This transcript is automatically generated
Could in the Rose Garden.
And I told the American people in the world.
-- we're gonna find out exactly what happened.
But this was an act of terror it was not a spontaneous demonstration is that what you're saying please proceed government.
-- but I don't wanna make sure we get that for the record because it took the president fourteen days before he called the attack and -- -- an act of terror get the transfer it.
It if he didn't put in facts are so let me let me even call it -- could hear a lot of can't neglect it.
-- active terror -- did as well.
Take it it is well take that two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a -- out there about this tape.
But to come out -- -- this that.
Well that was one of the tense exchanges from last night's presidential debate about Libya.
Welcome to Defcon three and I'm KT McFarland each week we dig into the national security issues of the day a little bit deeper than the other showers and we want you to join in the conversation.
You can find many on Twitter at KT McFarland or join the live chat right here below the video went out.
I always -- to get your questions and comments -- read as many as we can.
First step today -- -- -- DC bureau is chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge.
So Catherine why is the administration hanging their hat on this Rose Garden statement.
-- -- -- According KT what I saw is that the White House spokesman Jay Carney when he got pushed into the corner on Ben Ghazi and finally said in everything -- Air Force One that it was self evident.
That it was terrorism the administration begin reaching back.
To that Rose Garden speech and if you actually look at the transcript it seems pretty plain to me.
That when the president's reference these acts of terror he's talking about that -- in very general sense he's not talking about it.
In this Ben Ghazi sense so I think what we've had here is a classic Washington pursing of the words.
After the fact.
In the Rose Garden he uses the word terror.
The air for -- from the beginning we recognized it was terrorism.
When they're public statements over that two week period especially those of ambassador rice a show otherwise KT.
Okay well Kathryn let's get back to address that are rice at that time I was -- and why ambassador rice going on five talk shows.
You bastard -- have any responsibility for embassies overseas one S Secretary Clinton.
Why not this CIA director who's in charge of intelligence why -- the secretary of defense.
Who would be in charge of marine guards if there had been any so why did they put out ambassador rice any explanation.
Well I think.
There you've you've gone to two very important points of one of which I've I've pressed the administration on when I asked why they chose ambassador rice.
Over at least for a career military or intelligence professionals I was told that because we had lost ambassador Stephens.
It made the most sense to put out a senior ambassador -- talk on the Sunday talk shows.
That's like calling in the plumber when your electricity is not working I mean this is not hot -- her for a tape and you have people right in the White House the White House -- here's an advisor John Brennan.
You have the national security advisor Tom Donnelly and you have the CIA director David Petraeus and -- the Director of National Intelligence the top intelligence may an -- manager.
For the community James clapper and they were all passed over I think you have to ask yourself whether they were political reasons for passing over these four individuals.
The second question which I think is very important and I know you're gonna understand the significance.
Is when this assessment -- of the videotape.
Was given to the administration.
Within a day or two days after the attack.
What was the confidence level of the intelligence community what happens in these assessments.
Is that the intelligence community says you know were 30%.
That this may be the reason or -- 60% this may be the recent.
And here are some alternate judgments that you may want to consider because there's intelligence that backs up that point -- PO.
I can I get a good answer.
On what the confidence level was about the videotape.
But I can bet -- -- -- confidence level was extremely low and certainly within 48 hours there was other intelligence that undercut.
That hypothesis and was replaced with other judgments that was simply an active terrorists and -- A real camera was a losing investigation go from here there's the political part of it.
Which is right before an election does the administration have any political consequences for the mishandling of this.
But there's also the idea of what happens what intelligence what happens with security going forward.
What happens with it with the policy -- what happens next man.
I think they're.
At least two fronts on that one is that the whole discussion of the videotape.
Obscures the larger question.
Which is did we have good intelligence that there was a high threat level in Libya and why did we fail to act I think we had good intelligence.
The threat level was high.
But in the last year and a half with the Arab Spring we have lost these relationships with the intelligence services in Egypt in Libya.
In Tunisia and to a certain extent.
We are operating a little bit lines on the ground.
The second thing and I reported this last week based -- two military sources.
Is that there really is evidence that the attack and then Ghazi was an effort.
To -- the United States out of eastern Libya and specifically this growing CIA presence in Ben Ghazi.
I reported last week that when we sent in a plane to evacuate personnel.
We were overwhelmed by the number of CIA personnel who were there on the ground and we had to send in a second plane.
Even the Libyan president said he was surprised to see such a significant CIA presence.
But to the islamists on the -- the CIA presence was clearly known and they knew where that an x.s and I believe.
That six months from now we look back on this attack we will see if they're really the primary target was that an X.
And that the consulate in many ways was a secondary target we hit the consulate first to -- people out to that annex which we then hit in which they then hit with mortar.
Buyer for the -- -- that is a fascinating explanation thank you so much for giving us can get the expertise that you spent a lifetime you know -- thanks a lot.
Okay -- thanks Katherine.
Look at -- and guess is Gary Bernsen.
-- -- director of concern veterans for America and he's a former CIA senior CIA operations officer which means he used to be a spy.
And he joins us now from Tampa Florida to discuss managing national security interest in light of what transpired.
On the September 11 -- -- -- -- attacks -- bacteria before or are wired but before we start talking I wanna take a quick look and quick listen.
To secretary of state Hillary Clinton who gave an interview just a few days ago with our own Wendell Goler.
Let's take a lesson.
I'm responsible for the state department for the more than 60000 people around the world.
The decisions about security assets are made by security professionals.
But we're going to review everything to make sure that.
And we're doing what needs be done in -- increasingly risky environments around the world.
What if -- I mean that's all well and dead issue status OK I take full responsibility for that still doesn't explain what happened.
You know why I was -- not right adequate security and here's someone who's -- you know your entire career in the field.
Providing that kind of security in very Dicey parts of the world and going into Dicey parts of the world after they're gonna tax and assessing what went wrong.
What's your take.
Well first -- people have to recognize that the security on the ground is based on several things.
First off there is the -- and standards and those after the 1983 attacks on the US embassy in the marine barracks in -- Beirut.
Admiral Bobby Inman was put in charge of a commission and they set standards for security at US installations abroad.
You know Jersey barriers of the ones that pop up and stopped -- car bombs from coming through -- -- The thickness of lose the type of ballistic glass of the size of the property that you should be on the amount of -- All of these were codified.
And and then facilities -- worked on and improve around the world.
After the 1998.
A bombings in East Africa which I was the CIA.
Leader of the emergency.
There was -- -- commission that then a lot of more money to these things to continue the upgrades into an improved.
Those facilities more because the threats had evolved and we had failed to adapt.
Not only do we have small car bombs not a giant truck bombs we all other sorts of complications and and many other new groups and emerged.
So those -- the two groups and the established.
The baseline for the technical base -- for security.
Little question of the intelligence on the ground and I believe.
That that given the number of people that day and the attention have been given to do well Libya.
I'm sure we had excellent reporting on the number of militants are operating at area what the capabilities -- We may not have known that a specific attack was coming on a specific -- that they would have.
Done a better job of defending themselves or were evacuated themselves but they knew the threats existed significantly in the third piece of this stand is the -- -- Understand how embassies -- are protected first -- when you have Marines and embassy they don't protect the ambassador is an agreement between the Department of State.
And the Bureau of Diplomatic Security that's the component the State Department does security and and and the -- protect classified information they -- post one.
And that and then of course and that in a crisis you'll -- -- Marines in to help defend the facility but the defense of that facility.
Is managed by the diplomatic security service the bureau defied security run by an assistant secretary.
And in the field he'll have a regional security officer and all SL and have any RS those assistant regional security officers and then they'll have a little guard force.
The guard force in Baghdad right now.
I believe at a minimum is 5000 hi I I'd ever -- a number get a 151000 when you look at all the satellite offices in the country that's an enormous force.
And they have a contract with the government contractors who won managing locals I think -- as larger -- several battalions of excuse me several brigades of of of American soldiers if you look at Kabul right now I'll call this probably got 700 guards and men.
For people to suggest that this -- the congress' -- as the vice president did in the island in the debate the other night he said.
Two to us that it's about congressman Ryan play -- vice presidential candidate.
You got cut diplomatic security look there's no problem in reprogramming funds there's no reason why they could have taken funds away from Baghdad.
And -- -- hundred positions down there.
To Libya to suggest otherwise is nonsense.
-- Jerry let me ask you add a separate question though it was the kind of team that we had in Libya you know when we're down Karen -- is just saying that there are so many CIA.
Operatives in Libya.
Why when -- attack came.
Why did the United States not attempt to rescue mission and we did it well no -- evacuate but we didn't have anybody that would go and try to -- To rescue the ambassador.
That's an excellent question and and and you first have to recognize -- and I was.
Do they seek assistance and you had the embassy and -- the -- so the question is is did they ask for assistance.
And if they did who did they ask and then how did the national command authority respond.
That is something that has not been discussed at all.
Normally when you have an attack.
Like you had the attacks in East Africa you know within a very short period of time the key players are sitting in front of the DT CC that the White House had a counterterrorism -- -- And in this case will be John Brennan and you've got CIA's counterterrorism chief.
-- the FBI you got so -- you've got all these people talking to each other.
They make some decisions and then they run the information up their own bureaucracies.
-- don't cabinet members will know what's going on -- -- communicate with one another that's how it's done immediately but.
Who made the decision on whether they should it the first -- was a request made.
Are on the ground at the request was made what was the decision in terms of fulfilling that request not awareness is instead about that.
And instead the president immediately goes to we're gonna find those that are responsible eliminate you just skip the part of this.
The host what I began with and as you know how you set the table -- for -- -- facility there you know your security thanks now you have the attack.
What happens during the attack did you respond to try to save your people.
And in the third parties the investigation afterwards which has been a disaster.
In East Africa after the other bombings in East Africa.
I was on the you know I I -- her team there we -- on the on the ground in 26 hours and East Africa -- to secure embassy right I got out after seventeen days.
The State Department get up in front of a group of journalists they ask them -- -- people regardless of what we don't have -- -- Which is complete -- -- it's just nonsense.
Wow -- attack or you have Americans in trouble you put people on planes and you move.
Yeah broke out when you land the plane when you land a plane the BB visas wouldn't be with the F.
Yeah I think there's -- stunning scary from beginning and so many unanswered questions thank you so much for talking us through what should have happened.
Thanks so much -- Okay thank you broke -- reluctantly did great we're gonna take a break in and come back and -- -- former CIA Director General Michael Hayden.
Hi I I welcome back to death country I sit down with former CIA Director General Michael paid the last week.
To talk about the vital role technology can play in supporting our nation's military families particularly those deployed overseas and here's what he had to say about a fantastic project he's involved -- Hi I'm turning -- general Michael Hayden.
The former Director of National Intelligence that he's involved now at the National Military Family Association.
And lastly general Hayden.
Showing that this -- Chief Executive Officer of Google and talked about the new technologies and how new technologies are being used by the united states military.
General Hayden thank you first of all for joining us now thank you -- and I want to ask you you know you think we now have technology that allows our military personnel stationed all over the world to communicate with their families.
Or isn't as World War II movies where the cells -- -- a letter from home and it was news it was six months old.
When I was in Afghanistan.
I watched as a service men and women emailing in real time -- live chatting and real time with their children doing homework for that night so -- everything changed.
Well -- -- obviously we're living in a very -- connected world -- and what.
We have these wonderful technologies that and allow us to maintain some intimacy I mean I mean fundamentally.
In this cyber domain.
Geography matters a lot less.
But it doesn't physical space so family members really can maintain contact with their spouses their children.
And other relatives even when deployed so so that's really a very good -- What are things and and that anybody who's talked to military people.
Understands is that when you're away from home for a long time it's very difficult to re integrate into the family I know that your wife -- done work.
There's just as well in her capacity.
What how -- -- gonna change now with instant communications like you say the world was flat when it's regard.
So that's well.
You know being being virtually there isn't.
The same thing is being physically there and so despite this intimacy we can is establish electronically.
You still go through this process of re integration when the service member comes back in and in fact -- statistically.
That's one of the real stress points for military families.
Because the family left behind.
Has developed a bit of a new -- -- -- it more autonomy.
A bit more independence.
From the military member the military member comes back and expects.
To find the world is here she -- -- -- quite different so the National Military Family Association actually does have programs.
That help families work their way through this this re integration.
I'm explaining how that works.
Well I mean for example don't take paid National Military Family Association will take families are returning deployed personnel.
And they'll go to literally to the mountains.
They'll go -- on -- family -- -- several days with but that roughly structured program.
That allows the family get re acquainted.
With one another not -- you know we've got three million Americans.
Who are members of military families.
And about 80%.
Of our military force has been deployed.
And so you can imagine the kinds of stresses.
That these families undergo.
You and I think you know I've talked many in other venues about intelligence and and you know we've got this ocean of information out there and the key for intelligence is to get their right data to the right person at -- right time.
Well that National Military Family Association is now using technology.
To solve that problem for military families.
They created -- new lap.
You go to the App Store on your iPhone -- your android.
Download my military life.
And you can set up a relationship with the database.
It's huge tear needs to do your particular circumstances in life.
You can set the right kind of prompts so that data is pushed to you.
About continuing education.
-- even separation from the military still too here's technology.
In the service in solving.
A real social issue.
-- -- in other words this new app called B my military.
Right that's good actors your guidance counselors are -- your -- -- dealing with all the problems we're gonna face.
Well you know you can ever replace human contact.
But it does plug you into data made it pushes you it in the right direction to that you can find out more information.
For that particular problem here confronting.
At that point in time and in Iran and frankly it may actually lead you to the right human being and then to get in contact list.
So in other words jurists are retiring service memory wanna go -- exercise your new -- gee I'd be out.
I'm right shall I go back to school this will help you.
Exactly it it will prompts you again based upon your circumstances and -- to the right web pages to -- right contact information for folks who can solve your problem.
Right now and I fans terrific it's really different direction now and we now have all this increased communications you're everybody's that I found even -- -- amounts remote regions of right Afghanistan.
-- yamana wherever our military.
-- -- -- -- -- Communicating in a civilian capacity with their families.
-- military issue with this -- is is it something that allows us to be safer militarily.
I think certainly.
Keeping that the military member.
Knowledgeable but his family comfortable.
About his family circumstances.
Rather than you describe the more work to instance -- six months since he's heard from anybody.
Imagine how that preys on the military members mind when you want really him -- her to be very focused on mission so that's an absolute plus now.
-- there are some downsides I mean you got these massive communications coming out of war zones so military members have to be very careful.
That they're not embedding any information.
In these communications.
Phone calls or emails or her or Twitter that.
That could be used by an adversary if they were intercepted to project American military activity -- and like all things in life there has to be a bit of a balance.
And SoHo is responsible for and that kind of self editing.
Well I had clearly the individual service member.
Has to be alert -- -- and frankly I'm very experienced at this having been in the military 39 years that's part of your training.
You've got to be careful what you say in these communications.
Is there a downside you know we all Harold all the great advantages that modern communications and technology has given us and a lot of those gifts have really been in the last five or ten years.
Is there a downside to it out.
Sure I mean here here we are frankly empowering.
Military members who were deployed to be effective and affecting.
To their family members -- back at home well.
You know bad people can use that same technology KT.
To do bad things cell.
I mean just like practically everything in life it can be turned -- to ill purposes that in this particular instance.
I think it's a real plus plus KK.
We've had about 1% of our population.
Defending the other 99%.
For the past eleven years and unfortunately it's large -- -- permanent 1%.
Defending a permanent 99%.
So imagine the stresses.
On these military members and their families.
Tools like you know what my military life if they can ease that burden well that's almost an anomaly good.
And showed it tell you one more time for our viewers where they go to find this bathroom and they do when they get there.
You got an iPhone and android -- here after I did it this morning -- T.
-- in my military life furrier here search engine on your App Store it goes to -- immediately frankly it's very highly rated.
Press the button in -- starts to download.
Thank you so much for that general Hayden.
China's military is set to conducted tests avenue and more capable anti satellite missile.
Might Pillsbury consultant at the US department of defense and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute joins me.
From -- DC bureau to talk about a more aggressive China.
-- it seems like every time an American secretary of defense -- to China.
Yeah they have a new weapons at hand -- and it looks like we're having test after test of new military capabilities.
What isn't something that's a surprise about this new test and what is it what's the significance -- a.
Well the new test is not confirmed that hasn't happened yet this is leak yesterday by one of Washington's most accomplished reporters.
And it's supposedly going to take place in November.
Some description was given by two or three officials who spoke to the reporter bill -- But it's it's not a confirmed facts yes I wouldn't be talking about in terms of the real thing.
But if it is -- this taken with all the other -- -- -- a new aircraft carrier and new stealth bomber that's and I satellite lower -- anti satellite capabilities.
What it looks like is a much more aggressive Chinese military program and to what -- Well they've got a strategy they've had in place more than twenty years now called bide our time.
Build up our capabilities.
In secret and its last two tests of anti satellite.
-- programs in China were secret they weren't even revealed to the Chinese people.
The same thing with the sell fighter -- -- Secretary Gates that you alluded to I was visiting Beijing.
And each case one of these test takes place and the Chinese then deny that it happened or refused to talk about it.
And the anti satellite program is probably the most important of these tests because our own forces depend so heavily on satellites.
But no one really knows what is the long term.
Strategic competition the Chinese have in mind they write a lot about the need to restore China's.
Proper place in the world.
And when you ask them about that they refer back to 500 years ago or more.
When China was the number one power in the world so that is one theory might say that China wants to restore itself to world primacy.
And -- simply not accept United States were leadership and doesn't see itself as one of several.
Equal nations and sees itself as the leader of the world.
That's one theory the second theory is that this is just an exaggeration.
And they'll never amount to anything greater than they are now which is the number two economic power in the world so these kind of weapons tests.
Become an issue for debate cagey about what they tell us about China's strategy.
And the Chinese denial of the tests.
Simply adds to our own confusion in our own -- here in Washington about what does China really up to.
OK well let's continue that line ever think came out and we've seen -- to -- scheduled to have a major leadership transition in the next several months.
As I think you described it to -- it's as if they -- -- the Supreme Court.
All the members of congress and the entire present executive branch all at once and so they're coming up to that point now.
But we've seen that they've arrested one of this senior Chinese leaders and his wife and I think condemned to doubt.
Her crime so in this this a real -- -- assist our leadership struggle.
Well don't forget in the huge leadership transition I mentioned to you.
Yes all those positions are changed -- the enormous change Washington if something like that happen.
But everybody has to be a member of the Chinese Communist Party.
To be part of the succession so it's not going to be a Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney.
Transition where two or 3000 people.
And the disappointment.
For those who want to have a cooperative relationship but China is in fact these trials are leaders possible death sentences.
That are taking place -- more or less in secret they seem to be predetermined by the Communist Party.
So those who believe deeply that the rule of law would be in place in China by now -- that position in the debates this has been set back.
By the secretive -- the trials.
-- The lack of credibility of some of the stories about who poisoned who and why.
So this is just adding to our debate here in Washington about what are China's long term strategic goals are they the same as we fought back -- them and when you and I were together in the days of doctor Kissinger are the goals of China event.
-- under Jimmy Carter for that matter the same as they are now or are we dealing with a different China.
That has in some -- rethought his future role in the world my own view I'm coming to it very slowly.
Is that we're doing with the new China and therefore we ourselves.
Need a new strategy the old Kissinger or Jimmy -- strategy.
Was great for that time period of the Cold War we're going to have to have something different for the future.
And it's going to have to focus on not just military but to trade and economics and human rights and other other issues are -- strategy just isn't working.
Okay let me ask you for one quick question.
If you -- I'm a moderator on the farm policy debate is gonna happen Monday night and if you have one question asked both candidates about China what without question big.
-- be about President Obama is -- pivot to Asia.
Clearly this is one of the most important things his administration says that they've done the pivot to Asia.
They've upset the Chinese who who think it's all about them and the Obama administration -- but can't come back to that has been to say no this is just.
Some sort of refocus on economics and trade.
So there's a lot of confusion about the pivot to Asia and if the moderator.
Gave President Obama a chance he could clarify it.
And then you give president.
Governor -- -- -- presidential candidate Romney's chance disable mode did they do is follow.
It's no good or he can praised the -- something like that would be very good debate to -- I can't I think we're all gonna -- and you cooler than to see if -- -- depression comes up because as you point out it really is the future.
And as a major critical issue thank you so much Michael Pillsbury doctor Michael Pillsbury.
Defense Department consultant.
And Hudson Institute scholar thanks so much.
Thanks -- Well for all -- new washing thanks for joining us today you can watch more of me you're not tired of me that is on the Fox News Channel and read my opinion piece on foxnews.com.
For a talk about the Libya and -- attacks.
Don't forget though that foxnews.com live is back again tomorrow resuming programming 11 AM.
I want to tell you though we had some really terrific comments including one from JD.
We're gonna bring that those issues so -- four and I think -- -- -- -- -- -- out of that.
As we and the showed a day I wanna get to a quote -- general Michael Hayden who we spoke to.
A few minutes ago he said that there really are some more important national securities on issues on the horizon.
Well beyond just today's headlines.
I don't know what -- And then I go go in another direction you're you're one of the people I always seek out because and your position your firm position as director of central intelligence.
And your entire career you're a guy who.
Both sides of the political -- conservatives.
Liberals hawks -- all look to as somebody who really has the ability to see past the horizon.
To see water had not just today's headlines but what issues are really important for the United States national security -- heard it and -- down from just.
Share with us some of the thoughts that you've got about the next decade where we going what are we need to watch out for what we need to do to protect against -- Well KT.
I talk to Brent Scowcroft who's not only my boss years ago but also -- a -- -- And a -- points out something I think very interesting.
He suggests that it in the world he grew up being in which he served.
All the pieces on the board were largely nation states and the way you nudged pieces around.
We're frankly through what you and I -- call hard power to him and and he said.
Neither of those realities are as true as they were when he was in government.
He suggested that.
It in the industrial age which I'll characterizes a twentieth century.
Everything that was happening -- strengthening the nation state.
I'm old enough to remember when telecommunications were so complex that only a government our government controlled monopoly could run them.
Well in an age of globalization.
That's not true.
And practically everything that's going on now is eroding the power the nation state because of globalization and inner connectedness.
We still turn to our nation states we still turn to our government.
To protect us.
And three of the most difficult problems I see out there now.
Cyber attacks in international terrorism.
Are all a product of this powering down from government.
To sub national groups and even down to individuals.
So I think the long term challenge we have is how do we -- government.
Reorganize ourselves because we're not organized for this now you reorganize ourselves for this new kind of national security threat.
Which frequently won't come from other governments or other nation states and can't be solved by getting a lot of men and medal at the point of attack.
I think that fundamentally.
Is the real security problem for the next several decades.
And stay solvent and not necessarily with hard power.
As we have in the past but with soft power Smart power Smart I would say Smart and don't ever give up hard all right.
If if you if you've got the upper hand in hard power.
You take that move away from the adversary and that's almost always a good thing KT OK thank you very rush -- --