it became tied to the cia. and most importantly, the covert action unit was formed until 1948, a year after both organizations were up. and the other thing well, why were they so interested in why did they connect nsa to cia? the short answer is why were they interested in students? the soviets were interested in students. and the soviets had backed a large international organization of students founded in '46 in prague. and the united states at that point had no national, nationwide body that could claim to speak on behalf of all american students. and so regardless of the many different political tendencies that were on campus they all agreed that they should form a national student association. but it was characteristic that it was liberal, it was the same conundrum that the editor of "ramparts" faced what did the cia want -- as i think he memorably said -- with a bunch of long-haired hippies? so nothing to distinguish -- and that's an important thing to distinguish between liberal anti-communism and the joe

. >> host: that ties into your early >> in "escape from the cia: how the cia won and lost the most important kgb spy ever to defect tothe u.s." i reveal how outrageously this cia traded a russian defected to the cia with all kinds of secrets that they had this attitude that these defectors are inherently treasonous, can't be trusted. and sure enough he believed was his mistress, he decided to go back to the soviet union and sure enough the soviets even though they knew he had defected, he had not because it would show they would strip it for trusting him. that was an example of the cia can be really screwed up. so this was during a the cold war. it was a little scary. the kgb would follow me and look for bugs in my hotel room. he would lie about almost everything but it was still interesting episode. >> host: en e-mail from brian. ten years ago i applied for a special agent john that the secret service i was successful through several steps until the polygraph after which they rejected me, left me with a poor impression of polygraph which i consider to be thoroughly pseudoscientifi

the cia are the collectors of last resort. if you cannot get a piece of information, you call on the cia to do that. and, you have to have very clear goals on what you are trying to collect and how you have a perspective. right now, as the number of threats to our country are increasing, we have to have more intelligence. one of the problems with the fight against isis in syria and iraq, we do not have enough on the ground human intelligence. part of that is because we do not have enough people in the region. that is something where my good friends, ambassador ryan crocker , i think he is one of the test things the foreign service has produced. now he is running the bush school. he says you need wingtips on the ground to prevent boots on the ground. i would be aggressive, in hard places. we would have clear collection priorities. host: having spent time in yemen, afghanistan langley what worries you the most as a member of congress? what should americans be concerned about? rep. hurd: the micro actors having macro impact. this

another reason is with inside the cia, that is the one book as i understand it that the cia recommendsnd new employees even though the book came out years ago. the book on the one hand goes into their foolishness and plots, lack of understanding of the need to and cover real espionage and malfeasance and told john martin the person i mentioned before will not put up with that and start prosecuting cia officers, but on the other hand it goes into how they really work. it is not like homeland. and that is why i think it is important for new employees to learn these lessons, same with the fbi, to know what was wrong without a lot of misinterpretation to understand very clearly that hoover was not someone to be admired as many agents did because he did abuse american rights, he did black male members of congress and presidents even though he also did a lot of good things. those are all lessons i hope as i write the books will be inculcated within the management within the employee work force and that has happened. >> host: george in tennessee. you only have 20 seconds. >> caller: a great p

and yet always in the press is the cia the fbi the immunization. and not one of these has ever been part of this, meaning something illegal and they have very good reasons for the collection of data that the nsa is engaged in. that is how they stop the plot. and of course knowing these people, seeing how they work, going out to the secret service training facility learning how they train agents. [inaudible] filling in any mistakes. the fact is that there is years since the hoover days and i think that's very important to keep in mind. we have many saying that the cia has an asset in yemen, people who are onto bomb plot, bombs that have been put on planes, even though there is no abuse, they are doing their job as they should be and yet you must weigh like that optimizing the source could result in death. it could result in an attack on the country and so this is a standard form of journalism that i just don't get that i did not see existing when i was part of "the washington post." i remember bob woodward wanted to do a story about the fact that th

the cia at war inside the secret campaign against terror came out in 03. a matter of character inside the white house with george w. bush 2004 and laura bush and intimate portrait of the first lady 2006. the terrorist watch came out in 2007 come in the presidents secret service behind the scenes with agents in the line of fire but presidents protect 2009, the secrets of the fbi 2011 and his most recent book is the first family detail. they revealed a hidden life of the president. >> guest: the second book focuses on first families so i would say almost a dozen in the press release. i mentioned the fact that he was a shock because of his own white house staff. there was a violent episode and a number of other new items in the book. and it also went much more into those corner cutting cultures with many more examples. you would think that they would wise up and do something about it or the cancer because if there hasn't been an assassination given and covering up. >> host: why in the middle of all of these books on agencies did you do biographies of george w

the cia are the collectors of last resort. if you can't get a piece of information, you call the cia. you have to have clear goals on what to collect and how you have a perspective. you know right now as the number of threats to the countries increase we have to have more intelligence. with the problem against isis now and syria and iraq is, we don't have enough on the ground human intelligence. that's something where my good friends, ambassador ryan crocker, he's pretty much -- he's one of the best things foreign service produced and now he's down at texas a&m running the bush school. sometimes you need more pumps and wing tips on the ground. that's going to prevent us from sending boots on the ground. if i was there, i would be aggressive aggressive, would be in hard places, but clear collection priorities based on the threats we were facing. >> having spent time in yemen afghanistan, langley at the cia, what worries you. what should americans be concerned about? >> the microactors having macro impact, right? this is where o

the difference between the cia and the fbi.

and yet always in the press is the cia the fbi the immunization. and not one of these has ever been part of this, meaning something illegal and they have very good reasons for the collection of data that the nsa is engaged in. that is how they stop the plot. and of course knowing these people, seeing how they work, going out to the secret service training facility learning how they train agents. [inaudible] filling in any mistakes. the fact is that there is years since the hoover days and i think that's very important to keep in mind. we have many saying that the cia has an asset in yemen, people who are onto bomb plot, bombs that have been put on planes, even though there is no abuse, they are doing their job as they should be and yet you must weigh like that optimizing the source could result in death. it could result in an attack on the country and so this is a standard form of journalism that i just don't get that i did not see existing when i was part of "the washington post." i remember bob woodward wanted to do a story about the fact that th

or should it be done by the cia. have some bias but it seems to me that as much as we could give a responsibility and authority over to the department of defense -- that is not really the job of the intelligence agency. back to your question. i think that raises the debate. do we need to continue drone strikes and if so, how? better intelligence. we are now facing a new form of warfare. these nonstate organizations that are spread all over hell's half acre. the only way you can get at them that we know of now that is viable is through the drone operations. host: senator john mccain on cnn's state of the union yesterday. he asked do we need to continue drunk strikes and if so, how? -- drone strikes, and if so how. good morning to you. guest: thanks for -- good morning. host: thanks for joining us to talk about this. talk about the difference between suspected terrorists that are on kill lists and signature strikes we heard -- the term signature strikes we heard from officials in the wake of last week. guest: this is an

to applicants and new employees at the cia even though the book came out years ago. and they would not put up with that, they would start prosecuting the cia officers and another time he goes on to how it really works and that is why i think it is important for new employees to learn from these lessons, to know what was wrong about this era without a lot of misinterpretation to understand very clearly why hoover was not someone to be admired. because he did abuse american rights even though he also did a lot of good things. and i have hope as i have written these books within the management and the employee workforce and i believe that that has happened. >> caller: i would like to ask mr. kessler why is it that the call to death consistent with the autopsy protocol, i'm curious to know if that is not a cover-up. .. thanks for your time. >> guest: thank you. enjoyed it. >> host: walter isaacson, what is the link between ben franklin, steve jobs, henry kissinger and ada. >> guest: they're all creative minds and that interested me throughout my career. a lot of people w

but precisely who he was, the cia says it didn't know. at may be and yet the who would seem to be very distinct from the problem in this instance, which was the where, even if they knew exactly who they were going after, there isn't any indication that intelligence would know that these hostages were deliberately secretly held at these facilities, this compound right? >> that's right. that's probably one of the most important questions this review is going to have to answer. why is it that the cia did not know these two men, italian and american hostage were being held in this facility when by the administration's own admission, it had hundreds of hours of footage before the site and near real time around the clock surveillance. why is it they only thought there were four al qaeda terrorists at the site and not the two men inside? that's a huge question and points to a real gap in the collection the cia has been conducting when it comes to finding and locating hostages but keeping track of where they might be held by terrorists. >> the cia

they were given support from the dia and the cia. ey did that job day after day under difficult and dangerous situations. i had the privilege of watching them and covering them. i went from march until june. when i came back, i had a long list of questions about why we were not finding what everyone expected us to find. if i could just return for a minute to this notion of -- it was me, it was the times. everyone was writing more or less, the same story. they were writing it based on the collective judgments of the intelligence communities. i am not just talking about the american intelligence community, but also the british and the french. even countries that did not want to go to war such as germany and the russians. their intelligence agencies had also concluded that saddam was keeping and hiding wmd. brian: why did knight ridder see it differently? jonathan landakes and his team of reporters? judith: they were talking to people that said the evidence it was then. the problem for me -- with those stories, at that point, they did no

they were not favored by pakistan or the cia. now we get into the more interesting foreign policy side of this. who was giving him money on the side and supplies? russia. and come india. pakistan's biggest rival. -- and, india. in this building on september 9 amashad assad agreed to be interviewed. one of the cameras had been packed full of explosives and it killed him. september 9. 100% control of afghanistan goes to al qaeda and the taliban. everything folded in the last 10%. he was a very charismatic leader, spoke fluent french, was educated in downtown kabul, the son of a military officer. a very interesting to look. a great -- interesting fellow. a great chess player. he was not favored by the u.s. nor the saudis. four two days, they had 100% control of afghanistan. if the world trade center -- and this is a very i enjoy speaking about -- if the attacks have been foiled, which i think they could have been, this is not hindsight now -- what would the americans have done about afghanistan? let's think about it. we move ahead to

>> turf battles. >> the cia doesn't want to give it up? >> failure -- in all candor obviously, and the president said a couple years ago he wanted them moved, and there is is a question about the capabilities and the movement that the dod has compared to the cia. what this will do we will renew this discussion with the administration and within congress as to who actually should be running the drone operation. >> in your view the cia should not run this program -- i don't want to interrupt, but i want to ask that question? >> i don't think so. that's why they are called the intelligence agency and that's why we call the armed forces obviously the people supposed to be carrying out military operations. i understand when it was a small operation why it would be done by the intelligence agency such as other reconscience aircraft and now it reached a point where it's a integral part of the conflict and essential one, and it should be conducted in oversight by the department of defense. >> there was a potential for a military confrontation betwe

the cia are the collectors of last resort. if you can't get a piece of information, you call the cia. you have to have clear goals on what to collect and how you have a perspective. you know right now as the number of threats to the countries increase we have to have more intelligence. with the problem against isis now and syria and iraq is, we don't have enough on the ground human intelligence. that's something where my good friends, ambassador ryan crocker, he's pretty much -- he's one of the best things foreign service produced and now he's down at texas a&m running the bush school. sometimes you need more pumps and wing tips on the ground. that's going to prevent us from sending boots on the ground. if i was there, i would be aggressive aggressive, would be in hard places, but clear collection priorities based on the threats we were facing. >> having spent time in yemen afghanistan, langley at the cia, what worries you. what should americans be concerned about? >> the microactors having macro impact, right? this is where o

the d.o.d. has as compared with cia. what this will do jim-s we'll renew this discussion with the administration within congress as to who actually should be running the drone operation. >> in your view, the cia should not run this program? i don't mean to interrupt but i wanted to get that point across. >> i don't think so. that's why they are called the intelligence agency, and that's why we call the armed forces, obviously, the people that are supposed to be carrying out military operations. and i can understand when it was a small operation why it would be done by the intelligence agency such as u2s and other reconnaissance aircraft for many years. now it's reached the point where it's an integral part of the conflict and a very essential one. so i think it should be conducted in oversight and administered by the department of defense. >> i want to turn to iran. as you know, earlier in the week there was a potential for a military confrontation between the u.s. and iran when it was feared the iranians were sending arm

the cia are the collectors of last resort. if you cannot get a piece of information, you call in the cia to do that. and you got to have very clear goals on what you are trying to collect and how you are trying to have a perspective. right now, as the number of threats to our country are increasing, we have to have more intelligence. one of the problems with the fight against isis now in syria and iraq is we do not have enough on the ground with human intelligence. part of that is because we do not have enough people in the region. that is something where my good friend, ambassador ryan crocker i think he is one of the test things the foreign service has produced. now he is running the bush school. he says you need wingtips on the ground to prevent boots on the ground. i would be aggressive, in hard places. we would have clear collection priorities based on threats we are facing. mr. scully: having spent time in yemen, afghanistan, langley, what worries you the most as a member of congress? what should americans be most concer

by definition, if you are at the cia, stuff you acquire clandestinely. if you take that issue of revolution in iran as an example, or unrest a few years ago -- the sliver of information that is secret, if you are assessing unrest in a foreign country, compared to when i started in 1985, is going like this. so they have to realize that intelligence is knowledge. a lesser and lesser part of the intelligence world's secret. -- world is secret. i think they are going to slip further behind. charlie: give me a sense of what knowledge tells us about iran philip:. philip:-- about iran. philip: that is a good example where intelligence can bring real value-added. when you are dealing with a classic intelligence problem you are looking at capability and intent. what can a country do? what kind of fissile material do they have? comedy centrifuges? how are their dispersed facilities buried and protected? if you want bunker buster bombs, do you go after them? the open source world cannot answer that well. you can take google earth and watch iran build a facility. you

this is a huge set back for the drone program, cia, human intelligence. ut this instance? what we're learning now are from sources, they had eyes on for days over this target. they saw no sign of mr. weinstein, the italian hostage or anyone else to indicate they were basically hitting americans. >> right. the cia makes a big deal of the fact before it takes strikes it watches targets for days. they spend hundreds of hours doing surveillance. even then this shows the limits of what is known before you take a strike. the limits of this remote targeting program. days. if something stays hidden as hostages are, you're only going to know so much before you're given authorization. this is a setback at a time you haven't heard much about drone strikes especially in pakistan. they've come out of news. the obama administration likes it that way. this brings it back in the news in a big way. >> colonel jack the military and cia have shared responsibility for this program. cia has a more extensive program now on counter terror. what does this do to the work force and

the cia is in charge of the area of afghanistan and pakistan, and yemen is half and half cia and military. in afghanistanin africa it's military. why is the cia involved in pakistan? it goes back to the 1990 1950s when they had the flights over peshawa and need had to be coordinated with the isi, so that was the foundation of this relationship between the cia and the isi. with the idea of transiting from cia controlled drones to military control of drones which would be desirable in theory the point is that the cia had relationship with the military intelligence. >> it's pretty confusing, you would admit what you describe there is confusing and hard to follow correct? >> no, it isn't confusing. the cia has a relationship with the pakistan intelligence, that's why they run these drones. >> do you have objection to the drones program itself. there are many and there is a controversy around this, who consider the drone program to be nothing but extra judicial killings. how do you respond to that? >> the drone program can be very pinpointed and very effective and the classic case is this kill

you know the cia are the collectors of last resort. if you can't get a piece of information, you call in the cia to do that. you have to have very clear goals and perspective. number of threats rin creasing we need more intelligence. problems with syria and iraq, we don't have enough on the ground human intelligence. part of that is we don't have enough people in the region right? so that is something where. my good friends ambassador ryan crocker, i think is one of the best things the foreign service has ever produced. he is at texas a&m running bush school. he says sometimes you need more pumps and wingtips on the ground that will prevent us from sending boots on the ground. if i was there i would be aggressive. would be in hard places and clear election priorities based on threats we're facing. >> host: yemen afghanistan langley, cia what worries you as the most as a member of congress? what should americans be concerned about the most. >> guest: micro actors having macro impact right? this is where one person could have huge impact

chuck, when all this news broke earlier this week we saw the cia issuing statements. in all reality wasn't it the pentagon in charge of this where forums were supposed to take place. >> literally two years ago next month the president of the united states gave a big speech to national university drone program biggest one you mentioned, moving it from the cia to pentagon. the reason being, number one, it is a military -- you would want this under military command, but number two, means more public oversight. cia operations have oversight. private oversight none of us can verify or learn from. more members of congress involved in it. one of the compelling reasons to change it. it hasn't happened. here we have a situation. you talk about the two hostages that were killed. even two american turned al qaeda operatives weren't supposed to be targeted. here is the cia sort of in hindsight trying to explain itself when if you had perhaps better oversight you wouldn't have gotten into this mess. >> from drones to gyrocopter a hearing on the hill about how that guy got his gyroc

has also frustrated efforts by the cia to target isis in libya. fox news has previously reported that more than a dozen isis operatives are known to the u.s. intelligence community in libya but there is no authorization to strike their locations, even on this lower standard of pattern of lies. >> very interesting. catherine, thank you so much. >>> time now for 2016 power index where we look at who's up who's down in the race for the white house. chris stirewalt, fox news digital politics editor and author of fox news first, joins us now. >> what's happening? >> we're going to look first at the gop. this week jeb bush holding steady still leading the pack at number one. told some top donors over the weekend his super pac is making some major cash. let's look at the big shakeup in your power index. senator marco rubio surging ahead of scott walker in the number two spot. walker's slipping from second to third as carly fiorina moves down a spot as well. actually i think she moved up a spot. but with all fireworks sometimes it is hard to tell. break it

he goes to the cia. he continues the program, but he remains very close to obama. he's one of the obama's closest advisers. he's been embattled before, notably last year with the issue of senate intelligence community and hacking into their computers. obama stood by him. and for all we have seen so far will continue to stand by him. gwen: we only have a few seconds but i do want to talk about pack stn of it's interest ling both of these things happened, both this strike and strike that killed the al qaeda-americans, both happened in one -- the country that's one of our allies. how do we -- aren't they supposed to be helping us on this? mark: has a long and complicated story about the relationship with pakistan. yes, the relationship is better but the united states is continuing to carry these strikes out at a lower rate than before. but they're not doing it -- they're not informing the pakistanis in advance and sometimes there's real tension in the relationship when the u.s. carries out these unilateral acts. gwen: there's going to be more. supposed to be investiga

host: let's talk about the cia. you graduated from texas a&m got a job at the agency, what was your first position? what was your greatest challenge? rep. hurd: my first job. i was 22 years old, i was driving my toyota four runner from san antonio to washington dc. i stop at a convenience store and the tv was on about the gulf of t talk in. i became the desk officer for yemen. i was the guy back in the headquarters, supporting the men and women in our station, which is the cia headquarters. that was my first job. one of my biggest challenges while i was there was fighting the bureaucracy. when i was in afghanistan i manage all of our undercover operations. i felt like there was some rules and regulations that we were having to use to do our job that were preventing us from protecting ourselves and doing the job that we were trained to do. so, fighting the bureaucracy in kabul, friday the bureaucracy back and linge was an incredible challenge. in the end, we won. i had enough experience and background and support to g

but they are working hard to keep the authority at the cia. >> matt this is john heilemann. w it works with congressional approval. taking people out to langley to look at video. just tell that story a little bit on the air. >> sure. so about once a month, staffers from the intelligence committees drive out to c chltia headquarters and they're brought into a room and they get to watch the videos of the drone strikes, of the buildings blowing up and people rushing to the scene and how many bodies are being carried away. and then there is a selective amgt of amount of intelligence shared with the committee. they don't get to read the cables assessing the strike afterwards, but the cia selects some intelligence to share with the committee and says this is why we blew up this building and this is why assess we killed 15 militants and this is why it was a good strike. and that pretty much -- that is pretty of the oversight mechanism. >> so can you explain who exactly in congress is thwarting the president's plan to move the drone program from the cia to the defense department? >>

not in the good graces of the cia or pakistanis. , they are announcing the eventual takeover of kabul. which ministries will attack at which intersections. the entire competition versus the posh stands -- pushtons. one week later, you have these fearless fighters blocking an intersection and who are they blocking but the pashtuns. if you look closely, no shoes. they are fearless villas. we also thought their blood might the green. they were just mad and they loved to fight. they fight for loot and narcotics. the victory celebration lasted about 24 hours and we will dip into the civil immediately. 1993, the onus of any civil war falls on the civilians. here you have a man who went out early wanting to probably get milk and eggs caught in the crossfire, injured. he is carried across by a civilian and a policeman. a typical scene in downtown kabul in 1993. this is the ministry of defense. the rockets were devastating. that was daily life for everybody. this is a typical, stand beside the bottle as -- puddle as the tank goes through scen

scott: it wasn't until april that the cia realized it had killed two hostages. american aid worker warren weinstein and italian -- all the safeguards president obama taken to assure no civilians would be killed had failed. president obama: based on the intelligence we had at the time we believed this was an al qaeda compound that no civilians were present, and capturing these terrorists were not possible. scott: those hundreds of hours never detected any sign of the hostages. intelligence did caci a operative. that seems to make it more unlikely that hostages were in the compound since there were no previous cases in which hostages had been held close to al qaeda leaders. it appears they were kept nearby for the senior leader, who turned out to be an american named -- five days later another drone strike killed another american without the cia knowing it. this time it was someone who played a leading role in al qaeda recruiting videos peter she had -- videos. neither he nor the other were considered senior enough to be on the cia hit list. when asked if the presi

it's a real tweet from the cia. take a look. [ laughter ] the cia tweeted that.ot of people were surprised the cia would have such a a strong opinion about a tv character. but it turns out they actually have a long history of voicing their opinions about tv shows on twitter. for example, they tweeted, "news flash, not everybody loves raymond. in fact, it's a fairly toxic household." >> steve: wow. wow. [ laughter ] >> jimmy: they also tweeted, "if we wanted to see people drinking, smoking and womanizing, we'd skip 'mad men' and hang out with the secret service. #yeahwewentthere." [ cheers and applause ] >> steve: oh my god. >> jimmy: hey, whoa. what are you guys doing -- >> steve: wow. >> jimmy: -- over at the tweeting offices there at the cia. finally, they tweeted, "ross didn't do anything wrong to rachel. #theywereonabreak. #bitchesbecray." [ cheers and applause ] who's doing this? >> steve: who's the tweeter? >> jimmy: guys, i want to say congrats to the duke blue devils, who defeated the wisconsin badgers last night to win the national championship. yeah, it

how did the cia not know they were there? among them an american husband and grandfather, and tonight, his family on the last time they saw him. the scare in the sky. three passengers falling unconscious. others around them soon feeling sick. and then, the sudden plunge. >>> a half dozen reported tornadoes. storms from texas, all the way to the northeast. the landslide, homes teetering on the edge. and tonight, the system coming next. >>> the vocal know erupting. the evacuations. and now the state of emergency declared tonight. >>> and the diane sawyer exclusive with bruce jenner. the olympic champion on his future and who he is most concerned about. a first look, right here tonight. >>> good evening. and we begin tonight with new developments. what we now know about that deadly drone mistake, meant to hit al qaeda those cia drones also killing two innocent men. an american and an italian man. the american on the left there, warren weinstein, a father and grandfather. his transformation after years in captivity. this is one of

they were not favored by pakistan or the cia. now we get into the more interesting foreign policy side of this. who was giving him money on the side and supplies? russia. and come india. pakistan's biggest rival. -- and, india. in this building on september 9 amashad assad agreed to be interviewed. one of the cameras had been packed full of explosives and it killed him. september 9. 100% control of afghanistan goes to al qaeda and the taliban. everything folded in the last 10%. he was a very charismatic leader, spoke fluent french, was educated in downtown kabul, the son of a military officer. a very interesting to look. a great -- interesting fellow. a great chess player. he was not favored by the u.s. nor the saudis. four two days, they had 100% control of afghanistan. if the world trade center -- and this is a very i enjoy speaking about -- if the attacks have been foiled, which i think they could have been, this is not hindsight now -- what would the americans have done about afghanistan? let's think about it. we move ahead to

. >> the problem in these and other instances is that the cia doesn't always know who it is killing. targeting only al qaeda leadership. two years ago president obama pledged to scale back the drone campaign. >> before any strike is taken there must be near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured. >> reporter: but so-called signature strikes have continued. that's when the cia fires a missile base odd an pattern of behavior of people on the ground even if it does not know who i killing. of the 3800 people killed by drones since 2011 11% have been civilians. >> a lot of these stories you hear about in terms of oh, my goodness hundreds of civilians have been killed. a lot of that is propaganda put out by the elements opposed to the u.s. coming in and helping. >> reporter: just 14% of pakistanis view the u.s. favorably. meanwhile in washington this week and on the campaign trail arc deafening silence. rand paul staged a 13-hour filibuster two years ago to protest u.s. drone policy. this time his campaign issued just a sentence. it is a tragedy that these hostages lost their

the cia is the one that called this strike. may, 2013 the president of the united states went to the national defense university and said he was going to move this program from the cia to the department of defense. guess what -- here we are two years later, and that hasn't happened. i have a feeling that the people in the building behind me are going to want to ask the question why has that not happened. because let's be clear, what happened in january was a massive intelligence failure. a massive intelligence failure. and that's why these people died needlessly. >> yeah. i think that's going to be a major battle coming up as you're pointing out why hasn't the program been moved. i also think there are going to be questions raised again about the so-called signature strikes. >> yeah. that's right. >> you're not targeting a specific individual, you're targeting based on behaviors people who look like terrorists frequently from, you know, in this case it looks like they didn't have direct intel on the ground. so from surveillance