tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN November 16, 2012 4:00am-5:00am EST
inspiring series of pieces brought to the end of his life. >> thank you for having me. >> you must miss him terribly. >> i really do at least as much as everyone else. >> a great man. all for us tonight. "ac 360" starts now. terribly. >> at least as much as everything else. ac 360" starts now. we begin with breaking news. israeli army moving 1500 to 2,000 troops on the border with gaza, many fearing a ground offensive could be the spark that engulfs the region in conflict. inside gaza, scenes like this playing out right now. a constant bombardment. the israeli military says at least 300 rockets from gaza have been fired into israel since yesterday. israel says at least three people have died. israel firing back with their own missile launches and air strikes. this is what happened on the ground in gaza, huge mushroom clouds of destruction, buildings left in ruins. israel says it targeted more than 300 terror sites. that's what they call them in gaza and the bombs fall, neighborhoods go up in flames.
bodies on the streets. health ministry officials say 18 palestinians have been killed. cnn sara sidner is in gaza city, witnessing the violence and here's what she told wolf blitzer this afternoon. watch. >> reporter: okay. that is exactly -- i'm going to move out of the way and let you get a look here. i'm going to let you get a look at what is going on. i can see the black smoke. it's difficult to capture on camera but you saw that flash. this is what we have been dealing with all day. we have also been dealing with, i'm sorry, the power has just gone out, we have been dealing with power outages, wolf, but this feels like war. it may not have been declared but it feels like war to the civilians who live here. >> sarah joins us live from gaza. what are you seeing. we saw the air strikes earlier in the day. what's going on now? >> reporter: the same thing throughout the entire night. we have been hearing some teeth rattling blasts over gaza.
we do know there have been at least a dozen blasts over the past few hours. very, very, very loud, strong blasts here. it's very dark. i'm going to kind of move out of the way just to give you a look. it's dark here and power is out in much of the city. those who have generators, you will see a few lights just there behind me, but it has been a very, very difficult night for the civilians living here, certainly difficult also, to be very fair, for the civilians living in southern israel. we were there this morning, we were there for quite awhile and we ourselves in just about an hour and a half time, saw at least 13 rockets come over from gaza into israel. now we know that number is somewhere around 300 since this latest fight, this latest battle between gaza and israel began.
it has been a very difficult night for people here and you can really tell, because when you go into the streets, this is one of the densely populated cities of the world, perhaps the most densely populated city, and if you look in the streets that are usually bustling, filled with people, filled with cars, there are hardly any cars. there have been almost no people and all the shops closed. so a very, very tense place here in gaza and in southern israel as well. >> stay with us. i want to brg in fred pleitgen in southern israel. also there, a senior correspondent for global post. fred, i know you're hearing jets right now. what's the latest where you are? >> absolutely right, anderson, there are jets from the israeli military just passing overhead, literally a couple minutes ago. it looks as though gaza might be in for a few more air strikes. what's happened here on the ground in ashkelon, we are only about eight miles away from the border with gaza, they've had at
least 20 rockets come over from gaza here in ashkelon. what they have in place here is a missile defense system called the iron dome and across southern israel, the israeli defense forces say that missile defense system has intercepted as many as 130 rockets coming out of gaza but of course, it can't intercept all of them. that's the reason the israelis say why they keep sending war planes over there to try and suppress especially the medium and long range rockets coming out of gaza, because one of the things that also happened today is that the outskirts of tel aviv were actually hit by a rocket as well. no one was injured in that. however, it is very, very concerning to the israelis if their main city, if the biggest city here in this country can in fact be targeted and the message we're getting from the israeli defense forces and government is that they're both capable and very much willing to keep on widening that operation. in the short term that will probably mean more air strikes, a lot more air strikes and in the longer term, or medium term, it could in fact mean a ground offensive.
we're also seeing a lot of movement on the ground here, tanks and other vehicles being brought into place. anderson? >> fred, i have been in that entire region and also along the lebanese border. the rockets when they come over obviously very imprecise. you have been told the israelis are more than willing to widen the operation and the breaking news tonight that troops are moving toward the border right now. how likely is it ground troops will actually be sent in? >> that's a very good question. it's certainly something the israelis are leaving on the table. at this point there's a lot of speculation. one of the things the israelis are not able to say is what would actually trigger a ground offensive. there are some who are saying for instance if tel aviv took a direct hit from a larger rocket, that could trigger a ground offensive. we asked spokespeople for the israeli defense forces and they're just not willing to commit and say this would be where the red line would be crossed. however, they are continuously saying that yes, they are perfectly capable and willing to start a ground offense if they feel they are not achieving their objectives with the aerial
bombardment or if they feel they need to do more than they are doing right now. they say what they are doing right now is called surgical air strikes where they say they are predominantly taking out these rocket positions in gaza. they say if they feel they are not achieving that objective, then a ground offensive would still very much be in the cards. the other thing they're doing is they are also mobilizing the reserves which is another indication that they are very, very seriously -- serious about possibly going into gaza with ground troops. >> i understand you heard air raid sirens recently. what are you seeing? >> sorry, i didn't hear your question. >> noga, you heard air raid sirens recently. what are you seeing now? >> yeah. i think i'm quite near where fred is so mostly we're hearing jets overhead. there was an air raid siren here about an hour ago but then we didn't even hear a boom. >> what are the consequences for this region if this does widen and what do you think the
likelihood this could widen? >> i think for prime minister netanyahu, this is a very serious call. remember something about netanyahu. he prides himself on the fact that he's been in power for 6 1/2 years. one term in the late 1990s and now. and during the 6 1/2 years, he never engaged israel in a war, because israelis know this was is easier to begin than to end. they had war in 2006 against hezbollah in lebanon, it was a disaster. they had a war in gaza in 2008-2009, it was a disaster. so they're on the horns of a dilemma. they don't want to really escalate. i'm skeptical that there will be a massive invasion of gaza. they may be forced into it. they may be forced into it if again, if the folks in gaza target tel aviv, that is exactly as the reporter there would say, that is the red line. but i think caution is the word for the israeli cabinet. >> do you think hamas crossed a red line by targeting tel aviv? >> absolutely.
remember one thing. this hamas question, always nasty enough and tenacious enough. you have hamas, what is gaza? it's a lawless land. you don't really have a government. much of the effort of israel diplomatically is to get along and reach an accord with mahmoud abbas and the west bank but gaza is this lawless world and that is a problem because you're not really dealing with a government. you're dealing with gangs. and then hamas itself says we're not really responsible. there are some groups that are islamic jihad, there are all kinds of people. any five, six people name themselves a group and launch rockets into israel and we have this crisis. >> noga, earlier you were at an apartment where three people were killed. what did you see? >> reporter: well, what we saw was really massive, massive destruction and the british ambassador was there when i was there and he seemed i would say almost physically shaken at the
sight of blood on the child's bed and you saw breakfast dishes that were kind of left in disarray and basically, the front part of a balcony and living room just shaved off. so it was shocking. >> fred, what are you learning about casualties from air strikes? fred, what are you learning about casualties from air strikes? >> reporter: yeah, sorry. we just had another jet come over. there were three casualties today on the israeli side. it's actually just a couple of miles away from where i'm standing right here. these were people who were in their apartment building. that apartment building was then hit by a rocket and these people were dead immediately. other than that, there haven't been any casualties on the israeli side simply because in places like ashkelon, as you know, the people take this very seriously. if there is a siren that goes off in ashkelon, people do take shelter, they hit the deck, they go to the ground.
they deal with this kind of stuff every day. i talked to the mayor -- >> fred, i just want to go to -- fred, i'm sorry, i want to go to sara. she's hearing blasts behind her. what are you hearing now and what do you hear about casualties? >> reporter: there have been three distinct blasts. we are seeing the smoke billowing literally just behind us a few hundred yards. we know that there are 19 people who have been killed here -- all right. there is another one of the blasts. i'm going to move out of the way just again to see, because sometimes you can see a real huge, what looks like a flame almost that lights up the night sky and then it subsides. you usually hear these in succession, it's usually not just one. you will get a series. this is maybe the third or fourth in a series of hits that we've heard and again, what happens is you can hear the jets. as fred was saying, you can hear those same jets as they come over. i'm actually looking at where there are it looks like some
flames just near to -- closer to the scene but what i can tell you is that you normally hear the sound of the jets and then you hear that sort of bone-rattling blast and then you see the smoke. there's another one. so just as i was saying, you get these in succession and these sound really like thunder, like a terrible, terrible thunderstorm that keeps happening again and again and again. so far again, 19 people have been killed. we know that at least nine of those have been militants but we also know that children have died, a pregnant woman has died, and an elderly man has died. we are standing in a place where we are above the city. we're looking down upon this highly populated city and it is absolutely deserted. a lot of concern here about where those blasts are coming from. people have been warned. there was actually the israeli
military dropping leaflets in some of the neighborhoods here warning people not to be around some of the hamas militants, not to be in areas where they know there are weapons caches because those places would be targeted and we've seen that again and again and again but certainly civilians are also being caught in some of this cross-fire. >> stay safe. follow me on twitter at anderson cooper. i'll be tweeting throughout the hour. up next, what david petraeus will tell congress when he testifies tomorrow. we have source that is have information on that. plus, reaction to video that lawmakers got to see on the attack on the consulate as it unfolded. first time they have seen that. we're told it was surveillance video from a drone. we'll talk to both sides of the aisle about what they think happened september 11th in libya. we'll be right back. ñç@rño
raw politics tonight. we are learning what general david petraeus will say tomorrow when he testifies before the senate and house intelligence committees on the benghazi attack. we're told he wants to set the record straight about what happened september 11th at the u.s. consulate compound in libya. ambassador christopher stevens as you know and three other americans were killed in that attack. cnn pentagon correspondent barbara starr has been talking to her sources to find out what the former cia director will say tomorrow. she joins me now. barbara, you have new information on what members can expect to hear tomorrow from petraeus as he talks to members about the attacks. what do you know? >> reporter: well, good evening, anderson. that's right, i've spoken to a source who is directly familiar
with petraeus' thinking, what he's planning to try and say on capitol hill tomorrow. he wants to testify, he wants to clear up any, what he believes are misrepresentations of what he has said in the past and what he thinks really happened in benghazi. first up, this source says that petraeus will acknowledge that he knew quite quickly immediately afterwards that it was sharia, that libya al qaeda sympathizer group, that was responsible for it. but they had some conflicting information. he also had some 20 reports that it might have been related to that riot that broke out in cairo just before the attack regarding that anti-islamic film. there had been rioting in egypt and of course, this is the contradictory thread of the narrative here, that it was riots that -- in egypt that led to the attack on the embassy in
libya on the consulate in libya. so he's going to talk about having these two threads of information but his sense right from the start that it was a terrorist attack by answar al sharia. a pretty murky group, loose collection of characters. >> this is interesting to me. just to be clear, your source is saying general petraeus knew almost immediately or felt that it was a terrorist attack, knew the group involved, even though he told members of congress three days after the attack that it could have been spontaneous and there's also the statement made by the director of national intelligence on the dni the end of october who put out a statement saying in the wake of criticism of ambassador rice, saying that early reports indicated it might have been linked to -- might have been a spontaneous demonstration and ambassador rice went out on sunday saying -- five days after, saying it was possibly -- early reports were spontaneous demonstration had been hijacked by other groups.
so if he had a gut feeling or knew -- i don't get why the dni would have put out that statement if petraeus was saying it was a terror attack or felt it was. >> reporter: well, here's what we're looking at. we're looking at two threads of intelligence. one is who was responsible. the second one, what was their motivation. and the sense is that these two threads of intelligence began to cross. you could have had these people who started the trouble and possibly been motivated by the riots and the video but what we know now is petraeus feels at some point the cia was able to largely disprove that the video played a central role. the problem is the timing. they didn't disprove those 20 reports until after he briefed congress. >> okay. barbara starr reporting at the pentagon, appreciate that. fascinating stuff tonight. we'll see what he says exactly tomorrow. now a look at today's briefings on benghazi. in closed door sessions, you might not have heard this, members of the congressional intelligence committees watched a video that was recovered from
the u.s. consulate compound in libya showing them what happened as the attack unfolded. some of the video was taken by a drone according to law makers we spoke with. dana bash is on capitol hill for us tonight. she's got more reaction to the video. what have you learned? >> reporter: well, the video we're told was actually a combination of what was recovered from the consulate, actual closed circuit video, and video that was gotten from drones above, and what we're told, at least i'm told by one source who is in one of the briefings is that you could actually see the attack real-time, including christopher stevens, the ambassador who was one of the four americans killed, being dragged out of the attack. the other thing that is just clearly chilling, this is according to senator roy blunt, who told cnn earlier today that it was really amazing, he said, to see the length of this attack. you really got to see that the attack started at a certain time and many, many hours later, it was not until then that you saw
the final two americans actually killed. >> as for the rest of the video from that briefing, i understand members really seemed to have had different interpretations of what it shows, right? >> reporter: the video and also just the briefing that they got, they were here, senior intelligence officials were here all day today, anderson, briefing the house and senate intelligence committees, and you're right, it was like a political rorschach test. talking to republicans, they said what they saw, what they heard really underscores their feeling that the administration should have known that it wasn't a demonstration, that they should have known that it was al qaeda or at least an al qaeda affiliate that was responsible for this from the get-go. talk to democrats coming out, they said no, it's pretty clear that the administration was cautious because they were basing their comments on information from the intelligence community, especially ambassador rice. one democratic lawmaker said he asked point-blank a question about whether or not ambassador rice had the real-time information, she went out just on that sunday after the attacks and the answer that he said he
got was yes. >> so one of the administration's toughest critics on benghazi obviously has been senator john mccain. we talked to him last night. he was pretty upset when he encountered one of our colleagues today at the capitol. what happened? >> reporter: the back story is senator mccain, as you said, is really out there trying to get watergate style committee hearings in order to root out the details of what really went on in benghazi. it turns out when he was having a press conference to call for that, he was missing a closed door hearing on this very issue, on benghazi. so ted barrett tried to ask him about that, about why he missed it. didn't go so well. take a listen. >> i'm not going to comment on my schedule and how i spend my time to the media. i will not -- i have no further comment. i have no further comment. i have no further comment. how many times do i have to comment? as a senator, i have no comment. who the hell are you to tell me?
>> reporter: mccain's office did give us an answer later in the day that it was a scheduling error. that's the reason why he didn't attend that particular briefing. i should say that he wasn't the only republican not to attend. most of the republicans on the homeland security committee actually didn't attend. only three of eight did. i should also tell you that these hearings have been going on all day today and the one in the senate, at least senator mccain did attend, he was there for hours. i watched him go in and out. >> dana bash, appreciate the reporting. joining me, two congressmen who watched the video in question today. new york republican peter king joins me and california democrat adam schiff. congressman king, you were in that briefing today. you saw the surveillance, the drone video recovered from the benghazi compound. is there anything about what you saw today that changes your assessment of the situation? because you have been a tough critic of the administration. >> yeah, not really the video. i didn't see much controversial about the video. maybe adam will disagree. i thought it was objective. i don't think it really answered the questions either side would have had. my objection was that contrary to what dana said, the democrats
were saying, one democrat said, i try not to make it partisan, i don't believe the talking points given to susan rice obtained all the intelligence the intelligence community had. without going into detail, there were several reports clearly stating that al qaeda affiliated groups were involved in the attack and were very heavily involved in the attack and that did not make it into the talking points, did not make it into the final talking points that were given to congress or to susan rice even though they were in the original talking points. that's a real issue as to why that was taken out. and i just feel that there are still many unanswered questions as to who actually put the final version of the talking points together. that was not answered today. >> congressman king, you have been tough on susan rice based on the fact that she went out on tv and what she said but tonight it sounds like you're saying she wasn't given all the information that did exist within the intelligence community. we've just heard also barbara starr reporting that tomorrow, petraeus is going to say he felt
it was a terror attack from the get-go but there were other strains of intelligence. is your problem less with what susan rice said and more with the information she was given? because the dni basically put out this statement the end of october saying the information susan rice talked about is what we put out. >> that's not true. today they said their talking points were not the ones given to susan rice. somebody, it appears maybe in the white house, or the national security council, changed those talking points. so the administration does have the responsibility on that. >> you're saying it's not her fault, it's more the fault of the information she was given? >> well, yeah, but the information -- the intelligence community in their original talking points had in there about the al qaeda affiliation. that was taken out after it left the intelligence community so it appears that somebody in the white house did that. >> interesting. congressman schiff, what was your interpretation of about what you heard today? >> i think we had the most comprehensive chronology what took place in benghazi. i think it really shed a lot of
light minute by minute, hour by hour, what took place, and it convinced me that there was no effort to politicize the information we were being given. it also convinced me on the point involving our united nations ambassador that she was given the same early assessment that we were, the same ultimately inaccurate assessment. so for those law makers that have been attacking her, i think it's completely unjustified. we had an unclassified summary as the ambassador did. that summary said that it looked like a spontaneous protest, that extremists hijacked, that there were indications that there were extremists involved in that. that's precisely what the ambassador said. so i think it was really quite a vindication of the ambassador but more than that, i think it answered a lot of questions about the chronology. it still though left open questions about why the intelligence community got it so wrong initially, and they did spend a lot of time going over that today.
i don't think it was deliberate or malicious in any way, but we do have remaining questions to get at at why better information didn't come up more quickly. >> do you make the distinction that congressman schiff, do you make the distinction that congressman king just did, that some -- that there were different strains of intelligence, that some in the intelligence community had and put out but the talking points ambassador rice got did not reflect that? >> well, there were conflicting strains in the intelligence and indeed, in different iterations of the assessments we got, it characterized the events in benghazi differently. some very slight, some more substantive differences so i think what the ambassador said was clearly consistent with what they told us at the very same time and we were given a brief literally some hours before the ambassador, we were given a briefing statement in the late afternoon of saturday. she appeared on those shows sunday morning. it was very consistent with what we were told and they told us this is our best assessment. so i can hardly fault someone
for going forward with what the intelligence community is saying. had the ambassador gone forward with something different than what the intelligence community said was their best assessment, then she would have been opened up to criticism. >> congressman king? >> the intelligence community said that al qaeda was involved. that was taken out by someone in the white house. the intelligence community did give an accurate estimate -- >> that's not what the dni said, right? >> i'm telling you what he told us today. i'm telling you what was their reporting on 12th, 13th and 15th, there were intelligence estimates saying al qaeda was directly involved, al qaeda affiliates were directly involved. somehow after that was prepared by the intelligence community, that was taken out after it went to the white house. that is a very serious issue. also, general petraeus, i have great regard for general petraeus. when he briefed us that morning, he made it clear he did not believe this was a terrorist attack. i have great regard but he started rewriting history here. he totally down played the terrorist aspect. he said there were people in the
crowd, he never said they were involved in the attack as a group. >> congressman schiff? >> i need to correct the record here. i don't think there was any indication that the white house ordered anything taken out of the intelligence assessment. peter, i don't think that's accurate. there were assessments that were given to us -- >> talking points -- >> wait. one at a time. congressman schiff, continue. >> we had a variety of assessments and indeed, we've got now a full binder of the raw intelligence data that we have gone through, some that makes specific mention of who they think might be involved and others that don't. but there has been no indication that the white house somehow ordered or deleted specifics from our intelligence assessment or said we can't go into this or try to shape it or politicize it. i just don't think that's consistent at all with what we've been informed. >> congressman king? >> talking points were prepared by the intelligence community, that were prepared for that weekend, for ambassador rice and others, said that there was al
qaeda -- there was direct al qaeda involvement in the attacks. when the final talking points were printed after they left the intelligence community, that was taken out of the talking points. when we asked where did it go, it went to the national security council and that was taken out. nobody from the intelligence community could tell who outside of their community took it out. all they know is after it left them, somebody changed it. the only other people that had access to it were the white house. >> i'm at a disadvantage because i obviously have not seen the same documents you have. congressman schiff, that's not your understanding of the documents you saw? >> no, that's not my understanding. if you look at the summary we were given that could be publicly revealed, they didn't choose to make reference to the specific terrorist organizations that were involved and that's probably not the level of detail they wanted us to discuss publicly. but the suggestion that somehow this was orchestrated by the white house or there was some political purpose behind it, that is completely inconsistent with what's been presented to us. >> all right. >> not at all. not at all. >> obviously two very different perspectives. we'll learn more when petraeus testifies tomorrow.
appreciate both of you being on the program. thank you very much. just ahead, the backlash over mitt romney's candid remarks in a conference call to donors. he said president obama won the election because of policy gifts he gave to his core voters, the latinos and others. we talked about this on the program a little last night. a lot of heat today is coming his way from his own party. we'll talk to republicans about that next.
more raw politics now. remarks that mitt romney made on a conference call with campaign donors about why he lost last week's election are drawing a lot of heat today. he said that president obama won votes by offering gifts, those were his words, to certain voters. listen. >> what the president's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them
extraordinary financial gifts from the government and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote. >> an example, one of those so-called policy gifts, free contraception which romney said was very big with college-age women. he said obama care was a gift that mobilized hispanic and black voters. certainly not the first time romney drew fire for remarks caught on tape. this time heat is coming from his own party. republicans, among others. here's what louisiana governor bobby jindal said today on "the situation room." >> this is completely unhelpful. this is not where the republican party needs to go. look, we want -- if you want voters to like you, the first thing you've got to do is to like them first, and it's certainly not helpful to tell voters that you think their votes were bought. that's certainly not a way to show them that you respect them, you like them. we need to stop being the dumb party. we need to offer smart, conservative, intelligence ideas and policies. that's how we win elections. we don't win elections by insulting voters. >> in the wake of the election a lot of republicans, not just
jindal, are doing soul searching about how they can better appeal to groups that voted for obama. romney apparently didn't get that memo. joining me now, cnn contributors and republican strategist, mary matalin and charles blow. you have been tweeting extensively on this. you said you were livid at governor romney, that the comments were offensive. you said he needs to take a look in the mirror. what do you mean? >> i think he needs to figure out what were his own flaws. what were the deficiencies with his campaign. i get it, okay, he was talking to 300 of his top donors, people who raised almost $1 billion and he needs to explain why he lost and it's easier to blame somebody else than to look in the mirror and blame yourself for your shortfalls but i think it's mitt romney who has to figure out why did he get 27% with the hispanic vote. mary worked for george w. bush white house. george w. bush got 44% of the hispanic vote. it wasn't because he was giving away gifts or freebies and it's just the wrong message to say
that hispanics, blacks, young people, are nothing but takers and that that's why they voted for barack obama. i find it terribly offensive. >> mary, when i heard this i was reminded of the 47% hidden camera tape of mitt romney. i want to play a little more from this conference call, one of the two he held with donors. listen. >> it's a proven political strategy which is give a bunch of money from the government to a group and guess what, they'll vote for you. let me tell you what i would do if i were a democrat running four years from now. i would say you know what, dental care ought to be included in obama care. immigration, we can solve but giving away free stuff is a hard thing to compete with. >> mary, what do you make of the calls, his comment? >> i'm glad you played some more and i completely agree with anna. you never know in what context this was said.
it's just like the 47%. but the reason i became a conservative, i grew up a liberal democrat. the reason i became a conservative is so everybody, no matter of race, gender, class, could have the same opportunities for upward mobility. that's the better way to say what he's saying. you don't -- women don't get upward mobility opportunities because they get free contraception. the obama campaign was ruthless and open and loud about their targeting that they wanted youth, they wanted women and they wanted minorities, and they -- they won because they had better turnout and they did it, ran a better campaign. so i think anna's right. i don't know that he isn't examining what else went wrong with the campaign. i wouldn't lead with this. i can't expect a man as smart as him would think that this was the reason he lost this campaign. >> charles, to you, do these comments echo the 47% comments? how do you interpret them? >> i think they absolutely echo the 47%. it's actually a really
unfortunate timing for mitt romney and the republican party for this to come out right now because you had an opportunity for people, at least some people, to kind of forget about the 47%, let that kind of fade into the distance during the last couple months of the campaign, and also, he did i think give a rather gracious kind of concession speech. but this brings back to the fore the idea that he was not misspeaking when he was discussing the 47%. it is an incredibly condescending way to think about the american electorate and about the presidency of the united states, that the president would use the u.s. treasury as some sort of massive cynical vote buying machine and people would fall for that. that is the only thing that they want in a candidate is someone who will give them handouts. it goes back to that narrative of the makers versus the takers which is sort of a coded message
they have agreed to a record $4 billion settlement. more than 2 1/2 years after the rig exploded who can forget these images? deep below the water's surface, a geyser of oil that it took bp 85 days to stop the gusher. we spent two months in the region to see it up close was sickening. every day, we invited bp to come on the program. after weeks of saying no, they finally said yes on may 19th. after that they never came on the program again, but we kept on asking. for literally weeks, we invited bp ceo tony hayward to come on 360. the answer is no. we asked bp executives to come on the program. we invite them every single night. they don't return our phone calls anymore. we invited bp to be on the program. we weren't the only ones with questions. congress held hearings, bp's chief executive, tony hayward, called to testify. here is how that went. >> we don't yet have all of the answers. i'm not prepared to speculate.
i had no prior knowledge. i haven't drawn a conclusion. i can't recall that number, no, sir. i don't believe. i'm afraid i don't. i was not involved or aware. i don't believe. i had no prior knowledge. i can't speak. i haven't seen this. i don't believe. as i said, i don't believe. i don't know. i don't know. >> basically how it went. this remark from mr. hayward that took everyone's breath away. >> we're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused to their lives. and we're -- no one wants this thing over more than i do. i would like my life back. >> well, he wanted his life back. remember, 11 people died in the explosion. gordon jones was one of them. his father, keith jones, joins me now. keith, how do you feel about today's settlement. you said it came as a surprise since you hadn't heard any updates in over a year about the investigation? >> well, we hadn't, that's true,
and i think most if not all of the family members that were on the conference call are pleased that this page has turned. it was kind of lingering out there. we didn't know what was going on, and i certainly understand that from the government's point of view, you don't want to be talking about everybody about negotiations that are going on and so forth, but it's nice to have it behind us, i think. >> in addition to the settlement, two bp employees have been indicted on manslaughter charges. for you, that enough in your view, or more people should be charged? based on what i know about what caused the accident, i think more people are culpable than the two who were charged. the two who were charged were the company men.
bp's chief representatives on the rig. i think there were other people who made decisions that were just as bad and led just as directly to the deepwater horizon explosion as the things that the company men did. >> obviously, no one wanted anybody to get killed, not these company men, not anybody in management, but do you think these decisions, bottom line, were just being made based on money. based on saving money? >> yes, i do think that. maybe i'll be proved wrong someday, but i don't think so. every decision that they made that has been called into question that i know of, was always made to save time or save money. of course, time is money on an oil rig, so not once did they decide to do -- do things the more expensive and safer way. >> i think you and i have talked about it in the past. i hate the word closure, i don't think in something like this
where you lost your son happens. he was killed weeks before max was born. how are both his kids doing now? >> they are doing great. they are both healthy, happy, big little boys. max looks just like his dad, and it's great every time i see him to see a big smile on his face. >> that's great. i appreciate your talking to us, i know it's not easy. my best to you and your family. thank you. >> thank you, anderson. >> remember all of those whose lives were lost. still ahead, major developments in the david petraeus sex scandal. the new cia investigation. that, next.
>> announcer: you never know when, but thieves can steal your identity and turn your life upside down. >> hi. >> hi. you know, i can save you 15% today if you open up a charge card account with us. >> you just read my mind. >> announcer: just one little piece of information and they can open bogus accounts,
stealing your credit, your money and ruining your reputation. that's why you need lifelock to relentlessly protect what matters most... [beeping...] helping stop crooks before your identity is attacked. and now you can have the most comprehensive identity theft protection available today... lifelock ultimate. so for protection you just can't get anywhere else, get lifelock ultimate. >> i didn't know how serious identity theft was until i lost my credit and eventually i lost my home. >> announcer: credit monitoring is not enough, because it tells you after the fact, sometimes as much as 30 days later. with lifelock, as soon as our network spots a threat to your identity, you'll get a proactive risk alert, protecting you before you become a victim. >> identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me and it's gone away because of lifelock. >> announcer: while no one can stop all identity theft, if criminals do steal your information, lifelock will help fix it, with our $1 million service guarantee.
don't wait until you become the next victim. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock now to get two full months of identity theft protection risk free. that's right, 60 days risk-free. use promo code: gethelp. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent. order now and also get this shredder to keep your documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 dollar value, free. get protected now. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com to try lifelock protection risk free for a full 60 days. use promo code: gethelp. plus get this document shredder free-- but only if you act right now. call the number on your screen now!
it's been 17 days since superstorm sandy hit and more than 1,700 households still without power what can be done to prevent this from happening again. tom foreman reports in building up america. >> what do we want? when do we want it? >> reporter: for all the angry people still without power after sandy, there may be few more frustrated than a man who lives hundreds of miles away. he is the american society of civil engineers. his name is otto lynch.
he doesn't think the damage had to be this bad. >> with a little better planning, we could have eliminated much of the damage. >> reporter: what he's talking about is the subject of highly advanced research at georgia tech. a lowly but critical part of the electrical grid, the power pole. >> focused on getting a better understanding of the vulnerability of wood poles as exposed to extreme wind loads. >> reporter: researchers are studying what makes a power pole break? its age, stress, debris, wind, and combine that with weather patterns and creating a comprehensive mass of tens of millions of poles, so utility companies can replace vulnerable ones before big storms hit. >> it's important to identify which ones are the most compromised and how to direct those without wasting huge sums and unnecessary treatments. >> others believe the national electrical safely code should
be rebrin to require more robust poles. especially where strong storms are likely. it would cost less than $100 per pole and he estimates power losses might have been half as bad if these measures were taken. >> even if it's just 25%. that would be 25% less people who didn't lose power. >> reporter: and in a tough economy, building up america begins with keeping the lights on. tom foreman, cnn, washington. >> here is the 360 bulletin. president obama got a first hand look at part of new york city devastated by superstorm sandy. he met with local officials and residents struggling to get their lives back together. the president vowed federal agencies will be involved in the rebuilding effort. the cia astarting an investigation into former director david petraeus.
and the investigation will include whether he used cia resources in carrying out his affair with paula broadwell. also today, attorney general eric holder spoke publicly for the first time about the petraeus scandal, saying the justice department didn't tell the white house about the fbi's investigation, because it was determined that national security was never at risk. and the fda investigating the supplement five-hour arc after reports of 13 deaths by consumers that may have used it. this doesn't mean the supplement played a role, however, three deaths may have a preliminary link. five-hour energy contains caffeine and other ingredients. we'll be right back. ñ? ordinary rubs don't always work on my arthritis.