Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
In other news critics of the Obama administration saying that this next story demonstrates why it's so hard to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.
In Ben Ghazi last September the legal watchdog group judicial watch.
Saying that it's finally obtain State Department images.
Of the terror attack on the US consulate there the aftermath.
The pictures show burned out vehicles.
And Arabic graffiti with militants slogans on them referring to ala.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney he's the CEO DC international advisory Stephen good to talk to you.
To wondered why do you think it was so hard.
For these images Tutsis to pry them from the State Department it's about a lawsuit basically to get their release -- cop.
-- -- a little bit difficult to tell because you look at the images themselves is not readily apparent why there'd be problematic.
Wants someone had basically reviewed the graffiti that a lot of them reveal make sure that there weren't any insidious or otherwise compromising messages.
They really don't -- a lot more to what we know about what happened and any -- -- reshape the discourse about.
Why the State Department had a difficult time sharing more of this kind of information.
-- we've been watching some videotape that was shot by our colleagues in being Ghazi.
In the in the first couple -- days after the terror attack last September and it seems like you see more in that video than you do in the State Department images.
Overall though do you think that there is -- some people have.
Have have charged there's some kind of an attempt on the part of the administration to keep information about the attack in the aftermath.
To keep that from being made public.
Well certainly there were complications with the messaging -- has been well discussed there were differing accounts for what was the prime mover in the attack.
There was obvious changes to the public talking points about.
We don't yet have any indication of who that what level in what agency White House or otherwise injected the YouTube video and a discussion.
But this kind of disclosure of photographs after a lawsuit many many months a seemingly innocuous photographs is as part of a pattern of delaying information.
They could easily go out and then just contrast that with say the Boston bombing.
And the investigation there where they actually released images of suspects asked the public to help it there's a real contrast to the seriousness of one investigation vs the other.
Take us behind the scenes as someone who worked inside an administration in your case in the Bush Administration with them.
The office of the vice president what kind of internal discussions take place when it comes to.
Deciding what to release verses.
What to hold back on what's it to say is classified and should not be put out there for pretty number of reasons.
There can generally be two levels of this kind of conversation one would be the policy level discussion.
Trying to determine what the administration.
Aims to do by way of policy and -- -- had hoped to influence and inform abroad and at home and any other level of a conversation would be what information.
If disclosed could compromise the investigation.
Could be signals to others to conduct attacks -- otherwise -- enemy.
And so that second layer of decision would be made in consultation with interagency lawyers and people intelligence professionals.
Representing the agencies involved state White House defense and intelligence community.
OK so this is it is it because there's been so much criticism.
Leveled at the administration for mentioning that YouTube video.
And the fact that it was made reference to in the immediate aftermath by then secretary of state Clinton and of course on the Sunday talk shows.
But could that have bin.
Something that they decided was an important message to get out to the Arab world to get out to Muslim communities.
That any miss interpretation on the part of those communities -- the United States government was behind.
That video that film.
Could be the cause -- the impetus for for further attacks might there have been -- policy reason.
For them going out and putting that story line out there that.
-- There -- policy reasons why they might have wanted to go with that narrative.
One is that.
They are concerned about issues beyond Ben -- itself -- hadn't quite focused appropriately on what was happening there and that that wasn't related.
That's directly to the events in Cairo and elsewhere that did seem.
Tied to the video the other is that they found some concerns that we have not yet been able to verify.
About that the disclosure of what really happened -- what they were learning real time from the state department's own mission.
Was not the dominant in more accurate message to share with the public.
In in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
I would be concerned that they actually decided to go with.
A hunch rather than the clear evidence of their own mission of the State Department that's what are they continue refers CIA talking points.
When the mission in Libya was speaking directly with the State Department and White House.
In real time that night and thereafter.
Well brand new fox poll just out with in the last week or so showing that this is now becoming a bipartisan concerns a majority of Democrats now feel.
-- -- needs further investigation so we'll see how this goes Stephen Yates thank you very much good to talk to you.
-- -- -- --
Filter by section