what does al qaeda look like today? it's been called al qaeda 2.0. a more decentralized organization than the one that attacked us on september 11th, 2001. loosely made up of affiliates and hangers on like al qaeda and and the islamic -- allocate ka and the peninsula. al shabaab, but who are these smaller organizations? should we be concerned about them here at home? and what about the lone terrorist living in the west, quietly plotting another boston bombing. cnn national cnn analyst peter bergen oversaw the first television interview with osama bin laden in 1997. his book "manhunt" is the subject of a new hbo documentary. what do you think is the state of al qaeda today? >> the best onset of that question is what osama bin laden's own assessment of what it was. before he died, he wrote a letter basically outlining how much the drones had impacted his group. he was very aware that the al qaeda brand was in deep trouble. he was advising other groups not to adopt the al qaeda brand because it would be bad for fund-raising and attract a lot of negative

what does al qaeda look like today? it's been called al qaeda 2.0. loosely made up of affiliates and hangs on. who are these smaller organizations? should we be concerned about them? and what about the lone terrorists living in the west quietly plotting another boston bombing. cnn's national security analyst oversaw the first television interview with osama bin laden in 1997. his book, "man hunt" is the subject of a new hbo documentary. >> what do you think is the state of al qaeda is today? >> the best answer to that question was what osama bin laden's own assessment of that was. he outlined how much the drones had impacted, you know, his group. he was very aware that the al qaeda brand was in deep trouble. >> former secretary of defense oversaw the united states campaigns against al qaeda known as the fata. >> i honestly believe that we are safer since 9/11, largely, because of what we've been able to do going after their core leadership. when i first came into government, there were four key people that were largely running al qaeda. today, three

first, al qaeda.and then the world trade center is a shadow of its former self. it has become a franchise organization. in my reading of them, local concerns seemed paramount. americans aumpb forget no afghan was involved in 9/11. third, al qaeda was not crippled by magic but through the hard work of counter terrorism by many governments across many regions. fourth, the boston bombings have reminded us that the war on terror is one that has to be fought at home as well. but how to find the next group of misfits who have no background with terrorists, who might get radicalized over the internet and who will go from talking radicalism the next day to plotting one next. we can't identify every one of news perspective terrorists no matter how well we do. the people across the united states will tell you, the best to ten shl terrorists comes from their communities, which often means, in these times, muslim communities. so we need eyes on the groumpbd. friendly relations with imams and other leaders. most r

al qaeda is a shell of itself. groups must be dealt with but in the years to come not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al qaeda will pose a credible threat to the united states. unless we discipline our thinking, our definition, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight. or continue to grant presidents powers more suited for traditional armed powers between nation states. i look forward to engaging congress and the american people in efforts to refine and ultimately repeal the aumf's mandate. and i will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. our systematic efforts to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue but this war like all wars must end. that's what history advises. that's what our democracy demands. that brings me to my final topic. the detention of terrorist suspects. i'm going to repeat one more time as a matter of policy, the preference of the united states is to capture terrorist suspects. when we do detain a suspect we interrogate them. if

we relentlessly targeted al qaeda's leadership. we ended the war in iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. we pursued a new strategy in afghanistan, and increased our training of afghan forces. we unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with congress. today, osama bin laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. there have been no large-scale attacks on the united states, and our homeland is more secure. fewer of our troops are in harm's way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. in sum, we are safer because of our efforts. now make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. from benghazi to boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. we must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. with a decade of experience to draw from, no

so after i took office we stepped up the war against al qaeda but we also sought to change its course we relentlessly targeted al qaeda leadership we ended the war in iraq and brought nearly one hundred fifty thousand troops home we pursued a new strategy in afghanistan and increased our training of afghan forces we had to quickly banned torture affirmed our commitment to civilian courts worked to align our policies with the rule of law and expanded our consultations with congress today osama bin laden is dead and so are most of his top lieutenants there have been no large scale attacks on the united states and our homeland is more secure few of our troops are in harm's way and over the next nineteen months they will continue to come home our alliances are strong and so is our standing in the world in some we are safer because of our efforts and make no mistake our nation is still threatened by terrorists from benghazi to boston we have been tragically reminded of that truth we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on nine eleve

he's from the al qaeda group in yemen.his time last year he was killed by a drone trike in yemen after stepping out of his vehicle. that drone reportedly knew where to find him because of a double agent, because there had been somebody on the inside of al qaeda in the iranian peninsula in yemen who al qaeda thought was one of them but was actual lay spy working for the west. not apparently for the cia but for noern western intelligence service. the reason that we know that is why the records from 20 phone lines and associated press bureaus in d.c. and new york and hartford and congress and all these reporters' personal phones and everything all ended up in the hands of the justice department even though we supposedly have a free press in this country. when it was reported a year ago that a plot to blow up a u.s.-bound plane had been thwarted in yemen with be one of the details that the ap reported at the time was that the actual bomb from that plot not only hadn't been detonated on that plane, but the actual bomb had ended

of al qaeda around world. this is where what i'm talking about it together talking whitephilip was talking about. saying ithat i'm fits together with what about thes talking rest of the world does not think we are at war. therefore to the extent that the u.s. may use force lawfully under international law, one has to apply and human rights law paradigm, meaning that one can only target someone who poses an absolutely imminent threat. under human rights law paradigms, other international lawyers from other countries would say if bin laden can be shown to be sitting in pakistan about to launch an attack and pakistan is not willing to do anything about it, then, yes, the u.s. may act in self- defense. but there's a stark contrast between our view in the u.s. that we are at war with al qaeda where we can kill members in a matter where they are and the rest of the world perspective, which is that the united states is not in a war. there were very surprised to find the obama administration to adopt this armed confli

he believed he had found an al qaeda sleeper sell to assist him. after months of planning, he parked what he believed was a truck bomb underneath a skyscraper and dialed a cell phone number he sought would detonate the bomb. the bomb was a fake supplied by our undercover agents, and the call signaled the agents to make the arrest. last year, he was convicted and sentenced to 24 years in prison. intelligence led us to him and the combined efforts of our federal, state, and local partners help us stop him before he could do any harm. in the face of this threat, we and the bureau will continue to enhance our intelligence capabilities to get the right information to the right people at the right time, and we will continue to build strong partnerships, for these tools have been the foundation for our success against terrorism over the past 10 years. we must keep adapting to these changing terrorist threats to stay one step ahead of those who would do was harm, and we must do all of this while respecting the role of law and the safeguards guaranteed by t

we relentlessly targeted al qaeda's leadership. we ended the war in iraq and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. we pursued a new strategy in afghanistan and increased our training of afghan forces. we unequivocally ban editor chur, civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with congress. today osama bin laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. there have been no large-scale attacks on the united states, and our homeland is more secure. few of our troops are in harm's way and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. our alliances are strong and so is our standing in the world. in some, we are safer because of our efforts. make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists, from benghazi to boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. with a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard

we're going to go out and we're going to defeat al qaeda, we're going to kill bin laden, and we're going to win this war." >> narrator: that night, they prepared an operational plan. >> brennan: cofer and his people pulled together what was going to be the next step as far as going after al qaeda, going after afghanistan. and they were the ones that actually were able to bring the plans to the table first and present them at the white house. >> black: where everybody else is looking for their maps on afghanistan, we're ready to rock, ready to roll. i mean, we were waiting for the bureaucracy to catch up. >> narrator: black would personally present the plan to president bush. >> brennan: cia had already done more homework on al qaeda than any other part of the us government. and so, what they were able to do then was to put together a proposal and a timeline as far as how the cia could be the vanguard of the us government move against al qaeda. >> narrator: the cia code name for the covert program would become "greystone." >> priest: they had a matrix that they offered to the white house

lethal yet less capable al qaeda affiliates. threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. homegrown extremists. this is the future of terrorism. we must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. but as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. in the 1980s, we lost americans to terrorism at our embassy in beirut, at our marine barracks in lebanon, on a cruise ship at sea, at a disco in berlin, and on pan am flight 103 over lockerbie. in the 1990s, we lost americans to terrorism at the world trade center, at our military facilities in saudi arabia, and at our embassy in kenya. these attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. but if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11. moreover, we must recognize that these threats don't arise in a vacuum. most, though not all, of the terrorism we face

my job is to kill al qaeda. to shoulder, get with us or get out of our way. we are gathered here today to celebrate the union of tim and laura. it's amazing how appreciative people are when you tell them they could save a lot of money on their car insurance by switching to geico...they may even make you their best man. may i have the rings please? ah, helzberg diamonds. nice choice, mate. ...and now in the presence of these guests we join this loving couple. oh dear... geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. [ male announcer ] away... is as much about getting there... ♪ ♪ ...as it is being there. ♪ ♪ [ birds chirping ] away is where the days are packed with wonder... ♪ ♪ [ wind whistles ] ...and the evenings are filled with familiar comforts. find your away. for a dealer and the rv that's right for you visit gorving.com. >>> a small group of people, many of them women, were blamed. they were blamed. "they failed to connect the dots. connect the dots." if i hear that -- the washington machi

you have seen that al-qaeda has evolved but al-qaeda evolved consciously. we're under pressure in pakistan sorry we are doing to decentralize. let's promote the i fal yates in syria and mali and north africa. benghazi was less than a year ago that was also an al-qaeda operation. so it's not true to say the war is winding down. >> paul: one of the things that struck me about the speech, he never uttered the words weapons of mass destruction that is ultimate fear that one of those terror groups will get those and just have to succeed ones. >> we discussed a couple weeks ago the chemical weapons, sarin gas, release in it new york subway system, we're back to the races. biggest problems with this speech we're sitting here trying to figure out what exactly the president is saying on the war on terror. it's one thing for the american people is confused. i'm concerned that if the national bureaucracy gets confused the c.i.a. we spent so much time to get them focused on the threat. i think the president is making them wonder where their best efforts should go and t

of other al qaeda affiliates. this is an effort to accuse the administration of hiding something that we did not hide. in fact we spoke publicly about it. the ambassador to the united nations, who was the lead administration official, talking about this that weekend, spoke openly about the possibility, and every bit of informing that has come out about what we know happened in benghazi has been a result of this information provided by various agencies of the administration. this investigation in fact continues to this day, just last week the fbi released photographs of individuals they believed might be connected to the attack on benghazi in in an effort to bring those people responsible. >> when you said what you said, did you know that this had again through 12 versions and there had been extensive changes made? were you aware of that? >> always a deliberative process, always input from agencies, and what also knew was that the cia, on saturday morning, said, we're going to draft these points. they drafted those

but it's an indicator, al qaeda under pressure, al qaeda looking for targets, but al qaeda still able to move men around great distances, has planning and communications capability. it's something that should worry everybody, erin. >> absolutely, barbara. as everyone's tried to figure out where these men came from, according to the source that you and tim have been speaking to, these men were traced back, at least part of their trip to northern mali where i understand the trail went cold. what do they know about these guys? who are they? >> right. they don't know -- they don't -- we don't believe they know where they are right now, but let's go back to what you were saying. mali, of course, where you traveled just a few months ago, one of the first to look at the al qaeda threat in north africa. viewers should remember that you were pointing out a good deal of this, one of the key al qaeda-related jihadist leaders in mali, it's believed these men in the benghazi attack may have communicated with him. that goes back to the central point you now have a al qaeda network spread not just a

. >> osama bin laden and his al qaeda terrorists network are the immediate target. but the day after the attacks president george w. bush comes to the white house situation room and orders counterterrorism director richard clark to look into an iraq connection. >> when i said, mr. president, we will do that, of course, but we've done it before, and rather recently, and the answer has always been no. and it's likely to be no this time. he didn't like that answer. and he got mad. >> i was in the room during that time. and he was very adamant about perhaps seeing whether or not iraq could conduct such an operation against the united states. i was surprised when the president left the room. i said, i believe secretary wolfowitz got to him. >> paul wolfowitz, bush's deputy secretary of defense has had saddam on his personal enemies list for two decades. >> every time he survives something he sends a message to his enemies, i outlast my enemies, and if you are on the wrong list when i'm still around, you'll be in trouble. >> paul wolfowitz had become convinced that if we

we rerentlessly targeted al qaeda's leadership.e war in iraq and brought 150,000 troops home. we pursued a new strategy in afghanistan and increased our training of afghan forces we unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law and expanded our consultations with congress today usama bin laden is dead. and so are most of his top lieutenants. there have been no large scale attacks on the united states and our homeland is more secure. few of our troops are in harm's way and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. our alliances are strong and so is our standing in the world. in sum, we are safer because of our efforts. now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. from benghazi to boston we have been tragically reminded of that truth. but we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and he a involved from the way that came to our shores on 9/11. with a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask

the threat of al-qaeda is evolving. but it is not diminishing. look at the territory that al-qaeda is grabbing in the region. they are accumulating territory and what time is it appropriate to say the war is over and your enemy and gaining strength in different ways and losing strength. and gaining strength and evolving in other ways. one of the things that struck me in the speech was what was not in it. no mention what so ever of weapons of mass destruction and chemical and bionuclear. it is like the threat facing the united states was the possibility or likelihood that terrorist or states would use weapons of mass destruction and have them shared, groups would have them shared by states with weapons of mass destruction to be used on the united states. and the president didn't mention that and down played mass casulties here in the home land. i think it is a speech that people will point back to when there is another mass casulty attack here. >> he said the global war on terror is over and believes it can be managed. he did quote from the docume

is it a war and how much of it is al qaeda per se? >> well, let me begin the answer to that question by saying i think we have to be careful in characterizing our ongoing counter-terrorism efforts which are in a variety of contexts like what we see in boston now, which is law enforcement effort. like what we see in places like yemen and elsewhere. we have to be careful when talking about it as a war against a concept. i think that term works tbien if you're talking about the state of poverty or the scourge of drugs. it's a good bumper sticker to rally public support for a domestic government program. >> rose: or medical issue. >> when you're talking about a government effort that involves lethal force, that involves the national security assets of our governmentux we only go to war against nations and groups. we don't go to war against a concept. fing we get into the framework of talking about a war against a concept, we risk dangerous overreach. >> rose: however, many people make this point that in whatever the complex might be, we s

so talking points were generated by who knows that did not mention al qaeda. who scrubbed the memos? white house press secretary jay carney, dance for your supper. >> the white house and state department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of these two institutions were changing the word "consulate" to "diplomatic facility." >> stephen: wow. consulate to diplomatic facility. wow, they really have a way with the language ewen is. so the white house and the state department just changed one word. hmmmm. let me just change one word. liar. jim? >> today abc news has exclusively obtained 12 versions of the talking points showing they went through extensive edits. the early drafts pointed to evidence that an al qaeda a fill rated group took part in the attack and that the c.i.a. had warned about al qaeda threats in benghazi. >> the talking pointsham undergone 12 different revisions including extensive edits by the state department. >> 12 crafts. that's worse than a cover-up folks. that's overthinking. you have t

is at war with al qaeda. as an olive branch to critics he says the administration will consider options for making drone strikes more transparent such as an independent oversight board or special court to approve the attacks but no promises. the president ran into some trouble as he moved on to another long-snding controversy in his speech. a heckler slamming his failure to close the prison at guantanamo bay despite signing an executive director to do so in his very first hours in office. more than 100 of the 166 detainees at gitmo have been on a hunger strike for months now. before he could address that a cofounder of the group code pink beat him to the punch. >> once again, to -- >> these desperate people -- >> i'm about to address it, ma'am. but you've got to let me speak. >> you are commander-in-chief. >> let me address it. >> you can close guantanamo today. >> let me address it, ma'am. why don't you sit down and i will tell you exactly what i'm going to do. >> benjamin interrupted the president several m

what do you want. >> my job is to kill al qaeda.oulder to shoulder, get with us or get out of our way. [ speaking foreign language ] >>> a small group of people, many of them women, were blamed. they were blamed. they failed to connect the dots. connect the dots. if i hear that -- the washington machine turned on them and said it's your fault. do a line diagram and you failed to connect the dots. the dots were there. it's us who decide that we need to erase the dots. hello. they're coming at us. >> something that people don't fully grasp is how alone the cia felt in this period of time. just by virtue of the evolution of events and history, we ended up at this moment in time with kind of unique knowledge of this phenomenon, al qaeda. i think the feeling all of us had was this is on our shoulders to prevent this from ever happening again. the day of 9/11, the president pulled us together and said i want to see a war plan here. well, we had been working on this for a long time. we were ready to go. >> the challenge when you look at al

my job is to kill al qaeda.get shoulder to shoulder, get with us or get out of our way. oh, hey mike. what are you up to? oh, just diagramming this accident with my state farm pocket agent app. you can also get a quote and pay your premium with this thing. i thought state farm didn't have all those apps? where did you hear that? the internet. and you believed it? yeah. they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true. where did you hear that? [ both ] the internet. oh look. here comes my date. i met him on the internet. he's a french model. uh, bonjour. [ male announcer ] state farm. more mobile than ever. get to a better state. what makes a sleep number what makes a sleep number store different? you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you wanted a firm bed you can lie on one of those. we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. oh, yeah! once you experience it there's no going back. now save on the closeout of our classic special editio

that was also an al qaeda operation. very -- it's not true to say that this war is winding down. >> you know, one of the things that struck me about the speech, dan, was what he didn't say. he never uttered the words weapons of mass destruction, which is the fear that one of these terrorist groups will get those and all they have to do is succeed once. >> we discussed this on this program a couple weeks ago, what's going on in syria, the chemical weapons, the sarin gas, what if they get ahold of that, bring it over here, release it in the new york subway system, we're back to the races. the biggest problem with the speech, we're trying to figure out what exactly the president is saying on the war on terror. it's one thing for the american people to be confused. i'm concerned that the national security bureaucracy starts to get confused about what their job is, the cia, the fbiuch an 9/11 to get them focused on this threat and now they have a lot of things to do and at lot of priorities and i think the president is making

look, you can do nothing about let's say al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. both of those are terrible ideas. the thing in between those two is targeted drone strikes. i think a lot of people find that argument compelling. >> i think the difficulty with that argument is it assumes there's no other alternatives to nothing, all-out war or killing. >> what are the other alternatives? >> in is capture, for instance. last month there was very compelling testimony from a young man who you had on your program who talked about the fact that a recent drone strike in his village had targeted someone could easily have been captured. i don't think we're willing to take it on faith, alone, that capture isn't going to be possible. i also think that this ignores how absolutely hated the drone program already is in the countries in which it's being carried out. we're talking about claims of effectiveness, wisdom, legality. that has to be taken into account. >> josh, what do you think of that? >> i mean, i think she's true. drone strikes encouraged anti-americanism everywhere

zero as differentiated from al qaeda central. basically it involves loosely affiliated groups that have low or no formal connection to the central organization. but they commit acts of terrorism on their own initiative. and the final years of his life he served as an inspirational figure rather than an actual command. he counseled muslims that gian was an individual do for every muslim that was capable of going to war. so taking that idea one step further, a member of al qaeda by the name of obol mossad advanced the strategy of decentralization to fit contemporary conditions. shortly before he was apprehended in 2005 he released an online book called a global islamic resistance call. and in his book he proposed a strategy to of individual terrorism in which self-contained cells implemented war on their own initiative without direction from al qaeda central. he argued that it was folly for edgy hottest to fight from fixed locations because the units could be tracked and destroyed by western military forces. furthermore, he thought

then two years later, the second bin laden and al qaeda fatwa, the firs

but the president talked about al qaeda affiliates that we still had to go after.d about targeting networks that would do america harm. he said if we don't get them first, they will kill americans and i know that. so i'm trying to sort of -- i understand the republicans don't like the rhetoric because they think it downplays the threat, but what about the actual things the president said? i'm not sure i heard something that to me says, oh, he's put americans at risk. that's kind of where i was going. >> sure. and, you know, i watched the speech. you know, core al qaeda has successfully been denigrated tremendously. and that's a good thing. but i think, again -- and he does talk about the al qaeda franchises, but he sort of diminishes that threat to the homeland. and i think that's where i take issue with him because al qaeda has evolved into a franchise global movement if you will that inspires and also is very tactical. >> sure. >> we've seen, you know, egypt with the muslim brotherhood, libya and northern africa, now we're looking at syria, perhaps jordan and sau

we either have al qaeda with a safe haven or, indeed, more activity. at least, too, what happened last 9/11 in benghazi and the ongoing questions about what the united states knew about, what the administration knew, did they do enough to stop it. now now hearings coming up. new details being reported on, mr. mayor. is there something here that somehow gets to why we're more vulnerable now and whether the administration has done enough in your estimation? >> well, i don't know. that has to be investigated. i think it would be wise if the administration would kind of ratchet up its focus on this. because i think that since the capture of bin laden there's been a kind of sense that al qaeda's on the run. the threat is less. the threat isn't less. the threat is actually more diverse now and maybe even more complex. you can detect through the benghazi defense which, of course, did come about during the election, and even during some of this boston bombing thing, there's sort of a tendency to underplay what is, in fact, i think a growing and pretty dangerou

al qaeda will be with us for a long time.specifically want to point out in the president's remarks, "we must strengthen the opposition in syria while isolating extremist elements, because the end of the tyrant does in no way -- end of the tyrant does not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. we must strengthen the opposition in syria." i agree, mr. president, and we have watched the last little over two years, 80,000, 100,000 people massacred, the presence of extremist elements on the increase, a destabilization of lebanon and jordan, all the things that the non- interventionists said would happen if we intervened have happened because we did not intervene. i am dumbfounded that the president would say we must strengthen the opposition in syria when again we are banking on the goodwill of the russians and some kind of peace conference that may or may not take place next month. there is a number of other comments about the president's speech that i would be glad to go into, but maybe it is better addressed in the question-and-