i was dave petraeus posture feet -- petraeus' number two at the time. they woke me up the first time to tell me about the attack on the state department complex and by the time they woke me up, they told me about the attack,. they told us that our officers on the base in benghazi had gone to the state department facility to help rescue the state department folks and that they had brought them back to our compound, where there was a second attack that our officers repulsed. then they told me everything was quiet. at that point, i went back to up a fewto be woken hours later by my staff to be told that our facility was under attack for a second time, this time with much heavier weapons that included mortars. >> what did you do? we have anid was -- instant messaging capability on ourpewter system -- computer system. i chatted with air chief of station in tripoli for about two hours. i wanted to make sure that he and everything he needed. that there was nothing i could do to help him that was not being done, and i wanted him to know i was thinking about him

>> to david petraeus. michael, i don't think you're in the loop on this, you need to be.so he handed me the current version to have the talking points. >> charlie: including the additions by david petraeus? >> yes. i looked and read the talking points and said to him immediately, this warning language has to come out. why did i say that? because i saw it as a cia beating its chest. i saw it as -- >> charlie: kind of i tried to tell you? >> i tried to tell you. i saw it as the cia saying we did our job. >> charlie: is that all that you changed. >> charlie:. no. >> charlie: what else did you change? >> so i took the word "islamic" out in front of -- it said "islamic extremists." there are indications islamic extremists participated in the attack. i took out "islamic" and was criticized for that. why did i take that out? for two reasons. the first and most important reason is we were in the midst of violent demonstrations against the united states across the muslim world. >> charlie: because of this film. >> because of this film. and the last thing i wanted to do was say any

then we go to an e-mail from general petraeus. you quoted general petraeus at the very end. i i've never known anyone who is a leader of any department or agency that was more controlling than general petraeus and yet he says frankly this is certainly not what device chamber ruppersberger was hoping to get. why was general petraeus so passive? why was he sitting back the way he was. then you accompanied susan rice to see senator graham and senator ayotte and senator mccain and the question came up about the fbi and you brought up the fbi changing talking points and later that day that had to be changed. after you leave the government you go to a firm which has as one of his principles a person in the leadership in the state department. one of those people victoria newlin seem to be worried about many go to cbs news and the brother of ben rhodes was concerned his brother is the director. you can smile and say it's all conspiracies and isolated by itself i might agree with you. this is why people have questions. so i would ask you these questions and then you can answer whatev

as director petraeus described, they were useless. you indicated that you did not know susan rice would appear on the sunday talk shows on september 16. your statement replies that you would have written different talking points if you knew that she would use them that particular day. but susan rice did use them as the spokesman for the united states government she used them to tell the american people that there had been a protest spawned by an anti islamic video. she made no mention of al qaeda. she focused on the protest. you told the day before she appeared in public that the chief of station reported that there was no protest. the public needs to hear exactly what those talking points how those talking points were created. the american people should understand your role and the role of the intelligence committee in that process. i must conclude that the white house used your talking points to perpetrate its own misguided political agenda. i believe that the white house wanted america to believe al qaeda to be on the run. thus, th

director petraeus wanted more information about warnings in there. that does not make sense to me, can you explain the motivation ? >> if you look at what i took out, the vast majority is information related to warnings. said earlier, i thought it inappropriate for the cia to say publicly that we warned of an attack coming. we also had him there that we had sent a warning cable to see no relevance of sending a warning cable to cairo to what happened in benghazi. as a way forthis cia to pound its chest and say look, we warned. therefore allaying all the blame on the state department. i did not think that appropriate. i thought there would be plenty of time to have a conversation whot what was warned and responded and how. i did not think that discussion should start publicly, that was the judgment i made at a time. >> one other sentence, "the wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in libya almost certainly contributed to the valley of the attacks -- to the lethality of the attacks." >> we did not know about the training of the attackers

you expanded and brought up poet petraeus. said to say. they have got to call petraeus and put him under oath and do the right thing with his country and tell the entire truth. the key is, you can't respect rank or service when it comes to testimony. you put him under oath and if they lie. you get them for purgery. that is the only way to get to the bottom of this stuff. we appreciate it. >> there is a big hearing tomorrow on. that and we'll watch for all of that and so what we learn when morel testifies. and they dump their 125 million obama care website that is not working and whether or not they will start all over again from scratch. we'll have that for you and also this. moments matter here. daring moments of a sailor washed over board in the high sooe sew seas. >> and why did it take gm so long in coming clean in the investigation of cars. the families of the victims now tell their story publicly. >> there is changes in the law to prevent other families from experiencing this trag doechlt it is clear that gm is only concerned with th

general david petraeus, soon to become the top commander in afghanistan, was impressed by jim's paper, so impressed he ordered it become required reading for all his subordinate commanders in afghanistan. admiral eric olson, head of all special operations forces, was equally impressed impressed andd to jim as his lawrence of afghanistan. petraeus, olson and general stanley mcchrystal, then in charge in afghanistan, plucked jim out and sent him to afghanistan to help implement the strategy. i joined jim on this incredibly promising mission. the challenge of his lifetime, to capture and document what happened. "american spartan" is the story of jim's passion for that mission and the bonds of loyalty between afghans and americans. it is also the story of our love, born out of common pain and experience in wartime and out of a shared desire to do something good for the afghan people and ultimately help staunch the shedding of american and afghan blood. what happened? would jim's ideas work on the ground with the tribes? we moved into the mud-walled hut in february 2012. at the time jim wa

then we go to general petraeus. general petraeus at the very end and i don't know anyone who is a leader in any department or agency who is more controlling than general petraeus and yet he says frankly it seems so passive. this is certainly what not what vice chairman robert burger was hoping to get. why was general petraeus sitting back the way he was when it goes against everything i saw in the testimony for a committee. and then susan rice and senator mccain and the fbi and you brought up the fbi changing talking points are later that day that have been changed. then after you leave the government beacon global and the person in the leadership in the state department. they then we go to cbs news and i believe his brother is the director of cbs news and you can smile and say it's all conspiracies and iceland by themselves i might agree with you. this is why people have questions. i would ask you questions and you can enter whatever is you want to. at what time we told the general petraeus was under investigation?

general petraeus did not know about it. it turned out these guys were dart of the taliban embe process. you know, we have guys that go with soldiers. these guys were on the taliban phone tree and they would get calls. they would say, hey, if you set a camera on this block tuesday night, something might go off. we arrested them because they were providing terrorist support to the taliban. the day before this happened, i was criticizing russia for jailing yet another round of journalists. i was going to dog, and we both talked to general petraeus, -- i was going to doug, and we both talked to general petraeus, and he was going, what the heck? government is very big. looking at a potential action and trying to connect it to something bigger is very hard. looking and saying, what if this becomes public? can i explain it? if i can't explain it, don't do it. later on, the head of strategic communication for general petraeus sat down with the hejazeera bureau chief, and said, here is what you guys were doing that caused us concern

i did not know anything about what was go g ing on with gener petraeus. and so i don't remember, i don't remember saying that there was briefings, so again, i don't remember, but as i said, i would not be surprise d if i briefed the deputies on the 13th that the attack had evolved, and i don't know exactly which ones, and you will have to ask the agency for that, but it was coordinated. >> morrel went on to claim that he changed what he called certain, quote, insignificant editorial words in the talk points before he sent them off to the president's national security council. morrel did admit that it was his e decision to ignore an e-mail from the station chief in libya. an e-mail that stated clearly and une kwquivocally that theres no protest, that the no demonstration occurred before the terrorist attack at the benghazi consulate. and this is morrel telling the committee that his analysts in d.c. had in his judgment, quote, more compelling evidence than the cia station chief and the people on the ground in benghazi and all of that before he decided that

a david petraeus, attorney general jern eric holder said the case is still open amid allegations the case is being used to silence the retired general. >> this is an ongoing investigation. i'm really not in a position to say much more about it. >> he resigned as cia director in 2012. telling fox news at the time that he worried the white house was holding the investigation over petraeus's head to keep him quiet about a wide variety of issues including benghazi. today when asked about the letter and the investigation status, holder said he could not remember key dates and facts nor comment extensively. >> is it really fair to have somebody who has been touted as one of america's grates, having this over his head for two years when do you anticipate this being done? >> that's a very good question. >> when going to be complete. >> it is a matter that is ongoing. that we are working diligently to resolve. >> do you have any idea when the president was told? >> not -- i don't remember right now. >> petraeus has spurned media requests since resigning and was most recently was in the news a

clinton. >> quickly, did morrell know about the contradiction with petraeus?> he said initially he couldn't remember and then he comes back and said no i first learned a day before the director resigned and that was pushed back again by congressman king. >> okay. we'll follow it. >> a matter of life and death for a cancer patient critical of obamacare, and just how far will some people go to get rid of toronto's flamboyant mayor? the grapevine is next. cucina mia for just $9.99. first, choose unlimited soup or salad. then create your own pasta with one of five homemade sauces. and finish with dessert. three courses, $9.99. at olive garden. ♪ ♪ ♪ millions have raised their hand for the proven relief of the purple pill. and that relief could for many, nexium helps relieve heartburn symptoms from acid reflux disease. find out how you can save at purplepill.com. there is risk of bone fracture and low magnesium levels. side effects may include headache, abdominal pain, and diarrhea if you have persistent diarrhea, contact your doctor right away. other serious stoma

petraeus described, they were useless. you indicated that you did not appear on rice would the sunday talk shows on september 16, your statement implies that you would have different talking points if you knew that she would use them that particular day. did use them. as the spokesman for the united states government, she used them tell the american people that there had been a protest spawned anti-islamic video. she made no mention of al qaeda. she focused on the protest. committeehe deputies on september 15, the day before she appeared in public, that the that of station reported there was no row test. records, the public needs, excuse me toks hear talkingwhat those points, how those talking points were created. the american people should your role and the role of the intelligence committee in that process. that the white house used your talking points to perpetrate its own misguided agenda.l i believe that the white house wanted america to believe al run. to be on the thus they needed the attacks to be in response to an

strike from an unexpected position. >> petraeus? who did that? >> fred franks. they did the long envelopment. then the flank attack into kuwait. that was easy, quick, efficient. what made it different was the enemy not being smart about how they fought us. it narrowly circumscribed political objectives. give kuwait back to the kuwaitis. >> c had a couple of things early in his career. these examples are instructed. some of the buzz words you hear now, agile, nimble, lien. all of those are important. forces, getdly to there fast. ultimately, what you have to do after you get there, that is more important than getting there fast. converte not able to that into larger success. then you have flexibility on the part of command. ifhave ian hamilton who says i change the beaches we are landing on, it will disrupt the landing plan. the alternative is to impale yourself on turkish machine guns. which they did. you can learn from these campaigns. , it is notom history going to give you the answer. >> it is easy to see the consequences. >> war is the great auditor of milit

this analyst, was he the gentleman that was that the brand stable with director petraeus on the 13th? >> senior analyst i spoke about who did the first draft on the talking points, the director of our office of terrorism analysis is a one-man and yes i believe she was with director petraeus in front of this committee. >> okay. so on september 14, i think the general -- i mean, the director was there and at 4:42 p.m. on september the 14th, officers and the cia office of public affairs deleted the phrase with ties to al qaeda. so your analyst, the one that knew what was going on, they took their analysis, used the word al qaeda, right? >> yes, sir. >> the officers who made this change stated they were trying to ensure talking points contained no information that would hinder the fbi's investigation. the same cia officers changed the word attack so this analyst that you're counting on originally used the word attack, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and it says then that he was changed to demonstrations. >> yes, sir. >> were they demonstrating rpg's, mortars, heavy machine guns, is that what the

i did not know anything about what was going to with general petraeus. >> i don't remember, i i don't remember saying that there was briefings, again i i don't remember, but as i said, i would not be surpriseed if i briefed the deputies, on the 13th, that the attack had evolveed, i don't know when ones, you have to ask agency for that, but, it was coordinated. lou: moral claimed he changed what he calls certain quote insignificant editorial words, he admitting, his decision to ignore and e-mail from a station chief in libya. and e-mail that stated, clearly that there was no protests, that no demonstration occurred before the terrorist attack. here is moral telling committee, that his analysts and dc in his judgment quote more compelling evidence than cia station chief and his people on the ground in benghazi all of that before he decided that he actual aagreeed with both views. 4 americans killed in a protest, he acknowledgeed against a video that de demonstrateors had not seen, an attack by al qaeda afilliated terrorist, who said we're on the run. >> i would if i'm looking for thec k

. >> the big news for me was the way he talked about david petraeus and he had a close relationship with. clearly he was not on the defense with the charges he made mistakes but doing it not out of political motivation because he wanted the cia to look good to not appear self-serving and trying to make him look better was petraeus. >> i am a little confused shoulddwe give them the benefit of the dow? [laughter] they cannot even keep their own stories straight. he said it was he and others that changed the talking points but we have senators saying at the time he said it was the fbi. if you're going to live be better and keep your story straight. lou: when you say it was the public affairs office change the talking points. [laughter] i am not sure how much expertise residing now but a comfortable about. great to have you here. be sure to watch redeye 3:00 a.m.. the crew will be there and i have been invited to join them. we will not explore why. [laughter] a reminder to vote in our poll tonight should military members be permitted to carry firearms while on base? don't ask lou dobbs.com c

director petraeus described, they were useless. not know susan rice would appear on the sunday talk shows on september 16th. your statement implies you would have written different talking points if you knew she would use them that particular day but susan rice did use them. as the spokesman for the united states government, she used them to tell the american people that there had been a protest spawned by an anti-islamic video. she made no mention of al qaeda. she focused on the protests. you told the deputy's committee on september 15th, the day before she appeared in public that the chief of station reported that there was no protest. public records, to hair the public needs to hear exactly what those talking points, how those talking points were created. the american people should understand your role and the role of the intelligence committee in that process. i must conclude that the white house used your talking points to perpetrate its own misguided political agenda. i believe that the white house wanted america to believe a

if we take a look at the two most recent commanders general david petraeus an who has articulated the cost of this conflict, the understanding in the region that the united states favors israel, the concept that the united states support the occupation creates great difficulty for the united states as a matter of our national security and national interest we do need to bring this conflict to a resolution. >> given the state of the relationship between the united states and israel was the u.s. bound to at least pull back from the palestinian side once the hamas-fatah reach was healed? >> reporter: i don't know if we were bound to. i think it's understandable given the close relationship, given the understand that in order for israel to make the tough decisions they will have to make they need to understand that the united states backs them very strongly. i don't know if it was quite necessary for the united states immediately to come out as it did, but i think it is wor notis and israel are somewhat isolated, and in response to this announcement, you had the u.n. the e.u. and others w

. >>> meanwhile, holder publicly confirming the fbi's investigation into general david petraeus, still open. that's more than 16 months after the former cia director was forced from office very having an affair with his biographer. republican lawmakers say the administration is purposely keeping the case open to prevent petraeus from testifying on things like the benghazi attack. >>> as search crews try to track down the signals they say they heard over the weekend, still haven't found any wreckage. but we'll talk to a pilot who says there's an explanation for why they wouldn't. that's ahead at the top of the hour. see you then. >>> coming up right after the break, we are going to have an exclusive interview with former attorney general michael mukasey on benghazi. >>> and another emotional day in court for oscar pistorius, the olympian accused of murdering his model girlfriend. what he did that drew a gasp from the courtroom today. >>> and tensions boiling over in ukraine with russia threatening civil war and now a new warning from the west. >> the united states and our allies will no

director and general. >> petraeus told us he thought she would make a tremendous president. >> charlie: you pick up the book where in her life? >> at the end of the 2008 primary with a couple of her aides making out a list, a naughty and nice list of -- >> charlie: what was the list about? >> so the list was about keeping track of who was very loyal to her among democratic members of congress and who she felt betrayed her, her aides were tracking each of these delegates along the way, and they raided each of -- rated each of them 1 to 7. >> charlie: they also took account of the fact in which there were times president clinton had done things for people and when push came to shove they were not there for hillary. >> if you look at it, bill clinton was the only democratic president other than jimmy carter who was still alive and therefore had done something for almost everybody in the democratic party and i think the clintons believed when she went in for president all of those people would coalesce around her and they didn't find that. >> reporterthat. >> charlie: is she embarrassed by

. >> stephen: petraeus, in one of those record that is came out when he was found out to be you knowlittle something-something on the side. in one of the recordings he said he wanted to be the head of the c.i.a. because that's where the action was going to be militarily. is this what he was talking about, that the c.i.a. is doing a lot of military operations that are effective in the war on terror, the army is not allowed to do? >> they're doing paramilitary operations in places where the army is not allowed to go. >> stephen: are we at war with those places once we're blowing stuff up there? >> we're in those places, sometimes not at war with those places. we were at war in pakistan but not necessarily at war with the government of pack stap. we're in war in yemen -- >> stephen: that's threading a very narrow needle there. we are blowing up people in your country, but we like you. ( laughter ). >> right. >> stephen: okay, so they're doing this mostly with drones, right? >> a lot of drones. there has been escalation of special operations missions around the globe in parts of africa.

general petraeus didn't know about it before it happened. and it turned out these were guys who were part of the taliban imbed process. we have journalists that go with u.s. soldiers when they take -- undertake an operation. these were guys on the taliban phone tree, and they would get calls that would say, hey, if you set a camera up tuesday night on this block, something might blow up. and we arrested them because they were providing material support to the taliban. the day before this happened, i had been criticizing russia for jailing yet another round of journalists, and i'm going to -- i agree with you. both talking to general petraeus and he's going, what the heck? and that's the challenge. government is very big. it's very transactional. and being able to look at a potential action and trying to connect it to something larger is hard. looking at an action and saying, okay, what it this becomes public? can i explain it? of i can't explain it, don't do it. later on, the head of strategic communication for general petraeus sat down with

my question for you involves general petraeus and his time as a director of the cia. my understanding at that the fbi went to his home and took arguments and other items. there is some feedback that the fbi is a bit frustrated that there has not been a prosecution moving forward. and,ou give me the status is there any friction with the fbi on this case? this is an ongoing investigation and i am not at liberty to say much more about it than that. i have been briefed on this matter and i did not detect any what is an ongoing matter. >> we are talking about two years later and this is still over his head. is it fair to have somebody who has been touted as one of america's great having this hanging over his head for two years? when you anticipate closing this off? >> i sat with general petraeus. he is a true patriot. >> i have to get to more specific questions. hangss a concern. it over his head and it does not seem fair to have it hanging over his head for so long. when did this happen? to his home and extracted these documents. >> i cannot comment on the ongoing investi

>> rose: let me talk about something you write about with interest and this why i think general petraeus liked and you people like me who like to read what you say. the first is revolution in military affairs. what do you mean by that? >> this orthodoxy of the revolution in military affairs, it really gained a lot of momentum in the 1990s, and it actually set us up for a lot of difficulties we had in both afghanistan and iraq. this is the idea that advances in technology, and in particular, communications technologies, information technologies, computing power, precision are you of munitions -- had made war wholly new and future wars were going to exhibit a high degree of discontinuity with all words that had gone before it. the saw. was the application of these technologies to war would make war fast, cheap, efficient, and allow us to dominate any opponent. i mean, the lpg surrounding this orthodoxy was pretty arrogant. >> rose: a lot of that came out of the gulf war from '91, did it not? >> it did, it did. >> rose: we had such a superior military force. >> we did. and i think it was a

general petraeus got a big amount of money from city university of new york. it is like $150,000. he was criticized and he took a dollar. >> he took it and harassed by students on the way to class. definitely deserved the money he would get. this is only a portion of what krugman makes. i like people to make a lot of money. >> with income equality and with ceo's of corporations when they make $25 million and the guys on the plan are making $25,000 a year it is infuriating, but what are you going to do? especially if paul krugman says if globalization is a myth we are all going to be fine. we should out source all jobs. we should leave -- give up on the manufacturing, and then it blew up in his face and he went went -- paul krugman said i was wrong. his act quote was globalization has a dark side, but i won't say no to a massive amount of money to talk about something i know nothing about. >> that was per accept tiff of you. thank you. >> thank you. >> joanne, you get paid in wine and more wine, and you seem happy or at least drunk. does it matter that krugman rails when cashing hu

dave petraeus, cia director -- >> where do you start the book?> making a naughty and nice list in 2008. >> what was it about? >> who she felt had betrayed her. tracking all of these delegates along the way. they rated each of them one to seven. >> they also took account of the fact there were times in which president clinton had done things for these people and when push came to shove, they were not there for hillary clinton. >> bill clinton was the lead democratic president other than jimmy carter who was alive and therefore had done something for almost everybody in the democratic party. i think the clintons believed when she ran for president that all those people would coalesce around her and they did not feel like people fell them loyalty. >> is she embarrassed about the list? >> i get the sense that president clinton does not like that being out there. in 2010-2012 election cycles, he went after some people on that list and try to beat them by supporting their opponents. >> and finding himself on the opposite side of president obama. >> eve