Gates on 2012: “I think that who I vote for will remain my private business.”
CNN chief national correspondent John King sat down with former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates just one day before he is installed as the College of William & Mary’s 24th chancellor. King interviewed Gates about the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan, his thoughts on 2012 politics and more
King anchors John King, USA, live from the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, VA., today. Tune in to CNN at 6 p.m. ET for King’s interview with Gates and more.
Please credit all usage of the interview to CNN’s John King, USA
Highlight from Full Interview
THIS IS A RUSH FDCH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN KING, HOST: As you watch the Republican campaign play out, do you have a favorite?
ROBERT GATES, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: I’m going to go there.
KING: You’re not going to go there? What about in November? Are you going to vote for the Republican presidential nominee or is there a chance Bob Gates…would vote for President Obama?
GATES: I think that who I vote for will remain my private business.
KING: You’ve been a Republican all your life. Have you ever voted a Democrat for president?
GATES: Absolutely.
KING: Open to doing it again?
GATES: I — I have always voted for who I believed was the best person.
—-
JOHN KING, HOST: You mentioned the risk of the Iranian situation and the uncertainty and the unpredictability of it. I want you to listen to Speaker Gingrich here. Here’s his approach, that what — how he talks about moving as quickly as possible to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
NEWT GINGRICH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: But I think replacing the regime before they get a nuclear weapon without a war beats replacing the regime with a war, which beats allowing them to have a nuclear weapon. Those are your three choices.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Are those the three choices or is?
ROBERT GATES, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, I think that you either get them to change their policy through a combination of economic, political and military pressures, non-kinetic, non-mili — non-fighting, or they get a weapon and spark a nuclear arms race in the most volatile part of the world or you attack them and you start a war, the — the outcome of which you — you have no idea.
If — if Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us anything in recent history, it is the unpredictability of war and that these things are easier to get into than to get out of.
And, frankly, the — the facile way in which too many people talk about, well, let’s just go attack them, this is what I got criticized for with the no-fly zone on Libya and came back at the Congress and saying a no-fly zone is not about signing a piece of paper.
It starts with an attack on Libya.
Are you prepared to begin another war?
###
So I think people — those are basically the choi — the three choices that I outlined are the choices. I think that the — that the newest round of sanctions potentially do have the opportunity to get the Iranians to change their minds.
But this is — this is a very, very difficult and dangerous set of choices, frankly, before us, because those — those who say we shouldn’t attack, I think, underestimate the consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And those who say we should underestimate the consequences of going to war.
This is, I think, one of the toughest foreign policy problems I have ever seen since entering the government 45 years ago. And I think to talk about it loosely or as though these are easy choices in some way or — or sort of self-proclaimed obvious alternatives, I — I just think is irresponsible.
###