mr. sanger and mr.klegman's books found "both authors were clearly given extraordinary access to key players in the administration to write their books." and that in some cases they appear to have talked to the same sources, several of their stories track nearly word for word. perhaps most illuminating in all of the articles and books is how taken together they describe an overall perspective within the obama white house that has viewed u.s. counterterrorism and other sensitive activities in extraordinarily political terms and taken on a related approach about how classified information should be handled. both approaches would have predisposed the administration to the most recent egregious national security leaks. there are plenty of examples of how the administration apparently viewed these highly sensitive matters through a political prism. in his book, mr. clagman observed that then-white house chief of staff rahm emanuel, i quote, "pushed the c.i.a. to publicize successes associated with a covert d

mr. sanger's book by thomas ricks, one of the putzer prize winning "wall street journal," "washington poste expert. in his interview, in his review in the "new york times" he says and throughout mr. mr. sanger endured great access to senior white house officials, most notably tom donilon. donilon is the chief commentator and records of events, knows all about this stuff. when gates the, disclosure of seal team 6, robert gates went to the white house and said i have a communication track. you know what it is? keep your f'ing mouth stuff. tom donilon is known for. this he's political operative, as you heard in my remarks. if you think of the george held by george bundy, the whole host of people, condoleezza rice, colin powell, this person whose job it was to be a delegate counter. a political person. >> sean: this is important. what did they know? when did they know it? this was all designed, all the leaks make the president look good supposely. >> right. with all due respect it doesn't matter who leaks it. it's coming from the obama white house. who leaked seal team six to brag about killin

mr. sanger points out in his book, he had dozens of sources. they weren't all stupid. they just weren't. by the way, again, i would like to -- point out that the information is about ongoing operations. it is one thing, as you have read woodward's books and other things that have been conclude. this is about two of our most highly classified, ongoing investigations. >> greta: what should be president obama's response to this? is there any role in president obama speaking out on this? >> i was curious that the president seemed to be more concerned about accusations of where the leaks came from than any concern about the fact that they happened. it's just -- it's almost stupefying that here he is, president of the united states, faced with two massive security breaches and his concern is whether it was leak from the white house or not. his concern should be what the leak was, who leaked it and what are we going to do to stop this kind of thing from happening in the future? by the way, they have gone after low-level operatives for leaks. now they ought to go a little bit

mr. sanger, that dozens of administration officials who were involved in this. >> democratic senator bob casey of pennsylvania is with us this morning. he is the member of the foreign relations committee and chairman of the economic committee. appreciate you talking to me. you heard senator mccain saying he thinks the administration leaking is very likely. what do you think? >> well, that's a very serious charge that's been made against the administration. i think that the proposal that senator carl levin has made, chairman of the armed services committee, to have a hearing in closed fashion makes the most sense. any time you make a charge like that, it's very serious. we have to make sure that we're resolving this in the right way. >> the fbi is investigating and if, in fact, they can figure out where the leaks are coming from, do you see potentially charges coming out of that? >> it's hard to say. i'm not going to speculate. but this charge is made in every administration. sometimes it's accurate. sometimes it should lead to accountability and sanctions, but we're -- i think we're at t

mr. sanger. and throughout, mr. sanger clearly has enjoyed great access to senior vows officials, most notably to thomas donlan, the national security advisor. mr. donlan is the hero of the book as well as the commentator of the record of events. it goes on and on talking about how these programs were so successful. and here's the problem. in the house, when a program is not so successful like fast and furious, that's embarrassing to the administration. you can't literally get information with a subpoena. so you have got an administration, an attorney general's office who is about to be held in contempt by the house for not releasing information about a fast and furious program that was embarrassing, and when you have got programs that were successful and makes the white house look strong and the president look strong, you can read about it in the paper. and all we're asking for is what senator obama and senator biden asked for in previous national security events, events involving corruption of the government. a spe

mr. sanger's book. as often happens when the president travels, there was a dinner organized with a number of other reporters and several of obama's political aides, including david axlerod, and rahm emanuel. the talk was mostly politics and the economic downturn. just as coffee was being served, a senior official in the national security council tapped me on the shoulder, after dinner, he said, i should take the elevator to the floor of the hotel where the president had his sweet, quote, we'll talk about iran, he whispered. obama was not back at the hotel when we gathered outside his suite but most of the rest of the national security staff was present and armed with the intelligence that had been collected over many years about iran's secret site, as they laid it out on a coffee table in the hotel suite. via satellite photos, the united statessed a mapped the construction of the building, useful if it ever had to hit it. it was clear from the details the united states interviewed scientists who had be

mr. sanger's book. as often happens when the president travels, there was a dinner organized with a numb of other reporters and overall of obama's political aides, including david axelrod and rahm emanuel. the talk was mostly politics and the economic downturn. just as coffee was being served a senior official tapped me on the shoulder. after dinner, he said, i should take the elevator to the floor of the hotel where his president had his suite, quote, we'll talk about iran, he whispered. obama was not back at the hotel when we gathered that evening outside his suite but most of the reps of the national security -- most of the rest of the national security staff was present and armed with the intelligence that had been collected over many years about iran's secret site. as they laid it out on a coffee table in the hotel suite. satellite -- videoa -- via satellite photos, the u.s. had mapped out the building, use ffl they ever had to hit it. it was clear from details that the united states has interviewe

mr. sanger if anyone blamed him for starting the controver controversy. >> not that i have heard.that big a difference one way or the other who they blame. the thing your viewers need to know is we report on national security issues all the time. >> we being the new york times. >> we being the new york times. when we do these things we have a pretty stad procedure. we went through it with wikileaks. before we publish anything we go to the government and say, look, here is what we have. if there are concerns about ongoing operations, lives that could be at stake, let's discuss it now before anything is published so we can deal with the issues. >> that's what i wanted to know. we have a free press. you have the right to do that. is there a place where you draw the line? say for example you had information from the administration that they were about to kill or capture osama bin laden. >> right. >> in your view as a veteran ace journalist for the new york times? would you publish that? would you write it snup. >> i suspect we would hold that story. i have been involved in stories whe

mr. sanger, chief washington correspondent of the "new york times," and he has a book that's about to be released next week. the reporting for today's story comes from his work on that book. let me show you the story on the front page we're talking about. david sanger, the byline, and here's a bit of how it begins. host: later on, it says this account of the effort to undermine the iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former iranian -- excuse me, american, european, and israeli officials involved with the program, as well as a range of outside experts. host: i want to show you one paragraph inside to get you thinking about this to join our conversation. mr. obama, according to participants in many of the situation room meetings on olympic games -- again, the code name for this -- was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the united states into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940's or intercontinental missiles in the 1950's and of drones in the past decade. host: that'

mr. sanger's book which is the subject of this controversy.er information was given to the public about the raid that took out bin laden, including naming s.e.a.l. team six, the most respected member of the cabinet, mr. gates, secretary of defense, went over to the white house and spoke to mr. done lynn, the national security adviser and said i have a new communication strategy for you, and mr. donlin said what's that, and he said shut the "f" up. so it certainly is egregious what's already happened that they've made public. it's very clear that this information had to come from the administration. it couldn't have come from anywhere else, and americans should be deeply disturbed about this betrayal of two of our most important highly classified operations, not only the american people but our allies are je sup set about it. >> let me be very direct in this question. that is do you believe in any way, shape, or form that the president of the united states who has been very tough on terrorism through the drone program, through a number of other

mr. sanger clearly has enjoyed great success to senior white house officials, most note lee to tom donalanl security adviser. mr. donalan is in effect the hero of the book as well as the commenters on the record of events. they are calling this guy out, aren't they, pet peter? >> it certainly sound like it. he would certainly have access to all the tpofrplt he i information. he is the president's right hand man. he's in all of these meetings. all that information would be known to him. whether he is the source of the leaks, the only source is not clear to me now. i think what the senators are saying makes perfect sense, i'm no not a lawyer, i'm not an investigator. as grave as these thins are i think it makes sense to have somebody independent look at the questions. bill: that's what they asked for an outside special counsel with appropriate independence and authorities is what the letter states. that camera by the way is on the senate side of the capitol building. we'll await the comment from the sevens on the republican side. you're a cia guy, you understand the leaks as well as anyone.

mr. sanger had unprecedented access. some of the stories quote the department of justice officials.s, this involves people at the highest levels of government and the pattern is clear. these stories were leaked for political purpose in my view to create an impression that the obama administration, the president, was a decisive national security leader. the reason there was no major pushback by the white house when these operations were being divulged, they liked what they were hearing and they named people. they indicated that the doctor in pakistan who helped us find bin laden. they disclosed that information. he is serving 33 years in jail. this is just a terrible situation that needs a special counsel. martha: as has been pointed out robert gates seems to be one of the people in inner circle in all of that, wants it very clear he was very much against it. in fact he, perhaps did his own leak recently to let everybody know recently that he told tom donlan to shut the blank up about all of this. he was very upset. he crosses both administrations, into the bush administration as wel

mr. sanger's book, talked openly about tom donlan the national security advisor gave unprecedented accessthe writer of the book that disclosed one of the computer virus attacks. since our last interview there have been two front page news stories in "the washington post." one describing a spy program we have in africa. the other describing the flame virus attack supposedly by israel and the united states. this happened after our last interview. we have a national security crisis on our hands in terms of leaks, the amount of damaging done. i was with the israeli ambassador yesterday. i can promise you, this is hurting our relationship with our allies throughout the world. bill: what did that ambassador tell you specifically as it relates to iran's nuclear program? >> we didn't talk about that. he talked about how dismayed he was and quite frankly how much time he spent dealing with front page news stories talking about a classified program allegedly between israel and the united states. now who wants to work with us in the future? the saudis have been under siege. supposedly in the yemen u

mr. sanger. he talked about information coming from sources other than the white house. let me be clear. our investigation will follow leads wherever they take us. mr. machen, mr. rosenstein have the ability and the moxie -- >> does not present an inherent conflict of interest? the national security adviser, for example. doesn't that present a conflict of interest because date my fat interests? -- because they might have had a conflict of interest? >> we want to look at the evidence as it develops. look at the alternative. that would necessarily mean having to find somebody and have it to staff them up and to find office space. the need is to operate with some degree of speed and as what i picked these two really good u.s. attorneys to handle this issue. >> my time is up. i presume j kearney and david axelrod are not involved -- i presume jay carney and david axelrod are not involved. what are the rules with respect to a division of responsibility or the looking at the same thing? could you tell us whether they have a valid basis for reaching the conclusion conflict of in

mr. sanger. he talked about information coming from sources other than the white house. let me be clear. our investigation will follow leads wherever they take us. mr. machen, mr. rosenstein have the ability and the moxie -- >> does not present an inherent conflict of interest? the national security adviser, for example. conflicthat present a of interest because they might have had a conflict of interest? >> we want to look at the evidence as it develops. look at the alternative. that would necessarily mean having to find somebody and have it to staff them up and to find office space. the need is to operate with some degree of speed and as what i picked these two really good u.s. attorneys to handle this issue. >> my time is up. i presume jay carney and david axelrod are not involved. what are the rules with respect to a division of responsibility or the looking at the same thing? could you tell us whether they have a valid basis for reaching the conclusion that the case does not present a conflict of interest? >> i would say on the basis of what i know at this early stag

mr. sanger. he talked about information from sources may be other than the white house. but let me be clear, our investigation will follow wherever it may take us. they have the end -- the independence and the ability -- >> but doesn't that represent a conflict of interest? they might have had access to is this a big individuals. and i'm saying, if the evidence led there, wouldn't that be an inherent conflict? courts we do not want to get into a hypothetical. -- >> we do not want to look at hypothetical. we want to also look at the alternatives. the need is to operate with some degree of haste. that is why i picked these two really good u.s. attorneys to handle this issue. >> my time is up. i presume that j kearney and david axelrod are not involved. do they have a basis for knowing that the case does not have a conflict of interest? and can you describe the two individuals? you have appointed to two, not one, but two individuals what is the division of responsibility? are they looking at the very same thing? what are the rules of engagement? could you specifically tell

mr. sanger is when they revealed a lot of information about the bin laden operation including seal team 6use and said to the national communication advisor. i have a new communication strategy and he said what the [bleep] up. when he said that to people in the white house it is obvious in the secretary of defense it is harmful to the national security. here we are. two most important covert operations going on and they are ongoing and clearly puts people's lives at risk. >> david sanger said this. with the information we got coming over a series of months of reporting, the administration knew about the reports and we held out technical information about the stuxnet at their request. >> he got information from request anonimity because they would lose their jobs. i don't think there is any doubt it came from the administration. we need to find out who and what as best we can and special counsel. >> and does the buck stop with the president. >> all presidents have that responsibility and i would think that the person most eager to get it investigated would be the president of the united sta

mr. sanger. he talked about information coming from sources other than the white house. let me be clear. our investigation will follow leads wherever they take us. mr. machen, mr. rosenstein have the ability and the moxie -- >> does not present an inherent conflict of interest? the national security adviser, for example. doesn't that present a conflict of interest because they might have had a conflict of interest? >> we want to look at the evidence as it develops. look at the alternative. that would necessarily mean having to find somebody and have it to staff them up and to find office space. the need is to operate with some degree of speed and as what i picked these two really good u.s. attorneys to handle this issue. >> my time is up. i presume jay carney and david axelrod are not involved. what are the rules with respect to a division of responsibility or the looking at the same thing? could you tell us whether they have a valid basis for reaching the conclusion that the case does not present a conflict of interest? what are the rules of engagement, and could you spe

david sanger, very important that david sanger on the first page of this piece says he quotes president obama direc directly. should we shut this thing down, quote. mrasked. listen to this part. according to members of the president's national security team who were in the room. either sanger is a terrible reporter, or he spoke to someone in that room, so that means it came from president obama. >> bob: took 18 months to write a story. >> eric: bob, he quoted the president. >> bob: it's not hard to quote the president out of a meeting. >> greg: can i make a number of very, very points. howard kurtz reminds me of the friendly cartoon turtle. you know what i'm talking about? >> eric: cecil? >> greg: i think so. leaks have an unusual conflict. rewards the reporter and potentially harms the country. go back to carl bernstein. beware of witch hunts. it makes leaks. that weak makes careers. robert redford played woodward. that's what happens when you get a leak. it makes your life. it creates a myth of good looking reporters. no one looks like robert re redford. >> dana: except for shepard smith. >> bob: in their case and in this case as the managing edit

mr. brisbane takes up national security and these are the two articles that were written, within by david sanger which he talks about cyber warfare, a cyber attack on the iranians in which subtrefiewj motoko -- subs have been destroyed. the second story, which appeared on may 29, which was really a shocker because it had president obama picking the targets for the drones, studying the biographies of would-be terrorists and saying, thumbs up, thumbs down, you shall live, you shall die. gnarly, this really royaled the senate and house intelligence committees. and they have promised an investigation and hearings and all the rest of it and the justice department has weighed in, appointing two attorney generals to investigate. in an election year, wherewhether anything will come of that remains to be seen. but what is interesting, i would like to read you the conclusion first, if i may. mr. brisbane says, did the coverage -- the two articles tell the government -- tell the public what its government is up to. does the government bill the president as the decider? probably. the cyber weapons article t

sanger on on friday, talking about his new book "confront and conceal." here is an internet -- a tweet -- let's here from june, a republican caller. caller: thank you for c-span. thank you, mr. gross. i would like to know, in your opinion, how dthe u.n. should have anything to do with the internet. host: ok. the u.n.from juene -- and the internet. guest: certain nations in the un would like for the un to have more control over the internet, because that would give them more control over the internet. they are arrayed against a group of nations led by the united states and some of its allies, who advocate for what they call, using a phrase from the previous caller, "internet freedom." that is -- as used by secretary of state clinton and others, it means the right to free access to information, the right to peacefully assemble. but the trouble with these debates so often is that terms like "internet freedom," used by people on both sides -- not only is secretary clinton out advocating for it, but that is also the banner that wikileaks was using for its choice to leak 250,000 state department cables. it makes these debates very difficult to follow and very difficult to engage