states have not agreed to take one syrian refugee. those are sunni arab populations. they certainly have the wherewithal. but in closing let me just say thank you to all three of you. and to the men and women in your organizations who every day wake up to protect americans from the threats that we face. and i think you've done an extraordinary job stopping so many of these threats, many that we know about and some, many that the american people don't be about. the challenges are enormous. and the threats are grave. but on behalf of the congress let me just say thank you again for what you do day in and day out. with that, >> c-span presents coverage of

hillary clinton as she testifies before the house select committee on being gaza -- on benghazi. c-span 3 starting at 10:00 for live hearing coverage, plus your phone calls afterwards. you can also watch our coverage saturday and sunday at noon eastern on c-span. sunday night on q&a, amy chos ik shares her experiences from hillary clinton's campaign. >> i was a lot younger. i was the sort of traveling person. when you are traveling all the time, i got to know the people who traveled with her and i got to know her pretty well.

i did not have the same sources of the campaign and high-level people that i have now. and whether that is a function of being at the times or in a more senior role. sunday night at 8:00. >> we spoke with sharyl attkisson. from washington journal, this is 40 minutes. joining us now is sharyl attkisson, host of full measure. investigative reporter who has been covering this story about and ghazi -- benghazi. 11 2012,ay, september walk us through what happened. guest: it started out fairly normally. they are ahead something like six hours in libya.

word came down that we were under attack. at one of our compounds in benghazi. there were two deaths almost immediately. two more deaths maybe six hours later. this unfolded overnight u.s. time guest. back thene were told is completely different from what we know now based on documents and witnesses and evidence. we were led to believe this was a spontaneous unpredictable attack that came out of the blue and nobody knew it was coming and it was prompted by an anti-muslim youtube video. that's what we were told at the time. host: walk us through the days of this attack and the day after. what did the administration officials know? know only from documents and testimony and so on that the state department, the obama administration, the people on the ground, the people have said they all knew

immediately us was a preplanned terrorist attack. there was no doubt in anybody's mind. that was exchange in e-mails. sharia claimed responsibility. that and operated on that internally. and yet externally, we were told something different. the first statement that came out from secretary of state clinton that night a vote the idea that maybe there was a video that had motivated this spontaneous protest. that's kind of where the controversy begins. and it was followed by weeks of what happened behind closed doors? congress was getting briefings from the cia that were different from what was being said publicly. and now you can put together a very clear timeline. the u.s. told libya the very next morning, an islamic extremist terrorist group claimed responsibility, help us

go after them. but we told the public, we don't have enough evidence to say, we think it was a youtube video. i want to show our viewers what the president had to say in the rose garden the next day. as americans, let us never ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it. to stand up for it. and in some cases lay down their lives for. only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. no acts of terror will ever shake the result of this great character, orr the eclipse the light of the values we stand for. today we mourn for more americans who represent the very best of the united states of america. we will not waver in our commitment to see that justice

is done for this terrible act and make a mistake, justice will be done. but we also know that the lives these americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. americanld give every great pride in the country they served and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also urine to live to live in-- yearn freedom and with dignity. host: the president making a line between benghazi and september 11. guest: that was the subject of much dispute. that could be your take on it. you look at the whole statement, earlier he did evoke the idea of a spontaneous demonstration. he kind of had it both ways. he said by the way, this is

9/11, and no act of terror on 9/11 shall go unpublished. there was a great debate later as to whether he really called it an act of terror or was skirting the line. so there's a great little back story to this at cbs. steve kroft from 60 minutes interview the president's that day. and his take was much like the critics take of what obama had said. he started his interview by saying, you didn't call the benghazi attacks an act of terror. and the president in this interview that never aired said, that's right. so he agreed. y,d steve kroft asked wh and the president said we just don't have enough information to know yet. because later when it became an issue, he just didn't care that clip. the president agreed that he didn't call it an act of terror in the rose garden that

day and yet cbs sat on that clip for quite a while. host: why not? what's going on behind the scenes for the administration claims they still don't know? guest: now they admit that they knew what the documents have shown. now the story has changed to be a lot of conflicting things. hillary clinton wrote in her book, there was the fog of war and she was careening from one explanation to the next. but the explanations given to the public gave no hint of that. they were pretty clear on steering the public toward the one narrative that was not demonstrated in the document. i want to show the viewers what then secretary of state had to say at andrews air force base. she was receiving the remains of the americans that were killed. here's what she had to say then. >> we have seen the heavy

assault on her post in benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. violenceeen rage and directed at american embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. it is hard for the american people to make sense of the because it is senseless. and it is totally unacceptable. the people of egypt, libya, trade and tunisia did not the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything and can to restore security hold accountable those behind these violent acts. host: sharyl attkisson.

this was three days after the attack. she is still pointing toward the video. family members of the victims say that mrs. clinton told them personally when the bodies arrived, we will find the baker of that awful youtube video. theis steering them to narrative of, be mad at the guy who made the video. don't be mad at this other reason. which they thought was strange. and i thought was strange. administration, what were you going to arrest the maker of the youtube video for? who had made a perfectly legal -- this is a free place where you can have free speech. what are you going to arrest him for in your mind when you said we are going to get bac that guide? y? thate know from documents

have come out that there was an orchestrated effort to not let the public think as ben rhodes put it, not let them think it was a failure and policy. it was ahem to think spontaneous response that they couldn't have predicted and had nothing to do with. host: it leads to the sunday where they repeat the same line of argument. we don't know but. go ahead. guest: and we know now there was this huge flurry of talking points that were circulated about what she should say and shouldn't say and how many times they were changed and who change them. house falsely stated over and over again they made no substantive changes. but we just found out last year from documents that they did. were made by a white house national security adviser. by ben were discussed

rhodes about blaming the youtube video. it was false to say that no substantive changes were made by the white house and at the time there was panic in the ranks of the obama administration eight weeks before an election and they really didn't want people to think that they had fiddled with the intelligence and the public narrative. host: what happens then? leading up to where we are today? i would say there was a full force effort to try to stop the media from being as aggressive on the coverage. we went from being very aggressive -- i was assigned to look into the story at cbs to have some people in my view begin to block the story. washington was advancing at and getting better stories, there were people who didn't want that published. that chilling effect happened across other outlets as well. the coverage changed in tone.

at the time, we didn't know as much as we know now. congress continued its investigation. sources continued its investigation. sources continue talking to reporters like me and we were able to get a huge body of evidence that slowly trickled out over years. been a strategy to paint this as republican conspiracy theory and old news and people have probably gotten numb to hearing about it. but what has happened the couple of years is an incredible body of evidence has been released. does any of that come from the previous investigations and how many were there before the select committee? guest: i think seven committees have looked at it. despite the claims from the administration and the hillary clinton camp that she has been exonerated and it has been fully looked at, that is not the case. the committees have each individually looked at their slice of the pie. no committee before this one is looked at all of the evidence. they have gotten a lot of new evidence.

if you know how committee's work in washington these days, the constituents of the people who serve on the committees are not really the american public in my view anymore. they are the interest they oversee. so the armed services committee, they are serving the defense contractors interests and the military interests. so they come out with a finding that says, in benghazi, the military didn't do anything wrong. and the intelligence committee, who serves the interests of the community, they come out and say, the intelligence community did not do anything wrong so we have this investigation that exonerated pieces of responsibility, but if you look at what they were gathering behind the scenes because some of the closed-door testimony was ultimately released, there was some interesting and i think damaging testimony that can, for example, from generals who, despite the public line that there was no rescue that could've been mounted and no assets available, that acknowledged under questioning, well, we just decided not to

send in a craft to buzz them. why not? well, who knows if it would have worked. they were asked, why not try? there were a lot of contradictions behind closed doors. that was some of the evidence they came out, even of they put a big report at the end that made them seem as if their corner of the investigation cleared that branch of the government. host: what will we learn at thursday's hearing when hillary clinton testifies that is different from these other investigations? guest: i don't know. i think trey gowdy in his counselor and the others have a list of questions, but i also think mrs. clinton has -- it is been three years and i'm sure she is answered every scenario and prepared for anything they could throw at her. i always say, if you are really going to investigate something, the best chance you have is very close to the event. three years later when the stories have changed and people of compared notes and e-mails have disappeared, i think it is much harder to think you can get at the solid truth.

but i'm sure they will be asking things i would ask. i would want to know what she do about the president's movements and actions and decisions because we still don't know that. the white house won't tell us. i would try to get to the bottom -- there are questions before and afterwards, to be sure, but i would like to hear the tick-tock of what happened that night. host: sharyl attkisson investigative reporter and author, our guest this morning to take your questions and your comments about this investigation into what happened september 11 2012 in benghazi, libya. marianne, independent, thank you for hanging on the line. are you with us? you are on the air. caller: all right. think have to say is, i hillary clinton is a liar just like all of the rest of them. everything revolves around money . and she has got more money than

god. and she charges for every speech. and the only ones that get screwed are the american people once again. host: what would be the motivation? what is behind the motivation of the administration not wanting the american people to see this as a failed policy? guest: let's look at what we know now. i don't claim to be some sort of global political expert, but i have had sources speak to me. at the time, intelligence officials were telling me as the u.s. was cheering on arab spring like this was such a wonderful thing, the intelligence folks, some of them at least, saw the extremist movement was using the democratic movements all around these countries as a a trojanome in sort of horse, take over in the chaos, and make headway. and they have done that. and that we may seem, in retrospect, naïve or we do not have a good plan. libya was one of those countries. i had on my program this past

sunday, an interview with the head of the house intelligence committee at the time, he said libya's dictator, as bad as he was, was so afraid of islamic extremist terrorists in a sun country, he had turned around 2003 and was cooperating with the u.s. in the war on terror him of providing evidence about al qaeda, turned over nuclear weapons program, had really become an ally for us. yet we supported the ouster, the , hillaryinistration clinton and her position, we supported those trying to oust muammar gaddafi and i think there were concerns this policy would implode on them if the public saw this as something that was a policy failure. indeed, so the market off he is knocked out of power, the rebels than what us -- no market off he is knocked out and the rebels want is out. the same people we supported turn on us.fi they may have been some of the

ones that attacked us in benghazi that night. host: and that brings us to the front page of "the washington times" this morning -- what does this tell you? guest: libya was being used as a place to transfer weapons to syria, where things were starting to bubble up. my question was never able to get to the bottom of, some believed u.s. was part of the arms directly. my sources could not confirm that, but we knew they were going on. we knew weapons were being moved, but we were also aiming or arming and training rebels ourselves. some of him we knew, according to my sources, had previously been involved with al qaeda movements elsewhere. some of whom we knew went on to fight in syria on the side of the islamic extremist. to sure it is very difficult

figure out who your friends and enemies are. it was described to me, sometimes you have to partner with someone that was your former enemy for the purposes of this particular fight. the problem is, it is hard to predict the outcomes. when those guns are turned on you, that is very controversial. they never released, the administration, they promised to release surveillance video of the attacks at night. they never did. they won't answer why. but i was wondered from the beginning, were their faces on the surveillance videos that would tell people in the know that some of the people we had supported and cooperated with for actually in on attacking the united states? i think that is a valid hairy considering -- theory considering what has come out since. host: we're talking to sharyl attkisson, author of the book "stonewall." formally at cbs and now host of "full measure."

tom, democrat, you are up. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to apologize for the last lady that was just beginning from pennsylvania. -- speaking from pennsylvania. this situation took place several years ago. we are not privy to all the fact that happen. [inaudible] without anyone to counter her accusations and whatnot. [indiscernible] she intimated in the onset of first statement that hillary clinton and the government new -- do you think any reasonable person in the u.s. would believe that the united states government would allow something like this to happen without doing something about it? whether they claimed it as one thing or another homage doesn't

matter. we don't know what the attackers were thinking. all we can do is try to suppose what they were thinking. there will be various statements from various people trying to make a set of reasons for why these people did what they did. and it doesn't make any difference. like hillary clinton says, it doesn't make any difference. the attacks took place and people were killed. you want to put hillary clinton in jail for something that happened that i'm sure she had no control of? host: i want to get a response. guest: i did not say she knew the attacks are coming that night or anything like that and i did not say she should be put in jail. i'm simply investigating the facts. as a reporter, i did not care one way or the other windows asked to look at benghazi whether i was going to find the story or not. there are plenty of stories to move on to. but when you start getting contradictory stories, documents, and witnesses from the inside, these witnesses telling me, giving me good information work so described life long democrats who supported obama, supported

hillary, and when they are telling you about the disaster they think occurred, you listen. i am reporting the facts, not here to convince somebody -- it doesn't matter to me whether viewers to leave it in the end, i'm trying to uncover facts, especially ones that some people do not want to have uncovered. iowa's go to were the contradictions are, and the were summit contradictions in the where-- i always go to wor the contradictions are, and the were so many contradictions in the story. we know many did not believe it was a spontaneous protest sponsored -- spurred by youtube. there were contradictions that you dig into as a reporter. host: what questions are unanswered in your mind? guest: i touched upon this, i'm curious as a journalist looking into that night and trying to put together the timeline, where the president was that night, minute by minute. there should be a record of this and it should be subject to public inspection under freedom

of information laws, in my view, but it is not. i would like to know when he wasn't in the white house, who was calling the shots? inre left with this image some testimony, one military official told congress, well, one reason we did not deploy help is we were waiting for the state department to ask and they never ask. to me, doesn't make sense that equal federal agencies would be mining one another without somebody at the top helping to call the shots. so i wonder who was in the white house tried to call the shots among the agencies if the president was absent. i also -- there are a lot of questions about contradictions. when i spoke to the white house shortly after i began investigating this and asked about the movement of troops or why help did not come, answers don't jivenitially with answers that came out later. so i want to know more about that. hillary clinton has given conflict in stories. the

administration has said things like, they told him personally we were caught by surprise on 9/11 and never had another attack on 9/11, that is what we had no military help in place even though it was a tinderbox in that part of the mideast. yet hillary clinton says in her book, we were prepared for 9/11. so either you were prepared or you weren't. if you were prepared, where was the military help? if you weren't prepared, why not? i would want to sort out those conflicting stories. host: we will hear from other clinton tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern time before the select committee's on benghazi and we will have coverage on c-span3, c-span radio and c-span.org. in is expected to be sitting that chair front to eight hours of testimony from her and the questioning coming from those that serve on a committee. "the washington post" reporting libya has failed to agree on a unity government plan. they note the latest turn of post-revolution past comes exactly four years after rebels had told -- hunted down and

killed former dictator muammar gaddafi, marking a bloody end to the strongman's long role and punctuating the nato air campaign that is seen at the time as a model intervention in the middle east. and here we are today talking about what happened in benghazi 2012 >> guest: if you step back and look at the big picture, i think the administration is concerned that in her time as secretary of state as well that we are seeing a dissolution of the organized chaos as we knew it in the mideast and it is now devolved into something much worse, seems to be, some regards. host: independent, you're next, go ahead. caller: i have been waiting for a while, so i have not heard this lady mention this in a little bit, but she mentioned it quite frequently when i first tuned in. and that is the two words quote islamic extremist."

you love to say that. you and other people. let me tell you something, i would not care what you call me if another country came into this country and overthrew our government, you can commie al qaeda, you can call me a christian extremist, a jewish extremist. we have those, too, ok? but you guys love to say islamic extremist. go business being in libya or iraq. and that -- unless we're there to do israel's business for them. host: i think we are following your point, that -- guys, when he says, you he is making an unfair stereotype i would point out. i don't love using the name one where the other, i'm just representing just presenting the facts. some want to avoid that name, that's fine. i'm just telling it like it is because i'm not as susceptible,

i think, to the propaganda campaigns that are out there to try to steer narratives one way or the other. they were in islamic extremist terrorists, the administration said that. they just did not use those words publicly. i think that was maybe the beginning of -- we now know the administration does not want to say that phrase, now it is no surprise to know it because he has been asked about it because president obama has avoided using those words, so maybe this is the first time we understood or saw they wanted to carve out that phrase and carve it out of the talking points, for example, card it out of the public discussion. and maybe rightfully so. that is up for the people to decide, but that is part of the controversy. host: our viewers on radio, we are showing all of you the u.s. leadership, republican leadership will hold elections october 28. diane, republican. caller: good morning. i just want to say thank you, sharyl attkisson, i hope and wish and pray they would close

you. we need more people like you. i would like to apologize for the last two callers. in front of"d" their name and we know it that stands for. please, continue. continue to report some truth. we all are waiting to hear the truth. thank you again. guest: thank you. the other calls don't bother me. people have a wide variety of views and i was feel like -- i tried to be dust bring forward decidehe end, you what to do with them. i'm not here to convince people one way or the other. measure?t is full guest: a half-hour program all about that. our mission is to bring forward facts and stories that really would not and controversial a couple of years ago but in this environment created where you have to, i think, the media

instructs the public almost to take a certain site on issues, self censors, certain stories entirely, we want to explore those and will not be popular with powers that be in special interest in some cases, but these are stories we feel are important to viewers. last week we looked at benghazi. we will do stories with whistleblowers, do stories on government oversight, corporate malfeasance, anything the whistleblowers have to tell from the inside. host: who is behind it? guest: sinclair broadcasting, a conservative oriented station ownership which has promised us total independence and so far provided it. that was key that if we were going to be doing a half-hour program, i brought some people with cbs -- from cbs with me and we wanted to be free of what we cbs the last couple of years. more like the old days at cbs were we were allowed to explore stories and go wherever it led versus having somebody somewhere

of the line kind of tell you how it had to come out. i think that is what the public really wants. host: joe, new orleans, democrat. caller: good morning. i have several questions. please, please, don't cut me off because you have a trigger finger. please, i have my questions. answeredhe guest has really some of my questions. what is she bringing new to the table that we don't already know? and she mentioned the president. and i think this is what all of this is about, trying to finally get some -- develop some kind of scandal on the president. which you have not been able to do in seven years. , why isn'ting is

there investigation on bush and the original 9/11? i can remember hearing condoleezza rice say, if we had known. and that struck me when i heard her say that on tv. if we had known they were going to fly planes into the building. so investigate who knew what and -- and when. host: the main move on to the next caller. caller: sharyl attkisson, we are so darn proud of you back here, i can tell you. you are doing good stuff. it takes a lot of bravery to do what you're doing. i know the pressure that is put on you. so, darling, you take care of yourself. we love you back here. don't ever forget it. we are behind you 100%. host: are you from michigan? guest: no, but i will take it.

back to the first color, the benghazi select committee has said their testimony -- they have talked to witnesses these other committees have not talked to, seen documents that other committees have not seen. and discover the existence of the mouse over that mrs. clinton used, which was the first clue i had that my freedom of information request had not been properly filled when i filed them after benghazi nor in my view have the congressional subpoenas for information been properly filled nor had document requests and court cases. so that is a problem. some of those documents we may never see. who knows what will come up? may be. maybe nothing. question?he second host: trying to make a scandal. guest: i'm not trying to make a scandal. there may be some people who do want to use this information to build into a political scandal,

no doubt that there are people on both sides that are always looking for these sorts of things. and then as to why no bush 9/11 investigation? i think there were a lot of those. we're the commission that looked into the 9/11 attacks. i have seen a lot of reporting on it. it is never too late to revisit if someone wants to go back and continue to look at that. i think valid questions were asked about all of that as well. rhonda,lifornia, republican. caller: i thank god for trump who is bringing us the original 9/11. now this here is nothing but ladyg -- the democratic and i don't know where she was, but this is a bunch of bull s. there.s no there i mean, to find out what our president was doing moment by moment at night? are you serious?

host: let's find out why. sharyl attkisson, why do you think that is important? guest: if people don't come i'm not here to convince you you should, that is just part of putting together the puzzle when you're bigger news detective and trying to figure things out. partly because they won't tell us. that is a matter we are entitled to know. he works for us. the fact she things we should not want to know, to me, that is the mindset that is topsy-turvy because he is commander in chief, because we were under attack on foreign soil that night. because not only was the egyptian embassy attacked, then the benghazi compound was attacked, and according to officials, they expected the whole could go on fire tonight. yes, i would like to know what the president was doing. and if he was absent from the night, who was responsible for making the decisions that did not result in saving lives? maybe they could have, maybe they couldn't have, but we deserve to know.

this country operates by the people, for the people. we deserve to know what happened that night and who was accountable and who was calling the shots -- in my view. host: reports of noted that president call the secretary of state that evening who was at home. there was a phone call made to find out the latest from the state department. does that matter? guest: i did none of that is the description of the call that was given, that that was to find out the latest. i knew there was a call. host: what do we know about the call? guest: all i know is there was a call and the white house state department were cagey. it makes me want to poke around as to whether originally the call took place before or after mrs. clinton issued her first statement evoking the idea of a youtube video, because people wondered, was this a discussion she had with the president of the united states or not? they said things like they were vague and they could not remember. she said she cannot remember which was asked about it on fox news about a year ago. i think subsequently said she

thinks the conversation took place after her public statement and she could not remember if they talked about the video. these are things i would think a sharp, experienced diplomat official would know and would remember. these are important calls. i don't think you talk to the president all the time about americans being under attack and she said she didn't remember. host: joel, texas, democrat. go ahead. host: how about the responsibility of the ambassador? he knew, we do not know some of these things in the beginning, but he knew there was a cia outpost there. he knew there were terrorist there. he got two people with him, drove out there. what was his response -- responsibility? this things there, breaks loose. what did they do with him? throw them in a safe room. a safe room. then he burns up in there. they could not get the doors open. they could not get him out. how long did they spend their trying to get him out of that freaking room?

in the meantime, these guys are dying. instead of getting him, that is their job to get him out of that embassy when that first started. that was the cia and these people's jobs. that is what they're therefore, to protect the ambassador him and not put him in a room they could not get out of. host: let's talk about the role of the cia. what do we know? guest: we have heard from officials at the annex nearby that they were stopped from responding quickly. they were delayed by one of their superiors, unfortunately, they feel could have made a difference. who knows? as someone who had worked on the ground prior to this attack happening told me the people who were there that night, again not to disparage them in any way, but they were less experienced and they, according to testimony, did not even have weapons with them. people who have been there before helping guard the ambassador, people who were pulled out, said they slept with their weapons. why during this dangerous time you would not have your weapons with you is a mystery to some

people. ambassador stephens did, i think his responsibility was making sure it was communicated everything he knew. the state department. we got memos early on which i broke on cbs does, he was clear he wanted more security, it was a dangerous situation. al qaeda specifically threatened to attack british interests, the red cross, and the u.s. in benghazi. they went on that list. they got the red cross, they got the british, and then we were next. that could be predicted, one would say, maybe not the day and time, but the fact of the attacked and yet we were in this vulnerable position. after the benghazi attacks happen, there was sort of a whisper campaign by some state department people who spoke to the press and applied this was ambassador stevens fault. what was he doing in benghazi, they said. i'm not sure we even knew he was there, they said, which we now know they did know. there is list that goes out every day and the material is

circulated according to people in the state department. they try to put the blame on him. they also said, we defer to him. if he wants to go, who are we to say no? but that contradicts if you defer to him, why didn't you give him the securities requested in those months? why did you draw down security at at the time he and others were say on the groundings were getting dangerous. host: is john bolton right, he writes -- first floated the fantasy that muslim outrage over the video sparked the attack, incredibly, she never spoke at all to leon panetta or gemma dempsey according to their congressional testimony. is right from what i know as well, there was a phone call about the time she released that statement. one could assume it was about something about this. host: we

have a few minutes left before the house dabbles in. joe, independent. , thank sharyl attkisson you for all of your good work. let's review what you said. that is my question. the islamist test attack occurred at 3:40 p.m. washington time, midafternoon, and state deputy from libya immediately notified washington of a terrorist attack occurring. it wasn't until 10:00 p.m., which you just mentioned, that .bama spoke with hillary our president spoke with our secretary of state. and it was shortly after that that hillary, our secretary of state, came out with the statement that the demonstration was caused by a video. sharyl attkisson, which you just comment on that as a key question tomorrow to hillary clinton? >> i think they will try to get

behind what motivated her, what the conversation was about, what motivated her to point to something when the documents behind the scenes told a much different story. one more thing, we now know the administration previously said there is no standdown ordered. that has been the story from top officials in the military and so on. although, they played with the word "stand down" a little bit. once a people inside said there was a standdown order given, they do not necessarily mean those two words were used and a lot of times in the denial, the administration will say, those words weren't used, but we do know at least and three or four different countries, people were told not to go. they were told not to go to respond quickly according to the cia. they were delayed from going. there was a small team in tripoli trying to head to benghazi while the attacks were under way and were told not to get on the plane to go to benghazi. there was a special terrorist response team in the u.s., not known how long this was going to

go on, that immediately fired up , assuming they would be sent to go and there were told they were not going. there was an fbi special team that my information says the state department had contact with throughout the night that was stood up, stood down, stood up, stood down through the course of the night. those events together, one get their eyes there was somewhere, somebody more the senior level that is said keep people in place, do not move people. i don't have any evidence that happened, but based on these different incidents in the different countries, it would seem like too much of a coincidence, everybody individually decided to hold in place. host: mary, new mexico, republican. caller: good morning. this is hard for me, but this question has been bothering me. it was a beautiful day in new mexico. you don't usually watch news programs, but my husband was home and called me in the house. anderson cooper had the diary,

according to cnn, and we were listening, he had the diary of the ambassador. now, how he got it, i don't know. host: the house is about to gavel in. caller: the ambassador in it said he asked for help and was refused and he was scared. host: i have to stop there. guest: we know, she is correct that he asked many >> we have live coverage of hillary clinton's testimony to the house committee on benghazi.

since 2012, almost 2000 syrian refugees have come to the united states. we will hear more about syrian refugees next. in the former defense secretary talks about u.s. defense priorities. then joe biden talk to run for president. >> on our next washington journal we get an update on the house speaker race. the republican congressman who was a member of the freedom caucus joins us. and dr. lanny davis who served as special counsel. we get his take on hillary , washington journal is live every morning. the conversation by phone on facebook, or on twitter. >> a signature feature of book tv is our all-day coverage.