, particularly at the state department. what the concern was at the state department was, don't get out ahead of what we've already been able to say or why wouldn't we have been able to say it? if it was unclassified. >> i think the controversy will survive, bottom line right now, because it was such a dangerous place, benghazi. the british had pulled out. the international red cross had pulled out. there had been numerous warnings about al qaeda. ans aral sharia targeting westerners. for the united states ambassador to be in benghazi on the anniversary of that date with limited security is going to be the continuing scandal, the continuing crisis. why were all of these americans in benghazi at such a dangerous time when other allies had pulled out because it was so dangerous? why -- who made that reckless decision for those americans to be there when it was so, so dangerous? >> and why were they allowed to stay overnight there? >> and when you listen to the testimony of the career diplomats, the whistle blowers, that's wha

highly resistant to the state department making any policy influence. and if that had not been for hillary clinton who continues they remained a very strong influential voice and was able to single-handedly carry the mantle with a variety of points, it was completely reduced to a military strategy. >> if i put this in some type of context the pattern is not original with obamacare that much of this better for worse was a pattern learnt with the bush and administration. leading up to the war in iraq and the pentagon was the source of everything you want a strategy it is the pentagon if you want assistance it is the pentagon. it was the source of all knowledge and they pretty much with rumsfeld did not see any need to look to anybody else. is hard to say this but maybe it was a pattern that is hard to change out. it is not the whole problem but it raises serious questions the role that you have been conditioned. >> you are absolutely correct. because it came matt of iraq that the pentagon saved the day that is different from vietnam but the day was saved

the state department hasn't given us the documents they want. every single turn, the state house and the white house has impeded this investigation. there are other people on the ground with first-hand knowledge that want to testify, and i think will testify at some point. >> congressman, how do y explain the fact that eight months after benghazi, we have still not heard from a single witness who was on the ground that night in benghazi? >> we've had an accountability review board that went through this, led by ambassador pickering and admiral mullen. they interviewed 100 witnesses who were on the ground, some of whom were on the ground obviously, and many who were involved peripherally. and they made a review that there was no breach of duty here. they made a determination that the critical element here was that the host country forces that were committed to protecting the consulate there in benghazi walked off the job basically and that created a, you know, a security profile that was totally insufficient on september 11. >> but if i may, cong

>> i think the secretary of state made a mistake in leaving the state department. i say that because right now there is nobody there to give her side of the story. in the final analysis, politically, in a cruel world, the white house is concerned about its reputation. john kerry has a short time as secretary of state, he has a big agenda. i think he will call for an independent investigation, but i do think there is nobody there to give her side of the story. she laughed too early. you do not leave when something like this is hanging over your reputation and record. your one time in illustrious career, you were part of the state department security apparatus. what do you make of this testimony? >> the regional security officer there at the time testified that he had proposed months before the incident several changes in the security situation, beefing up the security situation in libya. i said on this show several weeks ago that if he went into the state department, you would find reams and reams of documents from security experts in the field that have made recomm

state department did not want that out. and that came out of the final version of the talking points. no doubt critics will hold that up to say that was politically motivated. now i should point out that cia director, we're told, the cia deputy director agreed with that change. so bottom line, erin, there's plenty in these e-mails for both sides to make their case which means this issue isn't going to go away any time soon. >> no, absolutely. and, of course, john boehner has already requested more data. on that note, dana, speaker boehner's office, i'm just looking at the note here from a spokesman brendan buck that we received, right, saying we hope this limited release of documents is a sign of more cooperation to come. they want a lot more information. >> they do. we should also remind our viewers that as late as today, this morning, john boehner had a press conference demanding the white house do exactly what they did tonight. so, you know, we should make that point clear because this is exactly what he was asking for.

can you get a sense from the state department? we know that kind of smoking gun doesn't exist and they will continue to search for it but it is not there. >> well, the smoking gun in terms of what's being implied here is that there was a coverup. and that's pretty hard to substantiate here. what you can fault people for and, find an e-mail to back is up the failure of management, the systemic failures of management that the investigative committee highlighted in terms of people refusing security that was requested by the ambassador. but when it comes to the smoking gun, so to speak, that's going to be very hard to substantiate. and the political appointees around the secretary at the time you know, they will remain private about that, but, as many know, there are subpoena powers on the hill but a lot of those committees aren't going to go that far until they have something more to substantiate instead of just insinuate that the secretary somehow denies necessary security on that night. >> rose: does the state department acknowledg

they are state department employees. they are prepared to tell their stories truthfully and candidly and one thing that will come out of this, geraldo, that will be a great disappointment to a lot of people in government, the accountability review board that was conducted by ambassador pickering and admire ral mullen will have prove ton be a cover up, one of the worst jobs done in the the history of governmental reporting. didn't even interview the secretary of state for their report and how you can do it a benghazi investigation and not interview the secretary of state and not interview a series of people who were intimately involved in benghazi asked to be interviewed and were declined to be interviewed. the -- the benghazi report by pickering and mull seaso muller up geraldo those are strong words joe. do you think that was done for political purposes with the election in mind? when pickering was told that he was going to have to deal with the 7th floor that is hillary, i was told he became physically ill and didn't w

can you get a sense from the state department? we know that kind of smoking gun doesn't exist and they will continue to search for it but it is not there. >> well, the smoking gun in terms of what's being implied here is that there was a coverup. and that's pretty hard to substantiate here. what you can fault people for and, find an e-mail to back is up the failure of management, the systemic failures of management that the investigative committee highlighted in terms of people refusing security that was requested by the ambassador. but when it comes to the smoking gun, so to speak, that's going to be very hard to substantiate. and theolitical appointees around the secretary at the time you know, they will remain private about that, but, as many know, there are subpoena powers on the hill but a lot of those committees aren't going to go that far until they have something more to substantiate instead of just insinuate that the secretary somehow denies necessary security on that night. >> rose: does the state department acknowledge

the state department hasn't given us the documents they want. every single turn, the state house and the white house has impeded this investigation. there are other people on the ground with first-hand knowledge that want to testify, and i think will testify at some point. >> congressman, how do you explain the fact that eight months after benghazi, we have still not heard from a single witness who was on the ground that night in benghazi? >> we've had an accountability review board that went through this, led by ambassador pickering and admiral mullen. they interviewed 100 witnesses who were on the ground, some of whom were on the ground obviously, and many who were involved peripherally. and they made a review that there was no breach of duty here. they made a determination that the critical element here was that the host country forces that were committed to protecting the consulate there in benghazi walked off the job basically and that created a, you know, a security profile that was totally insufficient on september 11. >> but if i may, co

department, obviously since it because state department facility that was attacked and an ambassador killed as well as three others. the f.b.i. investigating authority and other entities were involved. the c.i.a., in this case, the deputy director of the c.i.a., took that process and issued a set of talking points on that saturday morning. those talking points were disseminated. this is in request from congress. the only change made by the white house to those talking points was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi from consulate because it was not a consulate to diplomatic post. the pointing, it was a matter of non-substance tin tive factual correction. there was a process leading up situations ving like this. the effort is to always in that circumstance with an ongoing investigation, some accurate, some not on what happened and who is responsible to provide information for members of congress and others in the administration for example, who might speak publicly about it. it was based on only what the intelligence community could say for sure it tho

no mention of the state department, like abc reported. no mention of the white house working through the talking points like abc reported. it's almost like abc news didn't actually review that e-mail at all. oh, wait, it turns out they didn't. yesterday, abc news posted this headline, more details on benghazi talking points emerge. among those emerging details is everything they previously said was wrong. abc news now reveals when they supposedly quoted that white house e-mail, actually they were not quoting the white house e-mail even though they put it in quotes, what they were quoting was a source who viewed the original documents and shared detailed notes. so, they reported as if they were quoting the white house and they were not. they were not quoting the actual e-mail. they were quoting notes from an anonymous somebody. abc's response for being pushed into this revelation was to demand that the white house release the full e-mail exchanges. new details emerged about an e-mail we had never seen even though we reported we'd seen it.

you see, the problem was the office was created, put in the state department. immediately was undercut by rivals in the white house and the military. the president was reelected to give the authority needed. so the problem was not the we were focusing too much. when you come up with anything effective you run against the wall. always took this personal team and charm and way of doing things to call up the secretary of agriculture and ask him. he could not order. the white house was on helpful. if you went to the white house and said, can you call this department or can you call that department, they would not do it. and in a way you create the position and then you try to handicap at. and everyone around the government very quickly understood that the white house wants to cut out that the needs. and therefore they began to play the same. but when this work to work really well. there are times when you have a tragedy of massive flood. it connected the different parts of the government and allow for much more rapid response. connected to the embassy, and you -- >

and he doesn't mention the state department. he doesn't mention talking points. >> there is no evidence, scott, the white house orchestrated these changes. >> there is no indication in any of these emails of any partisan deleting, scrubbing of the facts. >> stephen: shut up, chris. you're on fox news, for god's sakes. [ cheers and applause ] i mean, what part of "fair and balancedded" do you understand? anyway, so what. jonathan karl didn't need the original email. he has a simple explanation. "this is how i reported the contents of that email, quoting verbatim a source who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes." yes, karl never saw the email so when he quoted from it, those quotes were in quotes. i mean, that's just what you call journalism. now i was surprised... [ cheers and applause ] i was surprised that this past sunday jon karl wasn't on "this week with george stephanapolous" or at the very least "walking back your statements with the stars." but nation, tomorrow night, i will have an ex-clues i've int

why state department officials, f.b.i. did not talk to him during the investigation. this is about transparency. the national security failure and it's transparency in the aftermath. much of the media, particularly the liberal media just simple bickering, same old, same old, let's move on. this is about an administration not being forthcoming about the fact of what actually happened. >> this is about an administration that sees the death of an american ambassador and three personnel as a political problem, not a national security problem. into the policy problem but a political problem for an administration that is in the middle of a political campaign. one of stunning things for me coming out of gregory hick's testimony, when he was talking to a congressman, state department there should be a lawyer present at all times. >> paul: cheryl mills who some remember from the impeachment of bill clinton. he said do not talk alone to a member of congress. >> afterwards he also said as he put it a chill in beth jones and another close aide. you get a sense here you have a kin

department's countabilityeview board chose not to interview state department's senior leaders and in the administration itself about the events leading up to that attack. the attack and the response to the attack. former secretary of state hillary clinton was not interviewed all. when not? and why haven't any senior leaders been held accountable r the attack tt claimed the lives of poor americans? why wasn't theredequate security for ambassador stevens? that is a good question. what did the state department reduce instead of increase security in libya before the september 11 the tax? that is right. i said they reducedt instead of increased it. i mean, the questionso on and on and on. counter-terrorism officer mark thompson said that the white house refused his request for a special tea to be deployed during the benghazi attack. we don't know why. he did know why. we don't know who refused the request. i mean, the questions start mounting. widen the military immediately send a rapid response team? there were told to stand down. why? why didn't they immediately launched aircraft to sup

you can watch it live on the state department's googed-plus page. we'll be right back. but don't worry, he'll find someone else. ♪ who's that lady? ♪ who's that lady? ♪ sexy lady, who's that lady? [ female announcer ] swiffer 360 dusters extender cleans high and low, with thick all around fibers that attract and lock up to two times more dust than a feather duster. swiffer gives cleaning a whole new meaning. and now swiffer dusters refills are available with the fresh scent of gain. ♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capital one purchase eraser. i can redeem the double miles i earned with my venture card to erase recent travel purchases. and with a few clicks, this mission never happened. uh, what's this button do? [ electricity zaps ] ♪ you requested backup? yes. yes i did. ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle. >>> florida congresswoman and democratic national committee chairs debbie

department since it was a state department facility that was attacked, and an ambassador who was killed, as well as three others. the nsf, the fbi, the lead investigating authority, and other entities. the cia, in this case deputy director of the cia, took that process and issued a set of talking points on that saturday morning, and those talking points were disseminated. this is all in response to requests from congress. and the only edit made by the white house or the state department to those talking points generated by the cia was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi from consulate -- because it was not a consulate -- to diplomatic post. i their i referred to it a diplomatic facility. but diplomatic post. the point being it was a matter of nonsubstantive factual correction. but there was a process leading up to that which involved input from a lot of agencies as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate, and the effort is always to in that circumstance, and with an ongoing investigation and a lot of information, some accur

the major revision came from the state department, not from the white house. and it had to do with their -- what happened before the attack. not whether you call this terrorism or not. i think in a lot of ways the conservative theory of the case here has been almost disproven by these revisions. >> david, let me ask you this question, because you would know these -- david, you would know these facts better than i, perhaps. to an outsider, to a layperson, to hear there were 12 revisions to the talking points, that sounds ominous. in the normal -- in the normal course of events, how often is something like this edited, revised? >> i mean, if you look at some of the revisions, if you go through them, and i salute jonathan for putting this online. you can see in some of these revisions, some forms, one or two words were taken out that had no real substantive meaning. but it's not unusual for an interagency thing that involves multiple agencies to bounce around again and again and again and again and before it's all resolved. that's not unusual at all. >> hang on.

the major revision came from the state department not from the white house. and it had to do with their -- what happened before the attack. not whether you call this terrorism or not. i think in a lot of ways the conservative theory of the case here has been almost disproven by these revisions. >> david, let me ask you this question because you would know these facts better than i, perhaps. to an outsider, to a lay person, to hear there were 12 revisions to the talking points, that sounds ominous. in the normal course of events, how often is something like this edited, revised? >> if you look at some of the revisions, if you go through them, and i salute jonathan for putting this online, you can see that in some of these revisions, one or two words were taken out that had no real substantive meaning. it's not unusual for an interagency thing that involves multiple agencies to bounce around again and again and again and before it's all resolved. so that's not unusual at all. >> hang on a second, david. hang on just one second. the e-mails that were released by

the state department produces annually the state department's country reports on human rights practices. the most recent was released a couple of weeks ago by secretary kerry. the report continues to note that we received reports from receive fuel gees who have left refugees who left north korea and they talk a torture and capture, they don't provide fair trials or due process. the government controls almost all aspects of its citizens lives. denying freedom of speech, religion, assemblely. reports that the government restricts the freedom of movement of its citizens and subjects its citizens to forced labor. it is disappointing to see such little change from year to year in the human rights reports in the situation in the north. one important development that helps in terms of the process of calling attention to the human rights abuses in north korea was the decision made by the u.n. human rights council of march of this year to create a commission of inquiry of human rights in the dprk. the u.s. activity supported the discussion of the north korean human rights situation and the human

state treat you then and have they treated you since the state department by and large treated me very well but very cautiously that is to say. a lot of people who quietly agreed with me sent very quiet messages. not through official channels to say so but the state department believe they had completely correctly there was a very minor efforts you know essentially from the the think tank establishment to say pay no attention to this man he's just another you know malcontent but but by and large. what i said was allowed to speak for itself. other services are much more vindictive the intelligence services if if you dissent in the cia or the n.s.a. they will use these draconian secrecy laws to persecute you well before you quit you did express your dissatisfaction about what was going on what is the policy making and decision making process i mean who has the final decision and is it actually very inflexible it depends on the issue in minor issues that are not of major domestic political importance the state department policy process is is pretty good the job of the state department is

, and i would call on the president to order the state department to release this e-mail so that the american people can see it. >> now, in response, the state department is agreeing to work with speaker boehner and other lawmakers on capitol hill, even though administration officials say they didn't feel anything new was released during the six-hour congressional hearing on wednesday. >> some of these issues were sort of high up by some, whether it's in the media or on capitol hill, as new information, but we see that we had a thorough and credible arb investigation. they told some stories that were, again, very personal about their experiences. but in terms of adding new information about what occurred, that's not what we saw transpire. >> reporter: now, a blast from administration's past also appearing yesterday. former vice president dick cheney was on the hill speaking with house republicans, telling them, just like south carolina senator lindsey graham, he thinks then secretary of state hillary clinton should be "subpoenaed," if necessary, for more information. ainsley, back to

former state department p.j. crowley, usa today columnist raul reyes and senior political reporter for politico, lois romano. thank you for being here today. what's your take? >> we still don't know the facts. above everything else we still have an active fbi investigation that will tell us who actually did it and why they did it and under what circumstances. there is still a fast nation about talking points. my sense of having gone through the process at various times, it is more about protecting bureaucratic equities than any kind of political conspiracy. >> and raul the white house has said that they had minimal involvement in crafting the talking points. >> i don't think the revelations from these e-mails necessarily contradict what we already know other than maybe it is fleshing it out. because general petraeus and jay carney have both said that it underwent various drafts through the cia. so i think this is, it is still, i feel that the focus is not on where it should be which is september 11, 2012. it was

>> at my desk in the state department. asked to marshal the resources for the team to help with the rescue effort, did you not? >> yes, my first call was to the national security council. >> in your testimony you were told that it was not the correct time. >> when i referred the question to the undersecretary for management's office, yes. >> if this was not the right time, when would be so? this is a source of frustration that the american public has, that i have. we are the greatest country in the world and we let people defend fortially themselves when we had the resources. when would be the right time if it was not then? "there's no answer. staying with the topic of time, in an uncertain situation like this crisis when we do not know what's going to unfold, was there sufficient communication that you could have pulled back emission ready to deploy? -- a mission? >> we practice this twice per year, a complete deployment and this is staffed with interagency professionals. the answer to your question is, yes. the plan fund

but after white house and state department input. so i think there's a lot of questions about how much was political on the part of the republicans. that's what jay carney was talking about and how much was political on the part. administration. >> we'll come back to you but stay with benghazi. chuck, there was very contentious hearing on the other end of pennsylvania avenue this week as well. and are we any closer now to understanding what actually happened on that day in september and a better explanation of what happened in the days after that? >> right. well, michele, probably no great ground-breaking new revelations. there was definitely dramatic and you showed some of those clips you had, this first hand account from greg hick, the man who was speaking in that segment -- greg hicks, the man who was speaking in that segment. he was in tripoli, not in benghazi. his testimony was certainly riveting. obviously he's on the outs now with the leadership of the state department. but probably the democrats will still say that the most a

and in many ways the state department fought very hard against it. i think hillary clinton and richard holbrooke tried valiantly to argue that it would be a mistake for the united states to put all of its eggs in this region on a military solution that the president actually in his heart didn't believe in. and that they should be given a far broad wither berth in terms of thinking about the regional architecture, a peace settlement, a global engagement that would provide for a framework for an end to afghanistan that would enable us to leave with some kind of a political solution. so, i mean, if you look at afghanistan now, we didn't win the war, and we didn't arrive at a settlement. so in a way there's a lot of loose ends there. we just are basically saying the war continues as before except we're just going to let the afghans do it. and the taliban are still in full force, there's still no peace deal, there's no regional or international agreement or consensus on an end game in afghanistan. we're just sort of going to pass the baton to the afghan a

department and the white house. >> that's the state department and the white house. >> sean: yeah, making further edits. two things here. one is -- i won't belabor this point, but when jay carney lied and said there were only style listening differences, frank -- stylistic differences, he should be fired, because he can't be trusted. i would people in the press room have lost all confidence in him. the bigger picture here, all of this -- you know, when we talk about the state department having major reservations with much or most of the document, which it says in the emails, well, is that hillary clinton? we need an answer. >> right. >> sean: the second thing we need an answer to is about president obama. the president that night, by all accounts, never went back to leon panetta, never went back to hillary to get an update on the situation on benghazi. he went to sleep, got up the next day, went out campaigning. then two weeks later on "the view," before the united nations, was still echoing something that all of us knew was false, that by then he should have known was false. so doesn't h

i'm determined there will be an accountable and open state department. >> the state department would never tolerate sanction retaliation against whistleblowers on any issue. that is an obligation we take very seriously. >> president obama professed to be aware of loaning standing efforts to question survivors of the benghazi attack in which terrorists killed the u.s. ambassador to libya and three other americans. >> i'm not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying. so with a i'll do is i will find out what exactly you are referring to. >> on mochb, former justice department official victoria tony sing identified herself as one of the attorney as benghazi whistleblower but they say no such whistleblowers have come forward. yet republican congressman darrell issa wrote to the state department's number two lawyer back on april 16. attorneys representing department personnel in this matter will require clearance to possess and discuss sensitive information. >> they've had two letters from chairman issa, one on april 16, the other one april 26. we want you t

>> at my desk at the state department. >> so you are at your desk at the state department. you asked to marshal resources and the team to help with the rescue effort, did you not? >> yes. my first call was to the national security council. >> in your testimony, you stated that you were told this was not the right time, is that correct? >> when i referred the question to the undersecretary for management's office, yes. >> if this was not the right time, when would be the right time? this is a source of frustration that the american public has, that i have. we're the greatest country in in the world, and we left people there, mr. hicks, and mr. stevens to defend -- fend for themselves when we had these resources. when would be the right time? >> there's no answer to that, sir. >> staying on the topic of time , would have been a reasonable thing in an uncertain situation such as this crisis to go ahead and assembled a team and put them on a plane? was there significant to medication on the plane that you could have pulled back a mission that was ready to deploy -- communicatio

i'm determined there will be an accountable and open state department. >> the state department would never tolerate sanction retaliation against whistleblowers on any issue. that is an obligation we take very seriously. >> president obama professed to be aware of loaning snding efforts to question survivors of the benghazi attack in which terrorists killed the u.s. ambassador to libya and three other americans. >> i'm not familiar withthis notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying. so with a i'll do is i will find out whatxactly you are referring to. >> on mochb, former justice department official victoria tony sing identified herself as one of the attorney as benghazi whistleblower but they say no such whistleblowers have come forward. yet republican congressman darrell issa wrote to the state department's number two lawyer back on april 16. attorneys representing department personnel in this matter will require clearance to possess and discuss sensitive information. >> they've had two letters from chairman issa, one on april 16, the other one april 26. we want you to pro

and we still have an embassy there under state department control. and i wonder if they're still adequately protected. bill: why do you believe military control was necessary then? >> well, because it is a country just emerging from war. most of the time the host country provides the ultimate protection for our embassy. well they were leaving the militia, the unofficial february 17th brigade was supposed to guard our ambassador? when they either saw people coming or were complicit in people coming, they ran. they were immediately gone. all of a sudden they disappear and there is nobody guarding our embassy or our consulate in benghazi. i think it was inexcusable. bill: this from general petraeus in the 96 or so e-mails. quote, no mention of the cable to cairo either. frankly i just as soon not use this. what do you make of that? >> yeah. a lot of misgivings about what they were going to say. i still don't understand their motivation unless it was purely political not to call this terrorism but really, you know the fact that the state department wasn'

suggesting he didn't say do everything state department says. he just said let's get together and discuss it. and the question is, all right. okay. okay. that may have all happened. release the emails. release the emails. let us see the process. why can't we see it now? >> yeah, i mean, that's the big question right now. i mean, jay carney was complaining last friday about selectively leaking emails and things taken out of context. there is one way for the white house to solve that that's to release the emails. i understand they are about 100 pages of emails that were provided to capitol hill in sort of a short session where they could be read, looked at, examined. why not release them all? i mean, jay carney has been up telling the american people not only in the past couple weeks but basically for the past six, eight months that the white house wants nothing more than to have the whole story told. well, one way to make sure that that happens is to release these emails. and i would say not just the emails. the president, the other day, made ref

this is still hitting the state department and more specifically hillary clinton's state department. obviously somebody that may end up running for president. that's where you see the political fire. that's where you see the aim. what the white house was trying to say today and what they were implying is they were simply being a mediator between what andrea described as the knife fight between the state department and the cia. the remaining unanswered questions seem to revolve around what exactly was the state department upset about in the various talking points. of course those conversations ended. the e-mail chain stopped at some point. the white house put an end to the e-mail chain. none of that is on the record or in print. >> chuck todd at the white house on a friday night. chuck, thanks. we want to let you know there will be much more on all of this -- benghazi in particular -- on "meet the press" this sunday morning. david gregory's guests include darrell issa and dianne feinstein sunday on this nbc station. >>> in bangladesh an incredible ray of hope 17 days after a building

the talking points get to the state department and the state department says wait, the state department will look bad. we need these revised. they come back 45 minutes later and they are changed. they say they still have serious concerns. at 9:24 she says, my superiors are not happy. the white house says, the state department's concerns need to be taken into account. what other explanation is there? >> there is no other explanation except to say when the first talking points came out either clinton or somebody directly under her looked at it and said this puts the state department in a bad light. therefore we need to change it. that was their mistake. >> why change the fact? >> the question is what fact are you talking about? >> al-qaeda and the fact that there is a coordinated attack. it wasn't a spontaneous reaction to a video which is what they went with. >> who posted the video, greg? >> it is the only question that needs to be answered is who pushed the video. >> nobody has the earns to the question. >> yes, they did. they had it initially. >> it is president obama. you can't say t

everyone is watching to see well is the cia looking to blame the state department and the state department the cia? this stuff usually doesn't surface but in situations as high profile as benghazi and many, many other as you both know better than i in congress, everywhere else, this is the sort of thing that happens. i think going forward the question is this, andrea. was this a mishandling, was it a benign mishandling, it was not handled property, certain people weren't talking to the right people or, and this is the calculus that republicans insist was going on here, was this a purposeful misleading of the american public during an election year? that's the nub of it. sorry, go ahead. >> adding one point to that what was acknowledged in the independent review board acknowledged by the state department was there a total screwup in terms of not properly securing this outpost. it was not a consulate. it was a mission. it was really there to get intelligence, there was a cia outpost. what was the point there, and it was interesting testimony that's kind of been ignored from the hearings two

state department and cia. it's reasonable to believe that the whistle blowers who might now be in the works from the central intelligence agency have received similar threats. one other thing to add to this is that the democrats on the house oversight committee hearing that held that big hearing on wednesday, are now also agreeing we need to have testimony from ambassador pickerring and admiral mullen the two co-chairs of the review board who so far have declined to testify it will be interesting to see if the state department how now weighs in and says yes we too believe they should testify. >> megyn: thank you so much. >> thank you. >> authorized the issuance of subpoenas which will help in the information gathering former vice president dick cheney is urging them to include hillary clinton on the subpoena list for testimony. we'll see where that goes. today's reports showing that the white house did indeed have a hand in extensively rewriting the story of what happened in libya. before putting it -- that me

had been warning the state department for months about threats -- >> oh, no. that came out in the arb report which said this is admiral mullen and pickering. they said the security lapses had occurred, and that's why people at state got fired. >> they didn't say that the cia had put it in the talking points and the state department wanted it out? >> clearly what they said there was a lack of proper security there and the state had not responded adequately and of course state had been blaming -- >> didn't know that victoria nuland had said the leadership -- >> no. let me say the key point here is not victoria nuland -- the key point here is did we learn anything about what happened before benghazi or during benghazi that would implicate the president or the secretary of state? answer, no. >> well, we learned -- what we learned the story is not true. >> what do you mean? >> again, everything they have said up until now, that they were involved in the talking points, the politics was not involved. >> the white house only made one stylistic change. >> that's burea

department policy process is is pretty good the job of the state department is to balance all of the conflicting interests with large issues like the iraq war. the reason i did not really protest in advance was it was clear to all of us in the state department that the decision had been taken by the white house and imposed and there was no room for discussion on that issue on the state department had been completely marginalized there even colin powell who you know had serious reservations and fought and was essentially stomped all over by by cheney by rumsfeld by well who by a weak president who allowed himself to be manipulated by by people who were savvier than he but despite all that you would say in your opinion that it is the white house that makes the final call ultimately it is the white house yes and the the difficulty is the president the united states is not an expert on foreign policy he's someone who's instincts you know tend to be very sound but his instincts are formed by the the the domestic policy process and how did george w. bush was completely correct that war is

department of state. since september, 2012, have been in long-term language training in preparation for my next assignment. as the chairman noted, i have served in federal law enforcement since january 1996 first as a customs inspector before joining the u.s. department of state. i have served in domestic overseas posts including washington, d.c., honduras, ethiopia, india, and most recently, the regional security officer at the embassy in tripoli. all those assignments had been assignments in which i face the threat of criminal or terrorist attacks. i held the last position of rso during september 11, 2011 on till july 2012. i served as the principal security adviser to the u.s. ambassador including chris stevens. i want to thank the committee again for the opportunity to appear to provide further testimony in support of your inquiry into the tragic events of september 11th, 2012. i would like to think the committee for your continued efforts in investigating all the details and all the decisions related

and this goes right to the top of the state department. cheryl mills is the one who called him after the congressman's visit to ask what took place there and why there was one classified briefing that the lawyer could not attend, what happened in the briefing. so it goes right to cheryl mills, counselor to the secretary, chief of staff to hillary clinton, and that's why -- that was one of the key things i think came from our hearings this past week. >> when you learned this, what was your first reaction? >> well, it kind of confirms what i think a lot of american suspected. you go back to the -- the whole video changing the talking points, as we've now learned 12 different editions. you don't have to edit the truth. 12 different versions of these talking points where ambassador rice goes out on a sunday show and misleads the american people? now, whether she knew it or not, she definitely misled the american people. that's one of the other key facts from wednesday's hearing is demonstrably false narrative that she portrayed to the american

that would include the state department since it was a state department facility that was attacked and an ambassador who was killed, as well as three others. the nsf, the fbi which is a lead investigation, investigating authority and other entities. the cia in this case, deputy director of the cia, took that process and issued a set of talking points that saturday morning. and those talking points were disseminated. this is all in response to a request from congress. and the only edit made to those points general rated by the cia was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi. i think i referred to it as a diplomatic facility. it was a diplomatic post. the point is it was a matter of n nonsub tan i have the. there was a process that involved inputs from a lot of agencies as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate. the effort is always to, in that circumstance, with an ongoing investigation and a lot of information, some of it accurate, some of it not about what had happened and who was responsible. to provide information for memb