presidential candidate, we talk about the future of foreign policy with zbigniew brzezinski, david ignatius, michael mazarr and general jim jones. >> i quite agree that my judgment is that much of the world wants u.s. leadership, they don't feel comfortable without it, but they no longer react to any dictatorial or any due toarls from us. they want to participate but they also want to be listened to. >> i am not even sure where the word leader hip is a good word to describe the role america should play in the world. we should be playing the stabilizing role. we should be organizing our coalitions, we should be a source of stability, but when we talk about leadership, too many people think of the iraq and 2003, which was a fatally bad exercise of leadership. >> rose: we conclude this evening with dexter filkins of the new yorker magazine who has a remarkable story about death in iraq and reunion in the united states. >> the i interviewed a guy in the peace, a psychiatrist who used the term moral injury and he said a lot of soldiers and marines stuff from moral injury, which he described as s

joining me now to discuss this are two foreign affairs columnists, david ignatius of the "washington post" and trudy rubin of the philadelphia inquirer. trudy, let me start with you. are you surprised first that foreign policy seems to be getting more attention now even before tonight's debate? >> well, i think the republicans and mitt romney have done a good job politically of revving up interest in this benghazi affair and making it look like a mini-scandal. unfortunately the whole way it has been handled blows it up entirely out of proportion. i do think politicizes it and avoids dealing with what might be real issues underlying benghazi. this was a mid-level bureaucratic issue in the state department, providing embassy security. it's not something that rises to the level of the white house. and the question of who knew what when is rather weird given that all our personnel were pulled out of benghazi. so there was no one to give information on the ground. it took several days for the intelligence agencies to really figure out the whole picture. so the focus has been totally disto

h >> brown: trudy rubin, come back to the issue that david ignatius brought up. the larger question about america's role in the world which will be on the table tonight. the kind of questions, yout. kn, the idea of american exceptionalis wit what is our strength and weakness? what shouldwhe be projecting? we heard romney talking about shaping history, leading from behind. all of that. what do you want to hear on these issues? what's the way to frame them tonight? >> i think when one is looking at what romney has said ande alking aboutal shaping history one has to look at a middle east that basically is no longer simply marching to an american tune. romney has portrayed the region in terms of the forces of good against the forces of darkness, specifically islamists. but it's much more complex than that. the question is can we shape entirely? is there more we can do? both candidates say they support democracy but democrcy has ledas to elections in egypt and tunisia that produced islamists. i think romney hasn't squared that circle. if you go for democracy and you g

and "the washington post's" david ignatius. first up, we're staring down at the wind tunnel now but historic perfect political storm in the coming nine days of this campaign. and these closing days when we played out in mind games on both sides. the president saying he jist wants to hold on -- he just wants to hold on. >> what we have is a lead that we've maintained throughout this campaign. and we are going to just continue to drive home the message that there are two fundamentally different choices in this election. about where we take the country. chris: and he's on the air with a fear factor ad. >> 537. the number of votes that changed the course of american history. >> florida is too close to call. >> so this year, if you're thinking that your vote doesn't count, that it won't matter. well, back then, there were probably at least 537 people who felt the same way. make your voice heard. vote. chris: mitt romney's mind game is to call heavily the new change agent. and inviting voters to hop on the winning train. >> you're se

david ignatius columnist for "the washington post," david corn an nbc analymsnbc analyst the author of47 percent." has susan rice, the ambassador to the united nations, when she went on "meet the press" five days after the assault on the consulate, was she speaking on the level with the best intel she had? >> amazingly enough, because she has been attacked so stridently for her comments, she was stating almost word for word the talking points the cia had prepared the previous day, september 15. i know that because i was given by a senior intelligence official a copy of those talking points, and they included the phrase that she got hammered for about the spontaneous inspiration for the benghazi events being what had happened to cairo. that view was revised a little bit since then, but what's amazing, a month after these events is that our intelligence analysts still aren't sure exactly what led to that attack on the compound in benghazi, and if mitt romney tries to claim otherwise, he's going against our most senior intelligence people. >> well, governor romney seems to be making the p

i will read from david ignatius in the "washington post" today. the currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the u.s. embassy in cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the u.s. consulate and subsequently its annex. there are indications that -- there are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. nbc news has not confirmed this, but certainly, the more you get into this, which yes, has been complicated, i do not think white house messaging has been particularly transparent on this, but there is a cia assessment that suggests that susan rice was not obfuscating. >> right. nbc news hasn't confirmed but david ignatius is a fantastic reporter. when he had this column out i think it was saturday, talking about what susan rice said on the sunday shows was directly from cia talking points from the day before. here's the thing. when it comes to politics, it's all black and white. good versus evil, you're right, i'm wrong, the whole thin

joe klein, katty kay, david ignatius and don't forget to like us on facebook and we'll ignatius and don't forget to like us on facebook and we'll be back here next week.

. >> look at the article by david ignatius. he puts on the record the c.i.a. posting, the information they sent to washington, after our embassador and others were killed. they said, they believe it had something to do with the video but they would gather the evidence to be sure. then of course over the next few days more information came in. that was an indication the fog of war as they say was operative in this situation. what i find hard to accept, i have to disagree with senator graham s this notion about the president's foreign policy. the president has been a strong and steady leader. we have responsibly ended the war in iraq, we're going to end the war in afghanistan. osama bin laden is moldering in a watery grave and we've put enough pressure on iran with the sanctions regime that they want to sit down and talk. these all positive developments moving toward a more stable world when we faced threats of terrorism every direction. >> senator durbin, i hate to interrupt but we're running out of time. if -- your quite right, there is said thishat the c.i.a.

joining in that conversation as david ignatius one of the former strategic thinkers and his own right. a columnist for "the washington post" david is a renowned writer of fiction and nonfiction in the blood money published last year his most recent in the best selling works of fiction. he's known for his command of international affairs and his insight in the workings of government and other actors. with these gentlemen we are poised for an illuminating conversation about the world, the future and the revenge of geography. bobbit and david, over to you. >> i think you're probably not supposed to see the serious moderator by but i love this book. it's ridiculous how many yell will post its i've put in it. i'm not just doing it to flatter the teacher because i really like it and i want to try to walk the audience through this or have him what the audience through and i would like to start with a provocative opening comment. you said my reporting of for three decades convinced me we need to recover the sensibility of time and space that has been lost in the information age's when they da

>> look at the article by david ignatius.puts on the record the cia's posting, the information they sent to washington after our ambassador and the others were killed and they said, they believed it had something to do with the video. but they were going to gather the evidence to be sure. and, then, of course over the next few days, more information came in. that was an indication that the fog of war, they say was operative in the situation. and what i find really hard to accept and disagree with my friend, senator graham is this notion about the president's foreign policy. the president has been a strong and steady leader. we have responsibly ended the war in iraq, we are going to end the war in afghanistan, and, al qaeda as a shadow of its former self and usama bin laden is mold derring in a watery grave somewhere and we've put enough pressure on iran with the sanctions regime, so they will not develop a nuclear weapon they want to sit down and talk. these are positive developments, moving us toward a more stable nation, mo

. >> this is interesting to see from david ignatius saying they need to answer this now.stions, why we have folks who were there saying that requests for backup were denied by the cia which the cia denies. and saying we also need to ask why the united states didn't send armed drones or other assistance to aid those under attack in benghazi immediately. your thoughts. >> megyn, we have got an election coming up and there are two things the american people are entitled to. one is competence and the other is honesty, and we don't seem to have gotten either one in terms of this horrible event. in the leadup to it they denied requests for protection. that was testified to before congress. instead of adding pro folks our embassy, and to libya in general, it was denied. notwithstanding the british was attacked and the red cross was attacked. then in the event itself there were requests for assistance when people were told to stands down. and the cia has said specifically that they never told anybody to stand down. secretary panetta says he gave an order directing the armed force

. >> steve: david ignatius, op ed writer at the "washington post" which leans to the left wrote thatbe a good idea. to be clear, you say this president has either committed a massive cover-up or is not qualified to be commander in chief. those are both bad! >> well, maybe a combination of both. but when you look at the warnings, the two attacks on our consulate, the warnings by our ambassador, chris stevens, the last message he wrote before he was murdered was talking about the security requirements that were necessary. why didn't the president of the united states know with it? maybe it was one of the briefings that he didn't attend. but the point is the president should have known about it, action should have been taken. then during an obviously there is information that the c.i.a. people were ordered to stand down three times and then afterwards, of course, that's really where i think the people are infuriated. to go out and say something that was totally false, totally false. there was no mob. there was no demonstration. and these surveillance information that you talk about both