`s part of the problem we have got in Iraq right now. We didn`t do that sufficiently.

In terms of our economy, we`re bankrupting our entitlement programs. We all know that our entitlement programs are going to take over our entire budget, that it`s unsustainable, that we`ve got to do something about it. This allows me to talk about it.

You mentioned the Social Security plan I laid out. Nobody else has done that, because it`s considered to be politically dangerous. It`s got to be dealt with.

The unity we`re going to need in this country that we don`t have now. There`s no credibility coming from any source in Washington, D.C., justified or not. Who is going to believe the next leader? You`ve got to reverse that process. You`ve got to do things differently.

I`m offering myself up saying, look, I want you to have the best president that you can get. If you think I`m the guy, we can do some wonderful things. If you don`t think I`m the guy, I`ll just go back to being the happiest guy you ever met.

CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you for coming.

FRED THOMPSON: Thank you. Pleasure.

About Us | RSS | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2008