of what is coming down the road. that takes you back to the first point of having human resources. this is a dirty business. nobody likes to talk about that. you need to penetrate these organizations, and if you can't, the other thing you are left with is trying to rely upon your technical aspects -- assets, such as other kinds of communication, intercept, as well as foreign liaisons, which is critical. you need a very robust foreign intelligence liaison. for example, you make a good intelligence from organizations such as the jordanians or the egyptians or in some cases the israelis, these can help you make sense of the puzzle and fill in intelligence gaps. host: mike from ohio.

go ahead. caller: thank you for keeping everything save, but how is the ambassador of south korea doing? i would just like to know what his condition is and why this happened to him? he was in an allied country and benghazi was in a war-torn area where we lost americans. why isn't there any kind of outrage about this guy just sit in in a restaurant -- sitting in a restaurant, almost having his head he headed -- beheaded? guest: well, when it comes to

the attack in south korea, they did have information on the attacker. it was someone who had -- should have been monitored. it is something that we do on a domestic bases here, for those who have historically may be threatened the president, you know their whereabouts, the detail has pictures of these folks. at times, it is not unusual for agents to go out and physically survey people like this for that. of time -- 48 -- four a given amount of time. so, when you look at resource problems, that is an issue from a bureaucratic perspective that is consistently hopped in the diplomatic security service.

when you have the largest pot of money inside at the state department, it is very easy for that money to be poached for other things that are deemed critical to the foreign service. and when your boss is it the one making the decision to allocate those funds, what are you supposed to do about it? that is why in my assessment the state department needs a director that is on the same level as the fbi director who has the economy, that reports directly to the secretary of state and he or she can control the resources, money, the mission, and at times look at the secretary in the eye and say, sir or ma'am, this is a bad idea. or we can do this mission, but it is going to take this number of resources to get the job done.

osthost: mr. burton, there is something in a paper about the panel in washington dc, about the clinton e-mail servers. looking at it from a security standpoint, what kind of information would you want to see about the e-mails in question, especially when it comes to benghazi? guest: my last book was on benghazi specifically, so it is an issue that i have followed. i feel sorry for the special agents that were there. the agents that there were given an assignment and they did not have adequate resources, they did not have the physical security that should have been in place. but in many ways, the mission has always in that way. the state department has always sent men and women into harm's way. a try to do the best job they can. that is the nature of the job.

but when you look at benghazi, it is quite clear to me and it was quite clear to everybody that was there, that this was a terrorist attack the moment that the first round was fired. so how it developed into a video driven event as part of the message -- messaging posted benghazi is the kind of issue that i am sure that the benghazi committee will be looking at. but i am not surprised. you are in washington and you know the politics that surround any kind of presidential campaign, it is important that the message is consistent. so, those are the kinds of things that really need to be unpacked when you look at some of the e-mails. host: when it comes to benghazi much was made at the time on the role of marines. what role, specifically, do they

serve? guest: you bring up a good point. and i apologize to the marines for not bringing them up earlier. the program has been partnered with diplomatic security service for many years. a safeguard the u.s. diplomatic missions around the globe. the presence of u.s. marines in uniform in these areas and locations, that is a political decision. but the foreign policy makes that decision. when you look at the marines and a benghazi, that was a foreign-policy decision that was made by the u.s. embassy and by ambassador stevens and washington, to determine whether or not the marines can be there. it is -- will the marines raise the threat level, or will their presence be a deterrent, there is no doubt in my mind, knowing

how good they are that if you have a marine security card -- guard and benghazi on the ground, that would have been a game changer. that is an issue that has been looked at in the committees. host: fred burton, vice president of intelligence for --, in austin, texas. what is this company? guest: we provide analysis of terrorism around the globe. we're trying to make sense of the world. we have that many products on our website, for anyone who is interested maybe you want to

become familiar with the kind of work that we do. host: we have a call from michigan. henry, hello. caller: i would like for you if you could, bring an assessment a little closer to home. last night, i watched a program called vice and in that program i saw where we have militias who are very well armed here in our own country who are preparing for what seems like war against our own government. i believe another caller tried to elicit an answer from you but i think that you misunderstood the caller he was talking about private security fighters who go over to foreign countries and fight against isis, who are actually

americans, and they come back here and join a militias here. i noticed in that program since obama has been elected, that we -- that these hate groups have exponentially gone up. and the -- rancho was no fluke, when the u.s. government backed away. these militias are well armed and prepared for battle. i am wondering what your company's assessment of these militias are, as we are trying to have legislation passed to have it illegal, especially these conservatives, make it illegal to use it drones against american citizens. can you please talk little bit about your company and that threat. guest: thank you for the question.

you are right, i didn't misinterpret the previous caller's question on those lines. when we talk about the sovereign nation organization, for example, i am located in austin and we have the republic of texas there and militia groups in texas. there is no shortage of hate groups targeting jewish synagogues jewish facilities, your soft target threats, and you are actually correct. when president obama was elected, the white hate movement hasn't grown, significantly. but having said that, i do think the fbi domestically and the atf have done it pretty decent job of keeping tabs on these organizations and some of the more volatile individuals. the challenge becomes, like we saw last week in arizona, where we had the hammer skin nation

operative start shooting people it takes a tremendous amount of resources in order to -- one potential loan wolf. whether that is a jihadist or from a white hate variety. it becomes a very logistic challenge for federal law enforcement and state and local law enforcement to keep tabs on these individuals 24-7. this is why intelligence on movements on these individuals is so critical. the soft threat is one here in the united states that is going to persist in the foreseeable future. in many ways, the federal government has protected their facilities to the point that the threat has been pushed on to the soft targets and into the special event arena, into large

hotels, and to gatherings such as marathons or in austin, we have the sxsw going on now. the cost of protecting these facilities for local law enforcement is astronomical. host: chris from florida. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span and washington journal. i agree with you mr. burton about the capabilities -- i live next to one of the biggest marine bases in the country, at one time. my question about the benghazi thing, we could not have known what happened when we are there, but they kept saying that they could not get assets to it for at least 12 hours, but how do they know how long it would last before it was over?

and, 12 hours, isn't on the mediterranean? guest: i think when you look at it in perspective, and you do raise a good question, you have agents that are deployed with ambassador stevens, that are there to perform a protective duty. you had a perimeter breakdown in security where the militia that was hired to help protect the facility disappears, in many ways once the attack unfold. but having said this, you do have a short distance away, some very brave and dedicated shooters that are there with the cia base. these operatives rushed to the aid of the agents trapped inside of benghazi when the facility

was lit under fire. they did a remarkable job in saving lives and probably preventing additional casualties. then everybody moves from that location back to the cia base and that is where many hours later the mortar started to rain down and resulted in the death at that location. i think that to a man i talked to at the scene that unfolded that night, the mortars that were coming in took everybody by surprise. it was something that was not anticipated. i think the challenge with these cases, and today have them historically in every case that i have worked, in many ways all of us are brilliant after the fact. trying to predict these events

and then the domino effect once they unfold, it becomes a challenge. you can unpack any national catastrophe going back to, for example, dealey plaza where jfk was assassinated. why was there not a counter attack group there, they didn't have that in those days. and why was it an open limousine? we try to fix things going forward and learn from these tragedies. diplomats are better protected today as a result of benghazi i'm very basic things. for example, what killed ambassador stevens was the fire when it was lit. when i was an agent going to training, i never learned to protect people when individuals set the building on fire.

but the state department has worked with the fire department in new york city to address that kind of issue. so, you can foresee every possible event that will unfold when you are in these areas, you can only try to get in front of the threat and fix them going forward. host: san francisco, california. lawrence is it next. caller: i believe our issue whether in the military or in government service, people have reasonable expectations for having the best chance to not only defend our interests, but defend ourselves. and if reasonable measures are not taken to provide them with the correct intelligence and responsible security

evaluations. i am going for benghazi to the valerie plane incident. he recalled the incident of a woman who was a cia operative whose area of expertise was weapons of mass destruction whose identity was spread out or given out and it seemed to be because of the views of her husband, joseph wilson ambassador who had been deployed in the region to report his findings on subjects of interest. tell me what you think about that issue and that story. what, the correct usage, the correct challenge, of security on those issues? guest: intelligence is not a perfect science. you are dealing with science and intelligence gaps, try to make

sense of what is known. informants lie, they live -- they live -- lie most of the time. in most arenas, you are relying on these informants. for example, we worked with an informant that led the diplomatic security to the capture of ramsey assists -- the mastermind of the first world trade center bombing. they can become gold, but they can also become disastrous at times, depending on the assessment of certain information that they are bringing to the attention of the intelligence community. but i think that post-iraq, the intelligence committee has done a good job of vetting intelligence information to try and make sense of what is unfolding. at the end of the day, in this

business, when things go bad things go bad quickly. and that is the nature of the job at times. it is not for everybody. you can look at some of the federal law enforcement agencies that our partner agencies with the state department and they don't have the same kind of challenges that diplomatic security does in places like yemen or lebanon or iraq or pakistan. on any given day in all of these places, somebody is planning or looking to kill you. that is the nature of the job. you can dwell on that every day but if you do, your job -- you cannot do your job. you can only hope that you have great intelligence, you have great people looking for terrorists, and that everybody comes together to work as a team to try and keep the diplomat safe so that they can get the job done.

host: here is kenny from missouri. caller: i am also a marine, i want to know if you can give us a update on -- facility? i will take your answer off-line. pick guest: -- guest: to my understanding it is closed. -- either from an adjacent nation or back in washington, i don't know the status currently of phenom when it comes to the long-term plans for a mission there. it is very dynamic, and that is a perfect example of the kind of

threat that we face today, globally. i don't know if many viewers have monitored or it -- monitored it, but many of the facilities in saudi arabia have in shutdown, for the better part of the week. that is no doubt due to a laser focused terror threat. this becomes a very dynamic environment to try and monitor. host: this is fred burton, former chief of the security department. he is joining us to talk about security at the diplomatic establishments across the united states. before you leave, you mentioned that in a best practice kind of way, what would you advise the administration to improve diplomatic security? guest: they have to create a

director on the same playing field as the secret or the fbi, to be held accountable for global security. the state department desperately needs their own training facility, so that they can train against this kind of dynamic threat. those are the critical point in that need to be done, because if you can do those, everything else will fall in line to better protect diplomats around the globe. host: mr. burton, thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. >> douglas shaw will be on the washington journal tomorrow discussing the latest iran nuclear negotiations. and then looking at the republican house and senate edge it plans. -- senate budget plans.

and then -- talk about president obama and then as well you. washington journal live sunday. >> in his weekly address president obama talks about the red alledge as attorney general and the vote in the senate. -- has the republican response. president obama: one of the most important positions in the government is the attorney general. it has been almost four months since i nominated the red

alledge in this position. she has distinguished herself as a tough, fair attorney. as the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york she successfully prosecuted the terrorists who planned to bomb the new york subway and federal reserve bank. she has settled -- many settlements for those who have been wronged. she has jailed some of new york cost violent monsters and through it all she has worked closely with law enforcement and communities to get the job done. in short, her qualifications are superb. that is why in the past, the senate easily confirmed her to lead at one of the most common at u.s. attorney offices in the country. not once, but twice. still, it has been more than four months since i nominated her to serve as attorney general. this time, republican leaders

will not even let her come up for a vote. by monday, loretta with -- would have been lingering on the floor for longer than seven -- than the seven previous attorney generals combined. nobody can claim that she is unqualified. no one is saying that she cannot do the job. senators from both parties say they support her. it is purely about politics. first, republicans held up the nomination because they were concerned about that actions i took to make the immigration system better. now they are trying to figure out how to pass a bill on a completely unrelated issue. they can bring her up for a vote at any time. republicans promised that congress would punch and smoothly with them in charge. here is a chance for them to prove it. congress should stop playing

politics with national security, they should support good people that want to reform the criminal justice system and that means they should and the longest confirmation process before in attorney general in three decades, and give her a vote. thank you, and have a good weekend. >> hello, i am senator mike endsley from wyoming. this week, we started a monumental task of confronting american spending, tackling the surging debt and balancing the budget of the nation. before coming to congress, i ran a business in wyoming for many years. i served as the mayor of my hometown, then as a state legislator. one of the most important jobs i had was to make sure that budgets were balanced. it is time to begin this responsible accounting in washington.

you can lie about the numbers but the numbers never lie. the worst kept secret in america is this administration is spending more than ever, and taxing more than ever. the federal government should spend tax dollars wisely and responsibly and give you the freedom to pursue your future, the way that you choose. hard-working taxpayers deserve a government that is more efficient and more accountable. it should be something that both parties could agree on, because nobody wants an ineffective government. runaway spending habits over the past six years have created a dangerously growing debt because the habit of spending now and pain later is deeply ingrained. federal revenues have hit record highs. yet we are on track to overspend. to put that in perspective, we will spend a billion dollars

and the more that the government spends, the more debt we oh. and that is debt for future generations. today, the debt totals more than $18 trillion. in fact, every man woman and child those -- owes that debt. and in that number will grow to $75,000 per person over the next decade, unless we make changes. every dollar spent on interest, and our debt is another dollar that we cannot use for government services, or individuals in need. another dollar that will not be available for taxpayers. it is time to stop talking and start acting. washington must live within its means, just like hard-working families do every day and

deliver a more accountable government to the american people that supports them when it must and get out of the way when it should. we did not get here overnight, but we won't fix it overnight. we can begin to solve the crisis if we act now. republicans have put forward a responsible plan that balances the budget in 10 years, with no new tax hikes. it protects citizens strengthens national defense and improves economic growth and opportunity for hard-working families. it balanced budget means real accountability in washington and ensures the program, what it sets out to deliver. balanced budget supports economic growth for families and creates a real opportunity for americans to grow and prosper. it balanced budget allows americans to spend more time working hard to grow businesses or advance in their jobs

instead of worrying about taxes and inefficient regulations. it also means job creators can find new opportunities to expand the economy. it means every american who wants to find a good paying job and a fulfilling career has the opportunity to do just that. that's what a balanced budget means for our nation and it's what the american people deserve. congress is under new management and by working together to find shared ground on common sense solutions we can deliver real results and real progress. thank you for listening. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" douglas shaw a former white house special assistant for arms control discusses the latest in the iranian nuclear negotiations. then thomas hungerford of the economic policy institute and romina