Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Nation on and they got -- terror attack that killed four Americans the leaders of the panel that independently reviewed last year's assault.
Say they're now prepared to testify publicly before congress may want to consider.
What they what they say is unfounded criticism of their work so they're taking on the critics.
They have more to add to this conversation about John Bolton is a former US ambassadors the UN.
And -- Fox News contributor so ambassador there's a lot of noise from all sorts of sides on this thank god he terror attack.
What are the big questions.
Left to be answered.
Well I think there -- huge array of questions that the accountability review board did not cover because by statute its mandate is limited so.
With all due respect to the board I think it's kind of decide showed to be arguing about whether they testify in public hear some of the key questions.
Why did we have a facility in Ben Ghazi at all particularly one that was enough to state department's standards and why were repeated request.
For security enhancements denied before hand.
That's a policy question I think the argument is that the administration wanted to console -- Ben Ghazi at least in part to show things are going great there.
And and and that sort of policy question I think also.
Informs what happened after the attack with the story about the -- video.
There are some different angles servicing.
In response to the question about security for example the McClatchy news organization yesterday had a story that's an ambassador Stevens denied.
Some offer from the military to give him some sort of reinforcements.
David -- in the New York Times yesterday says the state department's talking points.
-- change only to protect the CIA that was having.
-- very secret operations in -- -- what do you think about those different factors now introducing this story payments later.
But you know with the presence of a large number of CIA operatives in this annex and then you guys -- There isn't any happening you've got a bunch of Americans in the city who -- out doing something probably buying weapons believe me it was no secret.
And the whole argument that the CIA that was was being covered by the consulate.
Doesn't hold water since they were two different locations how much cover does that provide.
To to have -- so separate.
So I think there are a lot of issues but again I don't think the ARD tells us that much because its mandate was specifically limited to looking for responsibility.
Within the State Department.
And specifically those focused on security secure not necessarily policy -- -- -- policies.
Is seeking a -- what is the effects.
This internal political debate on how our enemies perceive us what do you think this means for.
Our -- around the world.
Well I think the failure of the administration eight months after the attack either to retaliate to avenge the killing two exact retribution to make it clear to the terrorist.
They can't do this and get away with it.
Is much more serious but are dithering now.
And the inability or unwillingness of the administration to take a hard line.
I think tells the terrorist you can attack Americans with impunity and that's very danger --
Filter by section