>> thank you very much. i yield back. now to the gentlemen from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your service and willingness and desire to be here. i recognize the fact that you led as a commander but you were under command as well. and the frustrations. you mentioned that you employed quote limited boots on ground and in the implied time frame was commendable. what does the implied time frame mean?

>> the united states was acting under odyssey dawn and then was supporting under the un resolution. so in working through the compressed time frame prior to oup taking place, the united states was acting with allied partners and then more focused nato plus effort if you will with oup. so there was a definite desire to get done what we could get done prior to that. moving forward, also there is so much you can do witho the ground. obviously i wasn't in an operational role at that time but military knowledge tells you need boots on the ground to hold and make changes much as the panel discussed here today. >> effectiveness, could you

elaborate of this policy? >> of a no boots on ground policy, sir? >> yes, sir. >> well you can affect from the sea, you can after from the air but you hold and have lasting change by being present on the ground in a situation where you need more than say diplomacy or economic influence and the military is called in. that is serious business and the change takes place on the ground. >> so am i, am i to understand then that the effectiveness was compromised, it wasn't complete, it wasn't as full as possible, that it wasn't as satisfactory without having this boots on the ground available to you? >> it, would characterize it you would obviously had a different outcome and effect had you had boots on the ground than you had without it. >> without it.

when did africom start becoming aware of political turmoil in libya? >> well, libya, libya was a country was that we watched, i'm speaking from a j-2 perspective we kept tabs on al the countries there. in the arab spring we knew there could be other effects going across that area. there were really things that we watched were ct oriented and other things that were more broadly, politically affecting and that began to happen. >> when you began monitoring it, when was that? >> that would be in the early 2011 time frame. >> did africom have any role in the decision-making process to intervene in libya and what type of role? >> i'm sorry, sir, would you

please repeat? >> did africom have any role in the decision-making process, the direct decision-making process to intervene into libya and what was that role? >> that would be more at the commanders, combatant commanders level than my own. i wouldn't have that information. >> what was africom's role during odyssey dawn? >> the role was to work with other allied partners to the u.n. resolution taking effect to assist the the rebels in. >> what about unified protector? >> that was a more broad effort sanctioned by the united nations to assist the rebels in libya. >> dr. ross, some have praised

the nato intervention as a model intervention but your testimony points to consequences of the intervention. what are some of the most pronounced consequences of this libyan intervention? >> the largest consequence is what happened in north mali. >> excuse me. >> the gentleman's time has expired. you can finish your answer. >> the largest consequence what happened in north mali. a direct line can be drawn between the intervention in nato and the jihadist takeover of north mali, something that became an issue in the 2012 campaign because the separatist groups, who are themselves jihadists. returning to mercenaries who fought for qadaffi and pillaged his armories and came back heavily armed there. were other consequences that could be pelt in arms throughout the region, going to places likes algeria, tunisia and lives

were directly lost there. one thing we can see what happened january this year of a shoot-down after egyptian military helicopter. we don't know for sure where the arms came from but both u.n. panel of experts which looks at the diffusion of libyan arms and contemporaneous media accounts believe qadaffi's armories most likely place militants were able to get this weaponry to shoot down the helicopter. when you look at the unintended consequences, it made the region much less stable. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our witnesses who are here today to testify before this committee. and it's important to recognize that before us today is a panel of experts for whom we as a committee can gather critically important information and advice as well as insight into the on

the ground and geopolitical realities in libya and the greater middle east region. the tragedy that occurred in benghazi is that and out of respect for hose who died serving our country and for the safety of those who continue to do so around the world, it's imperative this committee gain actionable policy reforms so we prevent similar disasters from occurring again the so i want to ask the panel, i will start with dr. weary, in your testimony you discussed at length the challenges outside assistance including from countries like the united states, turkey, britain, morocco and italy face in terms of providing training assistance in the developing, development of an effective libyan army. can you elaborate and what your recommendations to this committee would be?

>> well, again i would think i would recognize that before, before this training can really take effect, or before you can build a real security sector you have to have political reconciliation in this country. the libyans have to get together and hammer out a broad pact. there has to be democratic structures in place. they have to go forward with this national dialogue. much of the paralysis and why outside assistance has not had an effect is because there hasn't been this reconciliation among these factions. so i would really urge outsiders to focus on sequencing. that we need to support the libyans in these political issues, in reforming their parliament, in the national dialogue, in the constitution so that this training can take full e. -- effect. it is sort of the horse before the wagon. there has to be security in the country for these institutions to function so we do have to

help them to a certain degree create the space for these institutions. but again, i think the united states since at least last year has recognized that this country needs, needs greater help. when i speak to people in the defense department and africom there's willingness and a appreciation for the situation. nato's engaged. there are other arab countries, europe, so the willingness is there. >> thank you. general, or the other panelists would you propose specific actionable reforms this committee could recommend? >> in addition to what dr.ware said all of which i agree with, there are otherseveral other specific things we can do. one of the united states great strengths in helping transition countries to emphasize how federalism works in the united

states, not just politically but also militarily. the balance of national guard and service functions in the states is for libya in my judgment a very useful model because their political reconciliation is not going to progress activist federalism which makes regions and tribes of country make them feel more politically secure than they do now. you will not get disarmament of the militia till then. i would put a lot of focus on that. second we need a to be much more vibrant force how violence damages elections. it matters that 15% of the libyan people were represented in the 48 people elected for the constitutional council. we need to create political attention to this and that wilhelm them to the political

reconciliation they need to make. it is not enough for us to say, and i don't think dr.ware was saying this, some people do say nothing can be done because the libyans themselves need to make progress. they won't make progress without the security to make brave political choices and we're underinvesting in that. >> anyone else? last 17 seconds. >> one specific reform that i would recommend is that while the libyan islamic fighting group which dr. weary referred to, issued divisions breaking from al qaeda, i think it is important for the u.s. to be aware whether some figures within government are also helping jihadist groups. one thing i think we learned from our experience in egypt is that can be very damaging. one figure in particular i would draw attention to is abdul hodge. former libyan fighting group member whose media was member of the global islamic media forum

which is jihad it forum. they celebrated his advances in government. according to regional media he is providing shelter to the amir ansar al sharia, a jihad it group in that country. wheel we're helping libya it is great to be aware and -- jon: you may have caught them over the last hour. bombshell developments on capitol hill concerning benghazi terror attacks raises serious questions about the obama administration accounting what happened on that terrible night. good morning to you, i'm jon scott. >> hi, everybody, i'm jenna lee. thank you for joining us today. this follows release of new emails show a top white house advisor push ad link to terrorist attacks to the a video. robert lovell, top intelligence official in the region at the time who monitored the results from his post in germany testified before the house oversight committee and he said there should have been a military response. no one thought a video had

anything to do with the attack. the attack that left four americans did including ambassador chris stevens. >> benghazi in 2012, this is the most serious of the themes. there are many sayings in the military. one saying that rings most true, you fight the way you train and in benghazi we did. many with first-hand knowledge have recounted heroism displayed bit brave americans in benghazi that night. they fought the way they trained. that's in the record. outside of libya there were discussions that churned on what we should do. these elements also fought the way they were trained. specifically the predisposition inneragency influence had the military structure in the spirit of expeditionary government support waiting for a request for assistance from the state department. there are counts of time, space and capability, discussions of the question, could we have gotten there in time to make a difference? well the discussion is not, could or could not of time space, and capability.

the point is we should have tried. as another saying goes, always move to the sound of the guns. we didn't know how long this would last when we became aware of the distress nor, did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it a kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracking hostile engagement or any or all of the above. but what we did know quite early on this was a hostile action. this was no demonstration gone theirably awry. to the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. the africom j-2 was focused on attribution. the attacks became attributable very soon after the event. jenna: let's bring in kt mcfarland, fox news national security analyst and former deputy assistant secretary of defense in the reagan adminmation. i want to talk about what you wrote why benghazi matters. first your reaction to what we heard so far. >> i'm not terribly surprised. the administration never

provided adequate security. we never tried to rescue the people when they were under attack. and after the fact we covered up the reason for the attack. the question i got, who made those decisions and why did they make those decisions? were they politically motivated? did the administration decide it wasn't going to rescue americans because it didn't fit into their political re-election narrative. and after the fact when it was pretty clear that americans, you know, were under attack by a terrorist group did they ever cover up and lie about again, because they wanted to win an election. jenna: we wait answers to some of the questions that are still out there, you write everybody is still missing the big picture when it comes to benghazi. >> right? jenna: what are we missing? >> i think it was about abuse of power. jenna, ways in the nixon administration during watergate when president nixon was investigated did he use the intelligence community and did he abuse his position as president. that was a painful time. it tore the country apart. it was important to do. why? because you want to make sure the president of the united states does not use the

non-partisan intelligence community and military for his own political election purposes. >> quickly, because that comparison is being made to the time of nixon and watergate. >> yeah. jenna: in fact last night senator lindsey graham brought that up. we'll play the sound and we'll get your reaction. >> does it matter president clinton, secretary clinton, excuse me? the difference between a coordinated terrorist attack you should have planned for, closing the consulate rather than keeping it open does matter. difference between a spontaneous event, rise of terrorism a broader foreign policy failure is substantial. you can not let these people get away with it anymore than you let richard nixon get away with what he did. jenna: is it fair. >> yes it is. if intelligence community saying this isn't a terrorist attack, they didn't mention some video that caused this, but administration decided no, we don't want it to be a terrorist attack. that flies in the face of our claim al qaeda is on the ropes. let's blame it on a video.

if that is what happened and the president of the united states threw his people in the white house skew that intelligence reporting and said no, no, it wasn't our fault. it was because of a demonstration that nobody could have -- what it is president saying i'm going to use or the president's people, i'm going to use the intelligence community and military for my own political purposes. we don't do that in this country. jenna: some critics administration and supporters of administration have common ground here because of benghazi. because those groups believe that the administration believed that the video was part of the attack, regardless of what they saw through the intelligence reports. this is something that, this is a philosophy that they had believed and embraced regardless of what was placed in front of them. if that's the case, could they be guilty of incompetence but maybe not something more sinister? >> we don't know. that's why it is important i think at this point where, is it incompetence? is it something more sinister? is it political manipulation?

abuse of power in order to affect the outcome election? time for a special committee, a bipartisan special committee dedicated look into this and we'll answer the questions once and for all. was it incompetence or was it something worse. jenna: if politics is to blame, is more politics the answer? i know special committee supposed to be independent investigators but the question -- >> do you expect the administration to investigate itself? okay, justice department you look into it? we tried that in the nixon administration. you can't expect ad administration to investigate itself. it has to be outside executive branch and has to be in congressional branch and both political parties doing it so it doesn't snack what you say partisan or let's skewer the other guy. we need to step above it and say we need a bipartisan answer. jenna: even some members of the republican party have been hesitant to go down that route. >> absolutely. jenna: we'll see if this comes to fruition. one final point.

we can't forget the people that committed this attack and killed americans are still not captured. do you think we're too focused? the white house says sometimes as a deflect a little bit but i do ask that question sincerely. we know all the major players inside the white house at the time but i can't even tell you the name of one of the people that is a suspect in this attack. i wonder how that adds to this whole equation and whether or not we have our priorities straight? >> what does it say to that part of the world? kill americans, you will never be held accountable. one of the people who supposedly was a ringleader, sits in a cafe in benghazi giving interviews to the "new york times" and other places. we know where he is. why don't we go get him? too many unanswered questions. jenna: the hand is up. we'll leave it there. kt, great to see you. thank you for the analysis. appreciate it. check out by the way art he kel, editorial on foxnews.com. tune in for a on the newly-released benghazi e-mails.

white house cover-up revealed. bret baier will be host of that, saturday, 10:00 p.m. eastern time. sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern only on the fox news channel. jon? jon: we heard, jenna from some new voices regarding what happened in benghazi the night our american consulate came under attack. the new hearing still underway on capitol hill. under discussion a email from a top white house advisor. is the ben rhodes email a smoking gun and what will the political impact be? a fair and balanced debate on that question ahead. our live chat is up and running. you choose the news. what stories might we be missing? what do you want to see covered? go to foxnews.com/happeningnow. you can participate or tweet us at jenna at fnc or jon scott@nnc. [ laughter ]

smoke? nah, i'm good. [ male announcer ] celebrate every win with nicoderm cq, the unique patch with time release smartcontrol technology that helps prevent the urge to smoke all day long. help prevent your cravings with nicoderm cq. [ banker ] sydney needed some financial guidance so she could take her dream to the next level. so we talked about her options. her valuable assets were staying. and selling her car wouldn't fly. we helped sydney manage her debt and prioritize her goals, so she could really turn up the volume on her dreams today...and tomorrow. so let's see what we can do about that... remodel. motorcycle. [ female announcer ] some questions take more than a bank. they take a banker. make a my financial priorities appointment today. because when people talk, great things happen.

he was a matted messiley in a small cage. ng day. make a my financial priorities appointment today. so that was our first task, was getting him to wellness. without angie's list, i don't know if we could have found all the services we needed for our riley. from contractors and doctors to dog sitters and landscapers, you can find it all on angie's list. we found riley at the shelter, and found everything he needed at angie's list. join today at angieslist.com

could mean less waiting for things like security backups and file downloads you'd take that test, right? well, what are you waiting for? you could literally be done with the test by now. now you could have done it twice. this is awkward. check your speed. see how fast your internet can be. switch now and add voice and tv for $34.90. comcast business built for business.

jenna: house oversight committee hearing testimony this morning from a former top intelligence official on the benghazi terror attack, raising troubling new questions about the white house narrative concerning the events leading up to the deaths of four americans including ambassador christopher stevens. just real quickly here, we'll get to our guest in a second, ron fournier, senior political columnist for "national journal." jonah goldberg is with us, nationalreview.online and fox news contributor. i want to give you a lot of time. you will speak to jon, perhaps me which would be your lucky day. jon's microphone isn't working. we'll keep our fingers crossed it will never come back. no, it will come back in a second. pause for a moment. i will show everybody the briefing room. we'll talk about this. we have briefing from jay carney about five minutes. after seeing what happened with jonathan karl yesterday, the back and forth with benghazi,

there will be a lot of attention on this, jon. we'll see if there is any change of tone. >> are you able to hear me now. jenna: i can hear you. i'm sitting next to you but our guests will be able to hear you. jon: ron, along with jonah goldberg, that things happen and always seem to happen in commercial breaks. apologize for that. i want to play for you first of all some sound this morning from brigadier general robert lovell. he was in charge of intelligence in africa on the night benghazi came under attack. he said something off the bat may have changed the equation how the whole thing is looked at in the light of history. i want to play that for you right now. >> in the hours that ensued after the attack on our consulate compound in benghazi, did you hear youtube video? >> briefly discussed but not from any serious standpoint. >> you heard about this early on

and you, as the deputy and the highest ranking person that moment working these issues, you dismissed the idea that this attack was in fact a demonstration that went awry and was based on a youtube video out of los angeles? >> yes, sir, short answer. jon: so the top intelligence official covering africa, jonah, said there was really, essentially no discussion of the attack that night having been prompted by a youtube video. why did the secretary of state, why did national security advisor susan rice, why did the president continue to hammer that video every the next weeks and months? >> right. you could have a modest defense of this white house saying they thought at some point in this process that this youtube video was a big part of the thing and it was part of the story and they clung to it because they wanted to believe it was true and group think all of that i think you can say those things.

these people are human beings. on september 11th you could say that maybe. keep in mind the ben rhodes memo talking about in the press conference walling written on september 14th, 12, 24, 72 hours after everybody knew this was not about a youtube video and the white house was still putting it out there. you can give them benefit of the doubt in the fog of war at the time, i'm not sure i will, but you could do that applauseally but the idea they held to the story when everyone understood inside the administration that was no longer operative and no longer true and still put susan rice on five sunday talk shows about it. in fog of war all sorts of theories come out. days later after you talk to the intelligence community and you no longer it is true you stick to an untrue story, that is outrageous. jon: ron, three years ago, right this minute, if i'm doing my math correctly, a u.s. team of navy seals were in a couple of

helicopters heading for a compound in a baud today baud, afghanistan, where they got usama bin laden a couple hours later that was the high point and militarily and foreign relations wise for the obama administration. year-and-a-half later we have this attack in benghazi, perhaps the low point s that what prompted all of this discussion of the youtube video? i mean they just didn't want to admit they had this problem? >> let's put this in context by taking out, separating out the white house a little bit. set aside the president for a minute and foreign policy team and what they did and didn't do. let's look at communication team. their job, they're paid to let us know what is happening in government. there is is no doubt that you do not have to be conspiracy theorist to see overwhelming evidence that the communications team treated this like a political crisis and not a foreign policy crisis. in doing so they put out a lot

of inaccurate information. even when they knew the information was wrong they were slow to correct it. even to this day there is a lot of information they haven't put out including this memo, this rhodes memo forced out in a lawsuit. so what has happened, at the very least, what the communications team has ill-served the president, again, giving him the benefit of the doubt just for a second by really undermining the president and white house's credibility. you have seen his trust numbers, credibility numbers come down steadily since benghazi. because they treated this like a political crisis. they put out bad information, they didn't correct i and they covered it up and that's a fact. jon: as you point out the very redacted email about ben rhodes's role in all of this, the political advise to the president, that had to be forced out in a lawsuit and white house said, we didn't really think it was dealing with benghazi and that's why we didn't pit out. jonah you have role of jay carney in all this. >> jay carney is unusual

creature in washington. on one hand is very confident liar and other hand he is not very believable liar. usually those two things go together. he said, initially that he white house changed the exactly one word in these talking points. he is saying that these talking points had nothing to do with benghazi which strains credulity even for the biggest offenders. this memo was written on september 14th, i believe the day that the bodies were coming back and hillary clinton and went and hugged the families, telling them that we're going to go after these people with the video. the idea that somehow this memo was talking about americans who were done harm and all of that wasn't about benghazi, is the kind of thing that, even barack obama's biggest defenders in the press corps are going to have a hard time swallowing it is such nakedly unpersuasive untruth. jon: jonah goldberg, nationalreview.online. ron fournier also with us there from "national journal." gentlemen, thank you both. >> thank you.

jenna: new fallout from the keystone xl pipeline delay with energy companies looking for other ways to transport oil. what rail companies are agreeing to after a fiery train derailment. we're live with the story on that. could a senior white house advisor be in legal trouble over his benghazi email? we'll talk about that with the judge next. book any flight or hotel and if you find it for less we'll match it and give you fifty dollars back that's the expedia guarantee

jon: "fox business alert" now. the delay of the key disown xl

pipeline causing a ripple effect causing energy companies to rely on other ways to transport oil but those ways are not always safe. just yesterday oil tanker cars derailed and caught fire in virginia. this comes as the rail industry is agreeing to new voluntary regulations to make it safer to ship crude oil by rail. fox business correspondent rich edson in washington with more. rich? >> reporter: jon, government figures show march of this year to last february, there were eight significant accidents involving crude oil and that doesn't include the wreck in virginia. it cites 16 rail accidents since 2006 involving crude oil and ethanol and 16 fatalityings releasing five million gallons of crude oil and ethanol into the environment. new york governor andrew cuomo in a letter to president obama writes, new york state is experiencing dramatic increase of number of crude oil trains passing through the state by inadequate tank cars and new york and all the states subject to the crude oil boom

are extremely vulnerable to impact of derailment, fire, spill or explosion. the railroad executive whose train derailed in virginia acknowledges the need for better safety. >> we don't own the cars. they're owned by customers or leasing companies. we think improvements can be made to the tank car standards. >> reporter: these accidents and safety concerns are boosting supporters of the long-delayed keystone pipeline. if the administration approves it, the project would deliver tar sands from western canada down through the united states. supporters say cutting amount of oil companies ship by rail. the state department announced last month it would delay a decision on the pipeline pending a legal challenge in nebraska, conceivably pushing the decision beyond november's midterm elections. jon? jon: rich edson, reporting live from washington. rich, thank you. jenna: now back to our top story, the benghazi scandal today and this new ben rhodes email that could spell some trouble, legal trouble for the deputy national security advisor to the president, or so says our

next guest because with that email, written weeks before the 2012 presidential election judge napolitano says that rhodes may have violated the hatch act. now what is the half act? it's a federal statute prohibiting federal workers engaging politics on the job, influence, interfere or effect of the results of an election. only president and vice president are excluded from this act. judge napolitano is our guest. >> jenna. jenna: i don't know too much about the hatch act and how could it be relevant. >> this is fdr era piece of legislation intended to divorce 308 ticks from the operation of the federal government -- politics. particularly west wing. white house of the as you said in your lovely intro, president and vice president are excepted. president obama can conduct political activity from the oval office around vice president biden could do the same and all their predecessors could. employees federal government,

can only do government's business and not political business. jenna: is that business political? >> fdr s good politics is good government. the law is the opposite. the law is politics and government must be separated. so the president's political team, for example, and remember what was happening in this benghazi time period. it was mitt romney versus barack obama. it was the height of the presidential election campaign. it bass sent of that year. the -- was september that year. the president's political team can't have office in the west wing. they can't even go to the west wing. flip side is the president's people who work for the white house in the west wing can not go to the president's political office. they can not communicate to the with the president's political office that bring us to the ben rhodes email. one of the recipients on the email was david plouffe, who four years before ran the president's campaign this is 2012. he is working in the white house. he can't get involved in politics. if he took that email and sent

it to the campaign people and if ben rhodes sent it to david plouffe knowing and expecting he would send it to the campaign people, there is enough there to investigate for a violation of the hatch act which is a felony. meaning more than a year in jail for doing it. jenna: just to point out, ben rhodes and david plouffe at the time they were on this email were working exclusively for the white house? >> yes. now, you might say to me, well, look, the email itself and emails that surround it show great deception. your two guest, jonah goldberg pointed out tremendous deception the government engaged in, outright lies to mislead the american public to make the president look good. guess what? that is not against the law. jenna: that point was also brought up in a slate.com editorial earlier today. it says this, the email shows that the white house is engaged in a coordinated effort to cover the president's backside. that does not necessarily new. they do that every day. so how would you prove, and what evidence is there it could be

criminal? >> here's, here's the significance of this. should the attorney general appoint a special counsel to investigate the obfuscation around benghazi? is there enough evidence to believe that people violated the law by not complying with subpoenas or that people violated the law by breaking the hatch act? now in order to start an investigation you don't need absolute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. you need a standard of proof that is more than suspicion. we have with this ben rhodes email more than suspicion but we'll never get a special counsel appointed by eric holder because he doesn't want to investigate the obama administration because he is a part of it. jenna: is there anyone out there that would be able to bring that to fruition without having eric holder do it? >> here is what the house of representatives which is controlled by the republican cost do. instead of all the committee hearings like we watched this morning with eloquent political statements by politicians in the house, hire an attack dog,

somebody like mike chertoff, former secretary of homeland security, one of the best cross-examiners in the country. let hem do questions of people under oath. if they lie, you have perjury. if they don't lie and tell the truth, we'll learn you live truth. they won't get off the hooks by saying what difference does it make? she answer ad from a politician that a skilled cross-examiner would come up. jenna: thank you. jon? jon: speaking of cross-examinations, "outnumbered" is coming up. harris faulkner, 19 minutes away. what do you have? >> great way to put it. we'll continue our network's coverage of this story. not just developments of people searching for the truth about the night in benghazi. it is salient moment for people in the american public. we're learning higher ups in the government and particularly white house were thinking and doing that night. we have a smart dissection of

the facts. "outnumbered," hashtag one lucky guy. secret until noon. i saw him working out with heavyweights in the green room. jon: look forward to that, harris faulkner. next hour it happens. "happening now," we're awaiting jay carney to step to the podium in the brady briefing room in the white house. much of the controversy what happened the night of benghazi has been swirling around jay carney and some of his pronouncements there from the podium, especially the fact that these recently-revealed ben rhodes emails which were originally heavily redacted, had not come out until a freedom of information request was filed by the activist group, judicial watch. jay carney expected to step to the podium any moment now. there may be a little bit of housekeeping right off the top, but you can very much expect the white house press corps wants to know more about the white house and its feelings regarding the benghazi attack, how to characterize it as the president was running for re-election.

we expect to be hearing those questions and we will hear jay carney's answers just ahead.

jon: fox news alert. taking you to the white house, waiting for jay carney to step up to the microphones there in the brady briefing room. when the action gets hot we will, we expect to take you back there live. there are a lot of questions to be answered about these new emails that have recently surfaced as a result of a freedom of information act request showing that one of the president's top, well, he was a political advisor but also deputy national security advisor, ben rhodes, telling people in emails that the benghazi attacks, that susan rice should go on national television regarding the benghazi attacks and stress they were rooted in an internet video, not a broader failure of policy. there is susan rice making that claim time and time again on the

sunday morning chat shows immediately after the september 11th attacks of 2012. let's bring in joe trippi. former presidential campaign manager for howard dean. ed rollins is also with us, former national campaign director for reagan-bush '84 and national campaign chairman for mike huckabee's presidential campaign. both of them fox news contributors. joe, you don't see there is a big deal here, do i have that right? >> well i think it's a big deal in the sense that it confirms what most people already understood, that there was something wrong with these talking points and that, and rice went out and said things, you know, that were, that turned out to be completely wrong and, whether you believe the administration called it a terrorist attack one day after or nine days after or a month after, you know, they're saying, they have been saying now for a long time that it was a terrorist attack and they just got it wrong. what the emails don't do is help

to determine where exactly who changed the, real issues, who changed the talking points but more importantly, i think one of the things the hearings are starting to get to, what was wrong? why weren't these protected? what do we need to change to make sure it doesn't happen again? much more important than this email. jon: ed, joe used the phrase, talking points that turned out to be wrong but it wasn't that they turned out to be wrong. it seems that there was a deliberate plot based on this ben rhodes email, there was a deliberate plot to obfuscate, basically to lie to the american people from the very beginning. >> let's get to the fundamentals. we had a u.s. ambassador murdererred and tortured and three other americans tried to come to his aid murdered, murdered. we had several days before she had to go on, susan rice had to go on television. this was an deliberate attempt by the administration to put the president in the best light and not tell the truth.

40 plus years ago when i started in government in washington i was in the nixon administration and i watch ad president taken down both by his criminal activity and by lying about it. the lesson whatever it is, you don't lie about it and cover things up. this is perfect example they didn't have all the facts. they could have stood up there, we don't have all the facts. let us get the facts. we'll come to you. they deliberately weren't out and put her on five top shows, united nations ambassador, high-ranking person and deliberately led the american public. they never got out of the campaign mode since day one. david axelrod in there. media consultant. ways in the white house. i was political director to president reagan. we always walk ad careful line and never crossed that line as best i can tell. always had lawyers telling us not to. they made a big mistake here. obviously three years later the issue is bigger issue than it was at the time. jon: and what happens, what happens now, ben?

i mean, i'm sorry, ed. there has been discussion of a select committee on capitol hill but that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. why not? >> i don't think at the end. day, i think it's a complicated issue. i think one more nail on the coffin of the president and president's team not always telling truth. damage has already been done to the president for that reason. i don't think you ever get to the bottom of this thing. i think too many people are involved. idiocy of sending out email to hundreds of people across the government, the issue here is not telling the truth, the issue is protect president's position, making him look good, that is just absurd. joe or anyone around the game a long time, telling the truth is key thing. if you can't tell the truth, don't say anything. get back to the public when you capital the truth. but don't deliberately mislead people. jon: so our viewers know. jay carney taken to the podium at white house. initial questions do not happen to involve benghazi. we will take you there as soon

as he starts to talk about that kind of thing. joe, you do think that the white house had bungled the release of this information? >> oh, absolutely. look, i think that's, ed's right even if you give them the benefit of the doubt it was just a mess. you dump all this stuff out there right, like a year ago, and say, even if you had to, if it was politicized, look they were in political mode. so you wait until right after the election but right after the november election day, this email and everything. why they redacted this stuff, why they classified it, why they just didn't get this information out there and, and put it behind them or at least get it in front of the american people i do not know. i just think that was totally mishandled. there is a lot in this thing that they mishandled. jon: ed, you mentioned the nixon administration and your service in it. it strikes me there are some parallels here. i mean the obama administration was riding high on the fact that

they had gotten usama bin laden and that was happening three years ago today, as i just mentioned. that raid was just getting underway three years ago right now. and then, as with nixon, nixon was getting us out of the war in vietnam. he had been on a real high. things started to go south as did things for the obama administration with this attack coming up on september 11th of all nights, a night when there should have been somebody on watch, you know expecting this kindkind of thing. >> i go back to the point, an american ambassador who is our representative and a great american and three other people trying to come to his aid were murdered, were murdered. you basically don't, nixon shouldn't have tried to cover up a third-rate burglary. this was murder of one of our ambassadors. american public had right to know all the detail. we still don't know all the detail. to certain extent bless clinton

will on us try to run for president, needs to get this behind it and get it out as quickly as possible. our intelligence sources are all over the place. i think our country ways misled and i think deliberately misled. jon: joe, i'm sorry, charles krauthamer talking about cover-ups, called it a cover-up of a cover-up. i want to play that sound for you and get your reaction. >> this exposes a cover-up of a cover-up. the fact that it was redacted when the documents were, were asked for, and only revealed by a court order is telling you this is a classic cover-up of a cover-up. and that is a serious offense. jon: is it, joe, a serious offense? >> well, as i said, i don't, i don't know the explanation for why they did that i think that is, what they did was bungled. whether you're going to make the accusations that charles did or not, i'm not prepared to go there yet. look, at 11:15 that morning,

morell, mike morell, the deputy director of the cia sent ben rhodes an email saying this was a spontaneous event. at 11:15 that morning. at 8:00 that night, 8:09 precisely that night, ben sent his email out, remember, this was a spontaneous event caused by video, not a, you know, not a failure of the administration. so, what i'm saying is, i still don't know where that, where did the talking, where did those talking points come from? were they from the intelligence community and then the political op communicators in the white house spread, believing in them? and i don't know the answer to that but, we don't have the answer, i mean, these are legitimate questions but i wouldn't go as far as charles had to say it is a cover-up of a cover-up. i just, i don't believe that the political, that this was such a

political threat to the president that they would do that but, hey, i'm giving them benefit of the doubt where plenty of people will not. jon: ed, if it wasn't a political threat to the president why worry so much about characterizing it as -- >> first it was a political document. shouldn't be a political document coming out of national security -- whatever you want to call these people, this was assistant to the president and national security council. they have access to billions and billions of dollars spent on intelligence. they did not, either know the story or want to tell the story and at the end of the day they misinformed the american public deliberately, and putting the united nations out on five talk shows on a sunday to mislead the american public, i think is a very, very serious, and a pattern of this administration has conduct the for. jon: again, we have to remind our viewers it all came in the midst of a presidential campaign when things could have potentially gone either way at that point. ed rollins, joe trippi. >> thank you. jon: thanks. >> thanks. >> quick look at briefing room. jay carney continues to answer questions from the white house

press corps. he is answering a question right now on obamacare numbers and that has been a topic a few reporters have asked thus far. he has, we believe associated press and answering a question from msnbc, from nbc. we'll keep you posted as we hear more. we expect them to take questions from jonathan karl from abc and aggrazi, and fox news as well, you never know. we'll have breaking details top of hour two of "happening now." we have more testimony from the benghazi hearing. what a military intelligence director is saying about the attack that killed four americans. that is making headlines today. bring you up-to-date, top of the hour. with mobile-exclusive deals download the expedia app text expedia to 75309 expedia, find yours i've got a to-do list and five acres of fresh air. ♪ top three tools -- hammer, screwdriver, front loader.

happiness is a drive-over mower deck. a john deere dealer can teach tractors to anybody. [ don ] in the right hands, an imatch quick-hitch could probably cure most of the world's problems. [ male announcer ] that's how we run, and nothing runs like a deere. visit your dealer or johndeere.com/1family.

jenna: well, jon, they're still talking health care at the white house press briefing that's happening right now, so we're waiting and watching for questions on benghazi. our live chat is up and running, go to foxnews.com/happeningnow. we like chatting with you, you can tweet us @jenna fnc as well.

jon: and we both agree we wouldn't want jay carney's job, especially at this moment in time. jenna: but you reap what you sow. jon: that is true. we will see you back here one hour from now. jenna: "outnumbered" starts right now. ♪ ♪ >> welcome, everyone. this is outnumbered, i'm kimberly guilfoyle, and here today, one lucky guy with, steve doocy, and he is outnumbered. feeling pretty good about thatsome. >> i only showed up because i heard you were having lunch. [laughter] >> you came for the snacks. >> the first half hour i will have my legs crossed like you gals do, in the second half hour, i'll go that way. >> solidarity. [laughter] >> i'm starting on your side. >> he's already stirring the pot. >> i think he's up for the challenge. we're going to see if we can break him in a little bit more