IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 02/18/15

Guests: Juan Cole, Morris Davis, Nihad Awad, John Kiriakou, JeannieMcDaniel, Jane Robbins

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I`m my own man. HAYES: Meet the new Bush, same as the old Bush. JEB BUSH: ISIS didn`t exist three or four years ago. HAYES: Jeb Bush lays out his plan to lead America. Is there any reason to think he wouldn`t be just like his brother? GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: You can`t get fooled again. HAYES: Then, as the drums of war raged on the right, why the State Department has it exactly right. MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: We cannot kill our way out of this war. HAYES: And why O`Reilly has it exactly wrong. BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: The holy war begins. HAYES: Plus, Republicans in Oklahoma declare war on history. And a preview of my exclusive interview with the former CIA agent who did two years in prison for talking to a reporter about torture. JAILED CIA AGENT: You lie, you cheat, you steal, you swindle, you trick people. Problem at the agency often times is that those guys don`t know when to turn it off. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Today at a time when Congress is about to debate yet another military authorization ostensibly against ISIS, that would include but not be limited to further war in Iraq, the brother of the man who brought us our last war in Iraq came before a podium to all but officially announce that he was running for president. Former Governor Jeb Bush declared, "I am my own man." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: I love my brother, I love my dad. I actually love my mother as well. Hope that`s OK. And I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions that they had to make. But I`m my own man and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The problem with the sentence "I am my own man" is that like I am not a crook, it has a way of refuting itself, which does not help by the fact that Governor Bush has announced his foreign policy advisors, a who`s who of people from both his brother and his father`s administrations, with some Reagan for a good measure. But as you see there, most of Jeb Bush`s advisors draw from his brother`s team. Including notables like Paul Wolfowitz and Michael Hayden, in other words, in large part, a throwback to those who helped bring about George W. Bush`s Iraq war. Even Jeb Bush himself was not immune to the pull of history when in a section of the speech where he meant to be talking about Iran, he said Iraq instead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: The problem is perhaps best demonstrated by this administration`s approach to Iraq. We`ve had 35 years of experience with Iran`s -- excuse me, Iran 35 years -- experience with Iran`s rulers. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Hate it when that happens. Bush spoke of ISIS as a force grossly underestimated by the current administration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: President Obama called is the junior varsity four days after they took Fallujah, and when they comprised a fighting force of more than 200,000 battle tested men. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: But 200,000 is itself a gross misrepresentation. As noted by "The Daily Beast", 200,000 is far greater, in fact, an order of magnitude greater than the U.S. intelligence community`s estimates. Last week, National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen pegged the fighting strength of ISIS at between 20,000 and 31,500. After the speech, a Bush aide told "The Daily Beast" the governor had misspoken. But it is a bizarre turn of history that the consequences of our last war in Iraq have produced a new group of jihadists whose perceived threat is so large the country could conceivably end up scared enough into electing the brother of the man who brought us our first war with Iraq. Joining me now is Juan Cole, professor at Michigan -- University of Michigan and author of "Engaging the Muslim World." Professor Cole, your reaction to Jeb Bush`s speech today? JUAN COLE, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Well, it just seemed not ready for prime time. He didn`t have his figures right. His history was all wrong. He said that ISIL didn`t exist a few years ago. I mean, it has -- it goes back to Abu Musab Zarqawi and the al Qaeda in Mesopotamia of the early zeros and has been styled the Islamic State of Iraq since at least 2006. So, it doesn`t seem to me that he really as yet has a firm grasp of the details of this foreign policy. HAYES: I was struck also by him talking about several consequences of the Iraq war without talking about the Iraq war as what produced them. For instance, he talks about Iran`s control over Baghdad, their influence in Baghdad. He talks about ISIS and the threat it provokes. And you end up asking yourself, well, how did all that come about? COLE: Yes. You know, in 2005, the Saudi foreign minister came to New York and gave a wounded and puzzled speech. He said, why did the Bush administration deliver Iraq into the hands of Iran? He said, we fought the Iran-Iraq war for eight years to stop this kind of thing from happening and now they`ve just undone all of that. And while, you know, he has a particular point of view, there`s something to what he said and it is puzzling as to why the Bush administration did set things up so that Iran gained the lion`s share of influence in Iraq. HAYES: He did acknowledge mistakes in Iraq. But he also had to say in defending his brother`s record there. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: My brother`s administration through the surge, which was one of the most heroic acts of courage politically that any president`s done, because there was no support for this. And it was hugely successfully and it created a stability that when the new president came in he could have built onto create fragile but more stable situation that would have not allowed for the void to be filled. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Do you buy that? COLE: No, of course not. Well, you know, the idea that by putting 30,000 extra troops into Iraq and doing some counterinsurgency, Bush turned the entire situation around, you know, that`s a myth. And one of the reasons that violence subsided in late 2007 into 2008 was that under the nose of the surge soldiers, the U.S. actually disarmed the Sunni Arabs first and that allowed the Shiite groups to go into these neighbors and ethnically cleanse the Sunnis. They were chased out of Baghdad probably in the hundreds of thousands. It is that dislocation and the advent of a Shiite-dominated Baghdad that turned into the ISIL counter- reaction. So, no, no, you can`t rewrite history that way. HAYES: Juan Cole, thank you very much. With regard to the current U.S. campaign against ISIS, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf recently said something that would seem to be -- well, obviously true. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HARF: We`re killing a lot of them and we`re going to keep killing them. So were the Egyptians, so were the Jordanians, they`re in the fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the longer term, medium and longer term, to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Harf went onto discuss those root causes in greater detail. In fact, when the right first started Harf for those very comments, Harf pointed to similar statements by then-President George W. Bush. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH: We know this war will not be won by force of arms alone. We must defeat the terrorist on the battle field and we must also defeat them in the battle of ideas. We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And yet here`s just a sampling of the fire storm Harf`s comment created over at FOX News. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Stimulus, shovel-ready jobs program for terrorists, that will stop it. Maybe we should give people free housing, terrorist housing, and maybe we should get them Ferraris and Obamacare. I`ve seen a lot of terrorists on TV that need dental work. LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: Sean, Marie Harf is exhibit A for the comprehensive failure of the U.S. educational system. Hey, Marie, war is about killing. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can`t say, hey, you know, if all these guys had perfect nuclear families, if everything was going great and if they had a $75,000 a year job that would help or hurt. If you don`t get the leadership and movement, it is totally without regard to your place in society and how much money is in your account. MARC THIESSEN: George W. Bush could say similar thing, but he was going out there and actually leading the surge to defeat ISIS. (END VIDEO CLIPS) HAYES: But here`s what the last 14 years have looked like, just so we`re clear on what the actual record is here. After 9/11, we declared war on Afghanistan and then Iraq. U.S. military deaths totaled more than 4,400 people. The Iraq war cost more than $815 billion, according to Congressional Research Service. U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan totaled more than 2,200 people. And operations in Afghanistan and other counterterror operations have cost an additional $686 billion, again, according to Congressional Research Service. Deaths on the Iraq and Afghanistan side are much harder to calculate for various reasons, but when civilian deaths are included, number in the hundreds of thousands for Iraq and near 15,000 at least for Afghanistan. And, of course, we haven`t stopped there. Including but not limited to U.S. drone strikes, United States has been involved in Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. The New American Foundation compiling data on killing covering the Obama and Bush administrations. They estimate that more than 800 people have been killed in U.S. air and drone strikes in Yemen and more than 2,000 have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan. So, it seems like we`ve been doing an awful lot of killing our way out of this situation for an awfully long time. What does the world look like? Having spent 14 years spending money, risking our troops lives and killing lots of people, here`s what it looks like -- Afghanistan is a corrupt quasi-narco state that many believe will once again fall to the Taliban sooner or later. It is only marginally better in Pakistan, where the Pakistani Taliban remained strong and semi-autonomous in the large swath of the country. Yemen, the site of our most intense targeted killings after Pakistan has now become essentially a failed state, one that also happens the strongest al Qaeda affiliate in the world. And Iraq -- well, Iraq is home to ISIS, which is now, we are told, the most monstrous terrorist threat since al Qaeda, or before that, the Taliban. And ISIS, of course, is now branching out, popping up in new places and has terrorized Libya with ghastly recent beheadings there. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. So, at what point do we say that the U.S. has been doing for 14 years without cessation is not working? Joining me, Colonel Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor at Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay, now a professor at the Howard University of School of Law. And, Colonel, you were in the midst of it. I mean, you were in Guantanamo, you saw the way the sort of initial structure of the war in terror developed. And it`s amazing to me that after 14 years, the argument is, we didn`t do enough of it. Does that scam (ph) to you? COL. MORRIS DAVIS (RET), HOWARD UNIVERSITY: No, it is a sad chapter in our nation`s history that has gone on far too long. And again you have the crowd on FOX News that acts on feeling and the fact and this kind of thing plays well with -- appealing to feeling. But, you know, the facts are, you know, we wasted $5 million at Guantanamo. You may have seen today, we`ve only had seven trials, one today was David Hicks, the appellate court overturned his conviction. So, what the Bush administration did at Guantanamo is just an absolute failure. HAYES: Is there a path forward to reduce the level of instability or threat that does not involve further military involvement in the mission? DAVIS: Yes, I`m often a critic of Marie Harf, but I think her statement was entirely accurate. You know, we can`t bomb our way to success in what is going on in that part of the world. Certainly, I think some military action is necessary to contain ISIS, but we have to get to the root cause. I mean, these groups don`t just sprout up. There is a root that facilitates their development. And primarily, our allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and others that have been more than happy to facilitate these proxy wars. And this one has gotten out of control. So, we`ve got to get our leaders to not facilitate this proxy movement. We`ve got to contain ISIS. We`ve got to do as Marie said, and give people an alternative that looks better than putting on a suicide vest and blowing yourselves up. HAYES: It`s also remarkable to me how little soul-searching there seems to be in Washington or the Beltway about Libya. I mean, here was -- you know, an example of coordinated coalition NATO bombing, U.S. participation in that, essentially regime change, and here we are, it was hailed at the time as a victory. Here we are with the horrific images of ethnic cleansing, essentially by ISIS, of these poor Christian killings, and maybe the dropping of bombs was not as successful as we thought it was. DAVIS: Yes, there`s certainly been many. Particularly with the drone program, you have heard the argument made before, that, you know, for every bad guy we kill we make ten more. The people that were on the side lines that were not militants, you know, when you kill their brothers and sisters, and mothers and fathers, many of them decide to join up with the other side. So again, we`re not going to bomb our way to success into this venture. I mean, we`re talking about problems that date back many, many centuries ago. And we`re not going to solve that by killing our way out of it. So, again, I think Marie is right. This is a multi-facetted problem that will take a multi-facetted approach. It includes military and economic development -- and getting the powers in the region to stop playing these proxy groups that lead to groups like al Qaeda and ISIS. HAYES: Colonel Morris Davis, thank you very much. All right, Bill O`Reilly and the leader of ISIS agree on one thing. I`ll tell you what that is ahead. Plus, a preview of my interview with the only person who went to prison for the CIA torture. Stay tuned for that. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: As this country goes to what feels like to me as a retrenchment into the white knuckle fear reminiscent of the early 2000s, a story of Massachusetts seems emblematic of our current political mood. University of Massachusetts Amherst announced today they are reversing their decision to ban prospective Iranian students from certain graduate programs, this comes after the university said earlier in the month they were not going to admit Iranian nationals because of U.S. sanctions, citing legislation passed in 2012, which states in part, quote, "The secretary of state will deny a visa to, and security of the homeland security shall exclude from the United States any alien who is a citizen of Iran the secretary of state determines to seek to entire the U.S. to participate in course work and an institutional higher education prepare the alien for a career in the energy sector of Iran or nuclear science or nuclear engineering or a related field in Iran." NBC News reports, quote, "Enforcement of that law has generally rested with the State Department, which issues visas, and the Department of Homeland Security, which investigates threats. Generally, universities have depended on those agencies to weed out potential students seen as risk." According to NBC News, UMass said it was having trouble complying with the sanctions so it was just going to stop letting Iranians in. There was widespread outcry from those opposed to the decision, including some students and professors at the university citing discrimination. One professor tweeting last week, quote, "UMass computer science will admit and welcome Iranian applicants to our program, signed, graduate admissions chair, me." In a statement today, University of Massachusetts said the policy reversal, quote, "follows consultation of the State Department and outside counsel." (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: The self proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Baghdadi, and FOX News host Bill O`Reilly, these two very different men are in agreement on one very crucial point, there is a holy war being waged in the Middle East. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: The holy war begins. That is the subject of this evening`s talking points. This is now so-called holy war between radical jihadists and everybody else, including peaceful Muslims. The holy war is here, and unfortunately it seems the president of the United States will be the last one to acknowledge it. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That will probably be after him, if he ever acknowledges it. For months, FOX News personalities have been attacking the president for not attributing the horrors committed by ISIS to, quote, "radical Islam", fixating on that phrase, and for not using the phrase "Islamic terrorism", as you see in this tweet from FOX host Eric Bolling. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) HANNITY: Why do you think he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge radical Islam? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even the United Arab Emirates called ISIS Islamic extremism, and ISIS itself calls it the Islamic State. They proudly proclaim this and Obama denies it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this point, it is beyond burlesque. It`s pathological. It`s clinical, their inability and unwillingness to accurately describe things. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have an administration that will not even admit there is a religious basis underlying what is going on. (END VIDEO CLIPS) HAYES: If the president`s refusal to cast the enemy as fundamentally Islamic got the folks at FOX mad, his obviously true statement that during the crusades, people did bad things in the name of Christianity, that made them positively apoplectic. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said ISIS is bad, but you know, Christians were just as bad a couple of centuries ago. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is making excuses it seems for ISIS behavior, essentially saying we started it. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Then the next step was anger at the president because in the statement, the White House referred to the 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians murdered by ISIS as Egyptian citizens, instead of explicitly calling them Christians, though he did do that today in his op-ed. Here`s FOX radio host Todd Starnes who regularly appears on the cable network. (BEGIN VIJDEO CLIP) TODD STARNES, FOX RADIO HOST: The president could not even summon the moral courage to speak the truth. They`re called Christians, sir, and their heads were savagely turned from their necks by monstrous Islamic jihadists. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And now, we have reached the next and final logical step, we are now according to one of the most influential figures on the American right, in a holy war, the holy war is here, it begins. And that sort of rhetoric is of course exactly what ISIS wants, for if it is a holy war, they were not some murderous cult or some fringe Sunni militia -- no, if it is a holy war, they`re the representatives of Islam, which is why the president at today`s summit on countering violent extremism was careful not to cast the fight in those terms. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They`re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: But ISIS has had success in framing the fight on their terms not just on FOX News, but also to some extent on the battlefield. Western volunteers are now joining a Christian militia in Iraq fighting ISIS, including a 20-year-old veteran, U.S. army fatigues, who sports a tattoo of Jesus and a crown of thorns. Another American veteran Jordan Matz (ph) of Wisconsin who fights the Kurdish militia against ISIS, reportedly wears a vest emblazoned with the words, Christ is lord. Can you imagine anything ISIS wants more than a Christian identified army lining up from Christendom against them? It only feeds their claim that they represent Islam in a holy war against he rest, a narrative that recruitment and radicalization and gives oxygen to the very fire we are trying to snuff out. Joining me now, Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations. Mr. Awad, does that make sense to you? NIHAD AWAD, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS: No, it does not. And thanks for having me, first. Holy war is a Christian concept. It does not apply to Islam. Holy war has been used in the 18th century, and I think Orientalists and those who do not know Islam very well, they lack access to Islamic terminology and they borrow from the Christian terminology to apply it to Islam. There is no such thing as holy war in Islam, because if you translate it back to the Arabic language through which the Koran was revealed, it says (SPEAKIGN FOREIGN LANGUAGE) and I`ve never seen this in the Koran, which Muslims consider the revealed text from god. HAYES: Right. AWAD: Or the tradition of the prophet. So holy war is just a Christian or Muslim label that is being imposed on what some Muslims do. HAYES: Right, but let`s just be clear here. The idea of fighting a war in the name of God, whether that is Allah, or Yahweh, or Jesus, that has been something that Muslims have done. That in different points, Jews have done, and Christians have done, throughout history. I mean, whether it is called holy war, clearly ISIS thinks they are fighting a holy war. AWAD: Again, ISIS claims that they`re fighting jihad, or the legitimate concept within Islam. And it is very dangerous. If we allow journalists and some media outlets or commentators or some politicians to give legitimacy that ISIS is seeking from all of us, if we call them jihadists or what they do is jihad, because jihad in Islam is a legitimate concept in Islam, which is self-defense, it`s like, you know, if a foreign army invades the U.S., we all defend our army and have a standing army. However, what ISIS is doing is a violation of Islamic norms, Islamic theology and Islamic rules of engagement. And that is called criminal and it is called terrorism. So if we say that terrorism that ISIS is doing is jihad, or they are jihadists, then we work for ISIS, and that is really shooting ourselves in the foot. HAYES: I understand that, we had Graeme Wood I believe last night talking about the piece he wrote for "The Atlantic" about what ISIS wants, that sort of talks about their own kind of theological conception, a religious group with carefully considered beliefs. He calls it at one point. I mean, this to me seems an important point here, which is not to say that ISIS represents anything like a mainstream variation of Islam, but it also seems to me strange to I mean, people the faith is sort of constituted by what people say they`re doing, right? I mean, ISIS does claim they`re waging jihad. I don`t feel like I`m in a position to say what they`re doing or not. What they`re going is ghastly. AWAD: You know, they`re the popular saying, right, saying so doesn`t make it so. So, if ISIS claims to be jihadists and we know that they are criminals and terrorists, then we shouldn`t give them the legitimacy, it is like the Westboro Baptist Church, they think they have the only view and interpretation of Christianity. Well, most Christians would disagree with them. The same way we disagree with ISIS. And therefore, we should not call them Islamic, because they`re not Islamic. And the problem I have with the piece of Mr. Wood in "The Atlantic", he said ISIS is very Islamic. I believe that is giving them legitimacy and doing the recruitment for ISIS which they don`t deserve. HAYES: Nihad Awad, thank you very much. AWAD: Thank you. HAYES: All right, gridlock on the West Coast. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the 40 years I`ve been doing this, it is the most unusual and devastating problem we have had with export shipping. REPORTER: This is peak period, yet Lobo`s (ph) citrus packing house is sending about half as much fruit as normal overseas. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: What modern day labor union power looks like, next. Plus, Oklahoma wants to ban advanced placement U.S. history. You won`t believe what they want to replace it with, ahead. That story is ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just want to show you this. This ship right here left China last month. It has been sitting here since February 9, it cannot even get into the port. The one back there behind it left China also last month. It has been sitting there since February 12. Look at all the cargo sitting on their ship. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Dozens of cargo ships are in limbo off the west coast tonight. Food is rotting. Imports and exports are stuck in containers, and billions of dollars are at risk, because of a contract dispute between the dock worker`s union and the port operators. The negotiations had already jammed up 29 west coast ports for months with the union citing safety concerns and operators accusing the union of slow-down tactics. Then, this President`s Day weekend, all unloading and loading of ships came to a complete halt, workers were reportedly locked out, the port operators unwilling to pay overtime. Work resumed yesterday, but the backlog will take weeks to clear. And with the union still without a contract, they`ve been without one since the last contract expired in July, and apparently deadlocked with port operators, there are very real fears of a total shutdown at the ports, which, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, can end up costing the U.S. economy about $2 billion a day. And that`s because thousands of American businesses move products through those west coast ports. On any given day just in Los Angeles and Long Beach, up to a dozen ships handle more than $1 billion worth of goods. And trucks haul off 40 percent of the nation`s incoming container cargo each year. The rise of globalization helped make the west coast ports incredibly important. They are now the choke points for U.S. trade with Asia, which makes the union that works at those ports, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, one of the last great bastions of organized labor power. And Even though the union is relatively small, about 20,000 people, it wields tremendous power, power it has leveraged to create good wages and benefits for its members and to improve safety conditions in the very complex and dangerous place in which its workers work. That`s enough power to bring the secretary to labor himself to California this week on behalf of the president to meet with the union and the port operators and to stress that it is imperative the parties come to an immediate agreement. Because you see, all labor power ultimately flows from workers` ability to strike, to withhold their labor, to bring the means of production to a halt. And the dock workers in L.A. are a stark reminder of what that looks like. And in an America where powerful unions are indeed an endangered species, what we`ve lost. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: This morning, I had a chance to interview John Kiriakou. He`s a former CIA officer who is to date the only official who served time in connection with the agency`s torture program. He just got out of prison 23 months into a 30 month sentence after pleading guilty to giving the name of a covert officer to a reporter, making him the first former CIA officer ever to be convicted for leaking to the press. When he was at the CIA, Kriacu was part of the team in Pakistan that captured Abu Zubaydah, then believed to be a high-ranking member of al Qaeda, a man who has the dubious distinction of being the first person tortured by the CIA. Kiriakou wasn`t present when it happened. But in a 2007 interview with ABC, two years after he left the agency, he became the first CIA official to publicly confirm that Zubaydah had been waterboarded during interrogations. When I talked to Kiriakou, he told me what happened after he went public, how he ended up in prison and his reaction to the senate torture report. We`re going to bring those to you and other parts of our wide-ranging interview over the next two nights, but first tonight, Kiriakou`s behind the scenes perspective on the culture of the CIA starting with the agency`s reaction to the attacks on September 11, 2001. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JOHN KIRIAKOU, FRM. CIA OFFICER: 9/11 really resulted in a terrible collective guilt. You know, I remember policymakers at the time saying we shouldn`t be pointing fingers, the Democrats shouldn`t blame the Republicans and the Republicans shouldn`t blame the Democrats. Well, the truth is this was a massive intelligence failure. the next two nights. And so, we inside the CIA felt that it was -- it was our fault. You know, we should have been able to find these guys overseas, we should have been able to disrupt the attack, at the very least we should have worked with the FBI, which we famously didn`t. So there was this feeling of collective guilt. HAYES: How palpable was that? I mean, if I`m walking around Langley a week after 9/11, two weeks after 9/11, I mean, is it... KIRIAKOU: Most people who were there in the building on 9/11 didn`t leave for the first couple of weeks. I slept under my desk for three days before somebody told me you really need to go home and take a shower. We even -- on the moving into the night of 9/11, you know, toward September 12, we actually got bolt cutters and cut the lock off of the cafeteria door and stole all the food. It was a Marriott contract. Stole all the food and cooked it ourselves and just placed it on these big tables in the hall so people could eat and not stop working and that went on for days. We ended up having to write a check for something like $15,000 to the Marriott for stealing all their food. But most people didn`t leave, or if they left, it was only to take a shower and change clothes and come back, because we felt like we had to make up for this terrible mistake that we had made and show that we could make some kind of progress against al Qaeda. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: I had to Kiriakou, given his past as an undercover agent for the CIA, if he is a reliable narrator of history. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Before we go further, I`ve got to ask you this, I`ve had some experience talking to spooks in my reporting career. And two things have struck me. One is, a lot of them seem a little crazy, and the other thing is you guys are trained paid liars. KIRIAKOU: Yes. HAYES: So, it`s like why should I believe anything you`re saying to me now? You literally professionally lied for decades. KIRIAKOU: Yeah, you`re trained to lie. You lie all the time. You lie, you cheat, you steal, you swindle, you trick people, that`s the nature of the job. Yes. The problem at the agency oftentimes is that those guys don`t know when to turn it off... HAYES: do you know when to turn it off? KIRIAKOU: I hope that I do. I think that I do. But one of the side effects of that kind of a culture is that the agency has what is probably the highest divorce rate in all of the federal government. And it`s because you have officers who lie all day long and then go home and lie to their wives about their girlfriends or about what they`re doing and things fall apart. One senior officer who had retired and then come back as a trainer told me one time, you can lie all day, but never lie to your boss and never lie to your wife. And getting back to your original point about people being kooky, a CIA psychiatrist once told me that when the CIA is looking to hire people, they`re looking for people with what he called sociopathic tendencies, not sociopaths, but people with sociopathic tendencies, that is people who are comfortable working in moral gray areas and who are comfortable lying and doing it with a smile. With that said, oftentimes, sociopaths will slip through the cracks because sociopaths can very easily pass a polygraph exam. They have no conscience after all. And so sometimes you get people who really probably shouldn`t be working there. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Kiriakou also had some very interesting things to say about how the agency manages its relationship with the executive branch, including with President Obama. We should note, he was no longer at the CIA when President Obama took office. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) KIRIAKOU: Historically, Democrats have entered the presidency, viewed as unfriendly to the CIA -- toward the CIA or as just not really caring one way or the other. And the CIA as an organization, as a culture, has sought to bring those presidents into the fold. And we sought it with Bill Clinton when I was there and we saw it in spades with Barack Obama. Obama was seen as a potential enemy. And virtually as soon as he took the oath of office, the agency brought him in, taught him the secrets, showed them what they could do and he became their biggest cheerleader. HAYES: I mean, you say recruiting, it`s so funny, it`s like the way you would recruit a spy. KIRIAKOU: Sure. Sure. You know, the traditional way that you recruit a spy is to spot him, assess his vulnerabilities, develop him in terms of a relationship and then make the recruitment. So, what you do with a president is you convince the president that not only are you his best friend in government, but you`re going to help make his presidency and make his legacy and it`s going to benefit him to have a close relationship with the CIA starting with his morning intelligence briefing, and going all the way through whatever covert programs happen to pop up. HAYES: I mean, talk about an advantage over everyone else in government. You get the president every morning. KIRIAKOU: Every single morning you have a private meeting with the president. Most members of the cabinet can`t say that. (END VIDOETAPE) HAYES: We asked the CIA for a response. They declined to comment. We`ll bring you more of my interview with John Kiriakou tomorrow might. It is must see TV. Don`t miss it. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: I appeared on Last Call with Carson Daly this week where I said something to me that is all but self-evident. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The single most important thing we face globally is the fact that we are heating the planet to a level that has never before been tried while also trying to have human civilization. That`s a real big experiment to run with human beings live in real-time. It is the kind of challenge that a hundred years from now, people will look back and be like how did they talk about anything else ever? Like, didn`t they understand they were sitting tied to train tracks with a train coming. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now, as a somewhat hilarious testament to the yawning gap of polarization in American politics today, a number of the people on the right picked up that clip and pointed to it almost without comment as self- evidently ridiculous. It even turned up on the Drudge Report. And any time you get a Drudge link like that, you can expect a barrage of just lovely people contacting you with very strongly held views. Sadly, our own friend Chris Hayes, local reporter for the Fox affiliate in St. Louis, who I met in person when we were in St. Louis last summer, and who has the unfortunate Twitter handle @ChrisHayesTV, was on the receiving end of a lot of those communications which were meant for me. Polite as ever, he tweeted back at some of these detractors, quote, "you might find people who will agree with you, but I`m the Fox 2 St. Louis Hayes." And later, quote, "this might be a record today on the number of times I`ve been mistakenly called a hygiene product." Turns out there are some people on the internet whose strong beliefs aren`t matched by equally strong Googling skills. Luckily you do not even need to Google to find my segment from Carson Daly`s show, because it is on our Facebook page Facebook.com/allinwithchris. And while you`re there, go ahead and like us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: The state of Oklahoma took a step toward banning AP U.S. history this week. By a vote of 11 to 4 along partisan lines, the state house`s education committee voted Monday to approve a ten-page bill authored by state representative Dan Fisher who wants to put an end to advanced placement U.S. history courses in the state by cutting funding for them. In lieu of the AP, Fisher lists in his bill what he refers to as foundational and historical documents that should, quote, "form the base level of academic content for all U.S. history courses offered in schools in the state." Peruse the dozens of foundational documents listed and among them you`ll find the ten commandments, three speeches by Ronald Reagan, including his first inaugural address and George W. Bush`s speech to the nation on 9/11. Ever since the college board, the organization that developments the Advanced Placement course revised the framework for the U.S. AP history test, a change that took effect last year. Conservatives have been marching in lockstep in their outrage. Back in August, the Republican National Committee denounced the newly designed test as, quote, consistently negative view of American history. Then a few weeks ago, a Georgia state senator introduced legislation that calls for a return to the old test. Echoing the language in the RNC resolution, the Georgia legislation calls the new framework, quote, a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects. Which brings us back to Oklahoma State Rep Dan Fisher and some of the issues he has with the test. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ST. REP. DAN FISHER, (R) OKLAHOMA: American free enterprise is a positive force. It`s pretty much omitted and the oppression of the poor and the strong oppressing the weak is pretty much what it`s about. In essence, what we are having here is a new emphasis on what is bad about America. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: A spokesperson for the college board views things different, telling All In in a statement tonight quote, "the redesigned AP U.S. history course framework includes many inspiring examples of American exceptionalism. Educations attest the new framework encourages a balanced, thoughtful and patriotic course that will qualify a student for college credits at Oklahoma`s colleges and universities." Fisher`s bill is now eligible to go to the full house floor for consideration where Republicans have a huge majority. They also have a majority in the senate the governor is a Republican. In other words, if Oklahoma lawmakers continue to vote along party lines on this bill on this bill to ban AP U.S. history, they could literally rewrite history for thousands and thousands of students. We`ll talk with people on both sides of the AP history culture war next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Joining me now, Democratic Oklahoma State Representative Jeannie McDaniel and Jean Robins, a senior fellow with the American Principles Project. Representative McDaniel, my understanding is you voted against this bill as it came out of committee. What`s your objection to it? ST. REP. JEANNIE MCDANIEL, (R) OKLAHOMA: Well, I support the College Board and I support the AP classes. And so I was somewhat appalled that the vote came down the way it did. To think 11 people supported it caught me by surprise, many of them were principals and teachers themselves. And I was actually surprised that we had so many votes against. HAYES: Is there some sort of grass roots or widespread objection to the test from teachers and principals, the folks who are actually working in the classroom with this material to the new AP history test? MCDANIEL: No. This was actually a response from Representative Fisher. And we had two AP teachers who had sort of led the charge. But I think, Chris, behind the scenes it`s the bigger picture of what`s crossing the nation in some other states doing this piece of legislation to stop this particular AP history test. But in the state itself, we`ve had overwhelming support from the teachers, the staff, and today kids began tweeting and e-mailing their support for AP history asking us to please allow them to continue to take this. HAYES: Jane, you are associated with a group that has been leading the charge against this new test. I saw just Saturday, Oklahoma in the latest Education Week rankings, Oklahoma came in 48 among 50 states. Do you think this will help that if you take away U.S. AP history in Oklahoma? JANE ROBBINS, AMERICAN PRINCIPLES PROJECT: Well... MCDANIEL: No, absolutely not. HAYES: Sorry. Let Jane answer that. ROBBINS: So, I think it`s misleading to say that the bill, as I understand it, abolishes AP history. I think what Oklahoma is wanting to do, which is what some other states are wanting as well, is to look for an alternative. The College Board is an unelected, unaccountable group and they have essentially decided to transform the teaching of American history and in effect usurping state history standards, most of which are much better than this framework. So I think Oklahoma wants to look for some alternatives and there are alternatives that may be developed down the line. HAYES: Well, there`s alternatives in the bill, actually. There`s actually Fisher actually gets into what has to be included. My understanding, though, is there`s objections to things like for instance the use of the term white supremacy to describe the views of the founders. Is that correct? MCDANIELS: I think what you`re finding here is they`re objecting to the AP class itself, the way that -- the syllabus and what`s in the course. This is a critical thinking course, it`s not teaching U.S. history. By the time kids get to take this course, they`re preparing for college. It`s college preparatory. It`s actually a college-level course. So this is a critical thinking course using the benchmarks they`ve already learned about history throughout their 12 years in school, or 11 years in school. So, this isn`t to learn about how history occurred, this is to learn - - it teaches kids to think about what they think brought these events about. The other thing I might add here is the College Board has been existence since 1900. They have a known reputation for developing these courses. What we would do if we went back and developed these by Oklahoma standards, which remove from the kids in our state the opportunity to take the tests that other kids they may see in college in other states have taken that class and gotten credit for. HAYES: Jane, this is more than a process complaint with the existence of the College Board and the way they go about this, this is actually grew out of a substantive complaint of what the actual principles in American history, or principle moments, or approach to the body of facts is. ROBBINS: Yes. MCDANIEL: Absolutely. HAYES: Sorry, Jane, please. ROBBINS: This would not have become an issue if the College Board had kept the AP course the way it has been for the last several decades, which is a small five page topical outline in which the teachers put in the content based on their state standards. What has happened now is that the AP -- the College Board`s AP course has been radically revised so that now the essential content will be written out in the framework. And that is what the teachers are supposed to teach through the lenses, the very leftist lenses, the concepts and themes of this outline. So that`s the problem. HAYES: Is it a leftist lens to say that the founders believed in white supremacy? Is that a leftist lens? ROBBINS: I would say that the way the framework phrases that is definitely a leftist lens. And I encourage people to go read the framework. It`s online. HAYES: That`s a matter of fact, right. I mean, most of the founders believed in white supremacy. ROBBINS: Well, what the framework suggests is that the country was essentially founded on white supremacy and that that was the theme that began and then was followed through for hundreds of years in the country. That is what we object to because the country was founded on so much more than that. There were problems in the country, and no one has ever suggested sanitizing American history so that we don`t talk about the problems, but we think that the country was founded on a set of principles that was really revolutionary, radically revolutionary in the history of humanity. HAYES: Was the Ten Commandments part of that? ROBBINS: And that is what the framework doesn`t go into. HAYES: Do you think the Ten Commandments were part of what it was founded on? ROBBINS: Well, the Ten Commandments I -- the framework doesn`t discuss the Ten Commandments, and that`s up to state standards whether... HAYES: No, but Dan Fisher wants the Ten Commandments included. ROBBINS: Well, the problem is -- this brings us back to the problem. The College Board wants to dictate what... HAYES: All right, sorry, we`re -- State Representative Jeannie McDaniel and Jane Robbins, thank you both for joining us tonight. Sorry, we ran out of time. All right, that is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts now. Good evening, Rachel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END