You're watching...
FNC Middle East Expert Walid Phares, FNC contributor Judith Miller and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton on the Administration’s handli...
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- more -- all of this the eighteen Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Fox News contributor Judith Miller former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.
Fox News middle east affairs analyst doctor Walid Ferris.
-- let me start with you.
The idea that that Susan price somehow comes across in the president's statements today.
As being a pop but.
Without reminder for -- any individual responsibility.
As says an -- the president or are represented of the US.
Government and this is a woman who clearly would like to replace.
Secretary of state Hillary Clinton in that job.
Those of us have known Susan -- that she is no shrinking violet she is perfectly able to defend herself.
But I'm sure she was speaking off the set of talking points the question is one of many questions -- -- did she know when she was speaking.
That there was contradictory information.
And it is -- not sure that it's unfair.
John Bolton to say that the president and his entire national security team.
I have if you will hidden behind the skirts of ambassador rice for nine weeks.
Well I think the president gave away the game here when he also said in his exasperation.
With Senator McCain.
That Susan Rice didn't know anything about what happened that -- -- the thus proving.
The brilliance.
Of the White House strategy at the time.
There effort was to get past the election to minimize.
What actually happened what better way than to send out Susan Rice who knows nothing she can't possibly.
Make a mistake.
She can't possibly.
Reveal information inadvertently think of the risk of putting Hillary Clinton out there who actually knew what happened.
And -- that raises the question -- was the secretary of state where was the head of the National Security Council -- was the national security advisor.
Where was David Petraeus for crying out -- You know Lou that what the General Petraeus would say in congress is going to be very important because there isn't one major question -- play five.
A lot of the answers or what not getting too.
What was the assessment of the Obama administration.
Of the area where the confident wants because there's a big difference -- this was an area as secure as Iceland's.
Or is this was it was time and I'm very complex that they were cables that that they are ten training centers.
For Jihad is somewhat -- -- around -- that location.
Solid want to know a demonstration basically perceived to the location that's dangerous.
Therefore what -- the measures and therefore when -- at tackle -- The kind of response would be appropriate to the type of assessment that's what we want to know from General Petraeus and others of possible.
And as to David Petraeus -- congressman Peter King chairman of the house homeland security committee is very direct on the issue saying the documents that we see that the CIA -- the info they have.
Prior Jews General Petraeus coming and it is impossible to believe he thought he was giving us at the time honest testimony -- his testimony supporting what became.
The the broad picture enough of that Internet and video.
Congressman king assaying at point blank he believes -- Petraeus was under the thumb of the administration brokers to blackmailed into his statement.
Well Lou I think I know General Petraeus pretty well I covered him in Iraq in 2003.
I'd stayed in touch it and since and I find that absolutely impossible to believe.
It is just not the man I know who would go to the US congress and lie to them.
Or two or hold the admit his -- the administration's line because he was under pressure from an investigation which is less -- you know.
Putting -- then.
Context -- -- I have to ask you this I mean is the man you know.
Capable of having an affair and exposing his entire agency for which is responsible -- national security.
Two and a -- vulnerability.
Aren't compromising national security.
For an affair.
Well first of all there's no indication national security was compromised or was even jeopardized by this and I think that.
All people are human and that General Petraeus is human also and is entitled to in the stake.
It was a question for me and I think the president's and 24 hours thinking about it as to whether or not you could afford to lose a man like general.
-- you've joined on the issue if you join me here on the and the issue and I think every man and woman is entitled to their private.
You know values and the decisions over the -- their lives and I certainly would hold on one I would certainly not judge anyone.
-- well I will judge the head of the CIA.
Who hasn't got that sense and -- judgment and sense of responsibility to his organization.
A compromise himself and his office that's to be inexcusable and you know god bless General Petraeus.
But not as the head of the agency that is so important in protecting the station.
-- your view.
Well I think congressman king's theory.
Is pat has the possibility of being true but I would not over emphasize that I wouldn't concentrate everything.
On what I'll call the black -- theory there are two separate and distinct issues so far.
One of the administration's.
Utter failure on -- Ghazi before during and after the attack number one and number two.
The question what General Petraeus and now general Allen were actually doing there may be a -- action there may not be.
But whether there is or not doesn't distract shouldn't distract.
From finding out really what happened in bad guys in what happened with General Petraeus those two issues have to go on whether the blackmail theory is true or not.
And do you agree -- I do agree with the ambassador Bolton the real question regardless of the outcome of the situation is with a two generals is very simple it's this.
Was there a threat -- the area.
I mean whether an ambitious yes weather threatening -- compound yes we saw that -- the cable accident was a sentence very clear that said.
We are surrounded by all of these militia us.
But we don't know that and pension with regard Americans.
That is putting us about -- doctrine of demonstration.
If getting efficient didn't consider those militias as threatening their for the measures worth what they weren't so I think we should focus on this point not.
Why actual robot Robert can I can be rather dismisses -- apart if I may well it.
Because we know that they attacked the British ambassador in June why they attacked the Red Cross both the British and the Red Cross laughed eastern Libya immediately -- whip.
And the United States -- and its ambassador who sought additional protection.
Put all of that on the record true with the State Department.
To the CIA and to all involved in determining how secure that council would be we're gonna be back with -- -- with John Bolton and -- Miller were not letting go just yet there's just too.
