you heard from greg hicks, heard from mike rogers. this doesn't make any sense to me. i guess it's fair -- we'll have to read his book perhaps or maybe we won't read his book based on what this says, but i don't see how they can come to this sort of conclusion after all of this investigation although i hope they were well intentioned in what they were trying to do and make us all more knowledgeable about it. >> what do we know about the organization that is said to be behind this attack? does it have definitive links to al qaeda or is it association of ideology? >> i think there's definite links. that's what we're hearing from inside the government, people looking at this closely. i think there was al qaeda involved in this. i agree with the assessments made by capitol hill and what we heard from our own government. i think there were other people involved in this. libya is a mass and that is another issue here is the obama administration's involvement there. they went there and this is what we have today. we have the september 11 attack there, and today it is still re

i mean, that whole part was debunked time and time again. >> and how about greg hicks.the attack. >> yeah. >> and remember what he said when he heard susan rice on the five sunday morning talk shows. you'll remember this. his jaw dropped. >> when ambassador stevens talked to you perhaps minutes before he died, as a dying declaration what precisely did he say to you? >> he said, greg, we're under attack. >> would a highly decorated career diplomat have told you or washington had there been a demonstration outside his facility that day? >> yes, sir, he would have. >> did he mention one word about a protest or a demonstration? >> no, sir, he did not. >> so fast forward, mr. hicks, to the sunday talk shows and ambassador susan rice. she blamed this attack on a video. in fact, she did it five different times. what was your reaction to that? >> i was stunned. my jaw dropped. and i was embarrassed. >> "the new york times" piece also goes on to say that there was surveillance 12 hours before the attack but that the people that were involved with their surveillance may not have

was people getting angry like in cairo the day before over the muhammad video that according to greg hicksn libya saw it. they wanted to get away from the idea that it was anything -- that it was planned or coordinated, whether it's al qaeda or al qaeda affiliate or wanna-bes, nobody could have seen it coming. they're still fighting to get it across which is to say there's nothing larger here. you can't hold obama or susan rice or hillary clinton responsible for a sloppy protection. the only one you could blame is the late ambassador stevens. they do blame him. jon: what about the president's promise we were going to get to the bottom of this and justice was going to be done and we were going to find the people who mounted this attack? >> that promise exists still. the problem is that we attacked a country that's now run by militias in certain parts and libya has not been cooperating in every case in trying to help us get to the people like the person you mentioned who might be one of the suspects. so, you know, obviously -- and a number of names were listed in the "new york times" piece.