petraeus didn't feel it was that egregious.e felt that what the president had decided was implementable. in fact, he turned around and got on a video conference and said we will execute. so there was friction in that he had made recommendations. the president asked him for another recommendation. he went back to his troops in afghanistan, a very small group of leaders, actually, and came back with a recommendation that he felt was viable. so there was tension, but i think if anything, it was healthy tension. the national security council and the president's national security team should debate these issues. there are a lot at stake, but there are a lot more issues at stake beyond the war in afghanistan, the economy, many more factors came into the president's decision making. one thing we really show in the book is the arc of their relationship over time. in 2009, i would say it was the military versus the white house. that was the perception, anyhow, in some open sources. but the military leaders didn't feel like they were box

the education of general david petraeus is cowritten with vernon low. also with me is jeff glor special correspondent. happy to have paula broadwell here at this table, welcome. >> thank you. >> charlie: he has interview general petraeus before as i have and as many journalists have. tell me about the connection here what you intended to do in the dir dissertation that resuld in the book. >> i wanted to use him as a case study somebody like a maverick within the institution can galvanize institutional change. i wanted to see his specific role to change the counterinsurgency doctrine how he changed the training and equipping of the forces. i proposed to him he would be one of several case studies and he agreed. >> charlie: how is he different. >> i think he's willing to take an idea from anyone whether it's private or someone from the think tank or private sector or press. he's a voracious consumer of information. he does teleskyping. using e-mail for to reach out, he would go on battlefield circulations to meet with young leunlts and captainleunlts andl

every other general is trying to be petraeus. general petraeus had never been in "rolling stone puzzle why not give that a goat? the danger for general mcchrystal, which i did not realize, is that general mcchrystal had been warned by the white house not to do any media after he was in trouble for a "60 minutes" interview, and criticizing the vice president publicly a number of months ago. there was a risk of doing any media at the time. they were pushing the envelope. tavis: i wonder whether you think general mcchrystal -- i do not want to us whether he regrets what happened. i suspect he probably does. to your mind, is there anything he said to you that he now regrets? >> i am not sure. it is interesting. since he left that job, or was asked to leave, or was fired, he has done well. he is at yale. he is on a speaking circuit where he get $60,000 a pop. he is on a number of boards of powerful companies. and he has been asked this question, and he has given joking answers. once he joked that "i would have fired myself several tim

general petraeus i have three questions. my chief concern about afghanistan is the safe haven in pakistan and my questions are these. first, do you anticipate any change in the status of the sanctuary that the insurgency finds in pakistan, and second, if we can't expect there is to be much of a change in that safe haven, for the taliban insurgency, can we reasonably expect that the afghan forces will be able to defend against an insurgency that enjoys that safe haven once we draw down our troops, and finally, should afghan special forces be allowed to take the fight to the enemy leadership in pakistan, and the sense of immunity from risk, that the senior taliban leadership enjoy in pakistan? >> well first of all there's no question that there are elements in pakistan that have enjoyed sanctuary, and that cause major problems for afghanistan and for the afghan and coalition forces that are seeking to provide security to enable the development of the new afghanistan. having said that, there's also no question, but that our pak

general petraeus knows about this.he question of use of force in a speech that was given by mr. coe, harold coe, the state department lawyer. let me note at the beginning it is a matter of public record that the intelligence community sometimes takes direct action against terrorists and this direct action sometimes involves the use of lethal force. as you know director coe gave a speech outlining our policy with respect to various terrorist groups. he talked about detention. talked about the use of unmanned drones. and noted that under u.s. law, the use of force against terrorist groups is permitted by congressional authorization while under international law it is permitted by america's right to self-defense. but in spite of having asked about this on a number of occasions and general petraeus, you note that i too share the chair's view with respect to your working with us here in this committee and your being forth right i have not been able to get a answer to this specific question and i would like to know whether t

general petraeus you have obviously the most recent direct involvement here. maybe we ought to start by just asking the question, is there a good reason for us to be in afghanistan with military forces that are fighting and dying and if so what is that cors? >> let the ask general petraeus to speak to that. >> there is indeed one important reason. we are still there for a very important reason and that is to ensure that afghanistan does not become a sanctuary once again for al qaeda or other extremists that they can dot wha they did prior to 9/11 which was to plan the 9/11 attacks on that soil. soil. if i could i might want to clarify a couple of points as well that you have touched on here briefly. before doing that though i actually would like to address the committee as a whole and the chairman and ranking member and thank you as well for your recognition and the intelligence community who have indeed as you noted been part of some very important progress against extremist and others, to thank you for your support of those men and women in a hole for 80 dif

director of the central intelligence agency, david petraeus. director of the defense intelligence agency general ronald burgess. director of the federal bureau of investigation, bob muller. director of the national counter terrorism center matthew olson. assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, phillip goldberg and undersecretary for intelligence and analysis, at the department of homeland security, karen wag anywhere. thank you all very much for being here. we will now take your statement director cham bliss and then go into a period of questions. excuse me. director clapper. and we will then go into ten-minute rounds based on the early bird rule. director clapper, welcome. >> well, i take that as a compliment. so thank you. >> good. >> thank you, chairman feinstein, vice chairman chamblist and members of the committee for inviting us to present the assessment. these remarks and our statement for the record reflect the collective insights of the contrary men and women of the united states intelligence community whom it is ou

somewhat infamous around the world because in the wiki leaks cables it was revealed that general david petraeus who at the time was the centcom commander

and general petraeus. and the ongoing concern about iran and interests threat of nuclear weapons. >> with respect to afghanistan, has the i.c. changed or amended their analysis as to the capacity of the karzai government to control their country over the last couple of months that would have given rise and kmoirks davii know, da said overanalyze. have they changed that? >> again, look with respect, congressman, i think it was a startling overanalysis not necessarily a startling statement. if you go back and read what he said. sir, if i do, this is exactly in line with the policy that we started back in the summer of 2011. transitioning leadership and progressively complete it by the end of 2014. >> i understand, david. it's attributed to leon he would have all troops out by 2013. >> he did not say that. he said all troops out, i think, withdraw forces by the end of 2014. of course the president has stated and during security relationship that would indicate some would continue beyond that. as have the lead

was heralded as being the one behind the surge in iraq and nobody wants to question general petraeus anymore but then he goes into this entire breakdown of exactly what it was and the transformation that we saw in terms of the internal conflict in iraq right and the sunni. insurgency or the population deciding to work with u.s. troops do you feel like that's a part of the story that's often i'm told or not discussed. i agree their whole myth of iraq needs to be examined separately that's part of this that there was so much momentum coming out of iraq with general petraeus and his crew saying well we can cure this using the same basic tools we use in iraq it's just not so and frankly i was insulted when i first started talking about the idea of doing an afghan surge which was very similar to the iraq surge because it's really apples and oranges so what we've got to consider here is the fact that we have a lot of people invested in the lie and that's what this that's what it comes down to you have senior generals who have now banked on their career their future on a lot and once you're

advising petraeus on how to fight and win a war against iran the officials say davis also asked petraeus to help him skip a rank and get promoted to brigadier general so he could help shape the strategy for a war against iran tony i mean how do you see that right what does that have to do and where did that come from is that a smear job well let me let me answer that question direct as my own experience when i was doing most was employing an able danger which had to do with three nine eleven intelligence regarding. the nine eleven attacks they were coming down on me because they claim that i did save convoy operations in afghanistan so how do you i'm sure you've come where operations in a combat zone. that's how loony they get so they will put out there anything they can they think will do discredit the individual making the statement this is typical of them i would expect more to come in some point in the very near future but said the media to you know talk to anonymous officials and put this kind of stuff into the story rather than perhaps i don't know asking danny about it himself let

thank you petraeus too let me start and then ask director mueller and petraeus i think we all share youroncern not only as leaders of the intelligence community that as american citizens about the threats and issues that confront us in this hemisphere. and obviously we've been focused on other things with foot to wars and all that sort of thing when we come problems right here in our own backyard. i think you're mentioning of columbia and director petraeus was just there and did a remarked success or from the intelligence perspectives and partnership we forged with the colombian government. we are extrapolating the lessons learned from that in other places not only mexico. i think it also shows that this is a long hard slog and once a country is willing to partner with you what some of them are, then the work begins. what concerns me is the work in south africa as a highway fuel for the drugs allin north word, and even as we draw down and try to bring more resources to bear, which we can talk to perhaps in a closed session about with the u.s. can do for the partner nations, and i think d

i remember reading an article about -- i believe he worked for general petraeus in iraq, and he said, when the u.s. first arrived, we saw them as liberator. but over time we lost faith in them and it became problematic. to me, keeping trust and respect and confidence of the people of libya in nato was truly important. because we didn't want to do that. the u.s. saw general petraeus working for the army camp and after that, we said let's not have to go through our hearts and mind. let's operate it from the very start and work throughout. the second example i talk to people, and plenty of examples whether it's in iraq or the balkans, especially in serbia, is if you break things, you'll have to rebuild them if you want the country to run at the end. so for us it became important not to touch any of the oil infrastructu infrastructure, the medical infrastructure, the electricity, the water, all of those important networks to keep this country together. by christmas this year, libya was able to go back to around 60% export of its oil. it's not about oil, it's about having a nation that can

this from general david petraeus, the head of the cia saying it was a startling overanalysis of secretary panetta's comments, not a startling announcement. leon panetta was en route to a ministerial meeting in brussels where ministers support the idea of the u.s., france and other nato allies beginning to transition from a strong combat military role to a support role. the head of mf global's chief risk officer, one of the senior executives for that company, told congress today that he did not -- that he sounded the alarms about the firm's risky wagers on europe and he did so just a few months before he was let go. the story from mf global will be coming up later in the program. that's a company that lost an estimated $1 billion and members of congress asking a lot of questions, the former head of mf global is jon corzine, former senator from new jersey and a former governor. >>> the obama administration has more than doubled to about 21,000 names its secret list of suspected terrorists also banned from flying to or within the united states. the ap pointing out that list includes about 50

general petraeus, i have three questions. my chief concern about afghanistan is a safe haven in pakistan, and my questions are these. first, do you anticipate any change in the status of the sanctuary that the insurgency finds in pakistan, and second, if we cannot expect there will be much of a change in that safe haven for the taliban insurgents a, can we have reason to expect that the afghan forces will be able to defend against these ones we draw down our troops? and finally, ensure the afghan special forces be allowed to take the fight to the enemy leadership in pakistan and the sense of community from risk that the senior the taliban leadership in join in pakistan? >> well, first of all, there is no question that there are elements in pakistan that have enjoyed a sanctuary and that cause major problems for afghanistan and for the afghan and coalition forces that are seeking to provide security to allow the development of the new afghanistan. having said that, there is no question that our pakistan partners have confronte

to suffer religion i'm a see issue here i think one of the other things that's going on is david petraeus has actually been less gung ho about targeting then leon panetta ahead of him before him with the cia and so one of the you're beginning to see interesting leaks coming out of the cia as well because david petraeus isn't giving the counterterrorism center kind of carte blanche to go bomb whoever they want to bomb so we're getting leaks anyway and this report i think is an important part of it but i have read the quote that you raised you know were al qaeda sympathizers if we asked pakistani journalists and locals to help put names to the people who've been hit me strikes. you know that they're obviously trying to push back and ensure there won't be any independent checking of their records in you know possibly in anticipation of them becoming slightly more transparent with it so it's really important to have that independent reporting out there i had to read that just seems ludicrous and i was assuming that you probably agree i hope that you agree that now you have anonymous of course

going forward how is that affected by what is developing in pakistan especially now with general petraeus there's the review of our relationship that has come to ray within the pakistani government of the parliament and then secondly, the trust about imposing taxes on the transit by materials with hours and nato from the ports and the roads to afghanistan. so this is deeply troubling and i don't know if this is a new normal but how does that affect our situation in afghanistan? and how is it that ever changes the dynamic in afghanistan? >> well, that obviously has a profound impact on afghanistan and the prospect for the successful resolution. that's why that is a way of emphasizing the importance of a positive relationship with the pakistanis and getting into the policy outside of the intelligence, but it's crucial that our dialogue proceed and that we find some way of converging on that issue as well and particularly with respect to the safe havens. pakistan is -- pakistan is a very proud people and they felt their sovereignty was a salted and they brought about read and of course the r

general petraeus made a modest recommendation. the third is iraq.d a sizable force to stay? iraq, 25,000. there are no forces staying in rawrk. so three major decisions and three disagreements between the president and generals. megyn: is it unusual for the president to say no to the generals? >> it's very unusual given this kinds of war. i think it's quite unprecedented. megyn: general king, thank you for your service. the prime minister of canada is traveling to china and in three minutes we'll show why that is bad news for every american who drives a car. stay with us. if you're one of those folks who gets heartburn and then treats day after day... well that's like checking on your burgers after they're burnt! [ male announcer ] treat your frequent heartburn by blocking the acid wi prilosec otc. and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. prego?! but i've been buying ragu for years. [ thinking ] i wonder what other questionable choices i've made? [ '80s dance music plays ] [ sighs ] [ m

agree with the pronouncement and the general most associated with the war in afghanistan, general petraeus, was asked on capitol hill and he downplayed the pronouncement. >> i think it was overanalysis not a startling statement if you read what he said. if i could, this is exactly in line with the policy that we started back in the summer of 2011, transitioning leadership to afghan forces and progressively completed by the end of 2014. >> general petraeus is trying to say that they are going to do in afghanistan what they did in iraq, a lot of, we have heard a lot of that in the pentagon but the problem is the situation in iraq isn't going that well right now and critics are saying that, again, this is, really, it is risky project this to the taliban when they are trying to negotiate. >>shepard: no u.s. combat forces will be fighting after 2014, that is it. >>reporter: the pentagon said that is not true and senator panetta said combat would end in 2013 but a spokesman for the pentagon said there could be fighting after 2013 so there is a contradiction. the military serving in afghanistan a

with a respected director petraeus, he's a patriot and he has demonstrated that not only in his military career but taking this assignment. this is not only an act of patriotism -- he did not need to do this for his reputation or his career. he deserves our praise, not these nameless, faceless attacks that frankly have no basis in fact either. my experience is i have been quite pleasantly surprised at how open the intelligence community has been with this committee. quite to the contrary of this report. director mueller, thank you for agreeing to serve another couple of years. that is also an act of patriotism and is very much appreciated at this time of threat to our country, to agree to take on additional years of service deserves our public praise. we thank all of you. i cannot neglect mentioning mr. olson because his parents are from my home state and i know them well. we're very fortunate to have people of that quality and character serving. i would like to ask each of you in turn, since this is an annual meeting, what is your assessment of whether or not we have made progress in ou

general john allen who took over from dave petraeus, superb officer.roops, contractors putting their shoulder into the mission. major takeaway for me, there is a general sense that u.s. policymakers will not see the mission through. there is a lack of confidence in it. that is disturbing, it's driven by the fact that pulling the surge forces out over the objection of petraeus. we didn't leave any forces in iraq which were over the objections of general. that has not been lost on leaders in afghanistan whether they be afghan leaders or international community leaders or american leaders. with all that said, we have made a major turnaround in security in afghanistan. improvement has been dramatic in the south and beginning to do the same thing in the east. >> liz: i hope we will give our commander is on the ground and troops the support they need. thank you again for your service to the country. thank you for being with us tonight. >>> coming up, time to hold the mainstream media accountable for outrageous bias and later sean sat down with steven baldwin

friends like jedd and karen and so many of the hundreds of volunteers over the years who put this petraeus together. as -- to put this tree together. as he said, all of you are welcome to submit your wishes as to how we can become a better city, better state, better world for everybody. it is quite appropriate that we join so many friends who have been here for years to have done this, people like donna and peter, rita, linda, veronica, and josh, all of you who have been here for many years to join us in putting this tree up and making is so meaningful. there are over 7000 wishes that we have on on this tree in the past, and we want to exceed that. we know, and it has been significant that the world rainbow fund it exists not only here in san francisco, but is significantly house owlet -- in our lgbt queue community center, and that they have represented such commitment to make sure that we become a more tolerant and more expressive city and a more diverse city. i want to also thank the great choir that you just heard today, our san francisco boys choir. wasn't that a wonderful presentatio

general petraeus, head of the cia, says that the comment that leon panetta made is being over analyzedting out early or not? >> i think we are getting out early and obama seems determined to do eight or reonally, there was a report of that captured taliban. that taliban thinks they are winning. >> it gave it mitt romney a big club this week. >> we not going to sleep with a -- going to leave with a " mission called the" banner. if we are leaving in 2013 whose brother sister wife is going to be the last to die in this withdrawal? i don't see the policy objective rightow. >> we will never know ife poured the resources of iraq and afghanistan we could have "won" and left, but we are learning the lesson ever great power has learned -- >> young americans there right now -- >> "washington post" editorial on this ended on that sentiment is we are going to withdraw in a year, whwhy are we having soldiers dying now? clearly, withdrawing next year, and even speaking of releasing the worst of the worst of the taliban fr guantanamo as a sweetener, we are obviously embedded in afghanistan. if we are