though they occurred in a wave of protests in the youtube video, they were not committed by protesters. listen to the counterterrorism center director at a homeland security hearing. >> i would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack an our embassy. >> mr. olson went on to say they investigators lacked significant intelligen intelligence. he said they're looking to connections to al qaeda and local al qaeda affiliates. now are looking at the scene just outside of the consulate in benghazi. as a crowd tries to move stevens, still alive, to the hospital. tonight, "360" has obtained exclusive information about the events leading up to his killing. they say in the months before his death, he talked about what he called the never-ending security threats, especially in benghazi. he specifically mentioned the rise in islamic extremism and said he was on an al qaeda hit list. in addition, our source tells us he e-mail aid journalist in the wake of a bombing near the consulate in june. he wrote, i quote, maybe you should travel to bengazi in light of the situation there, that appears to be heating up. what we don't know is why, given all that ambassador stevens thought why he travelled with such a light security detail and why he was allowed to? did he want it that way or did the risks go unheeded and he and his people die because of it? at this point we simply don't know. senator john mccain supported president obama's action to oust moammar khadafy and the president's steps taken since then. i spoke to senator mccain earlier today. senator mccain, a source familiar with the ambassador's thinking toll us in the months before his death he talked about being worried about the never-ending security threats in bengha benghazi, the threats he was facing and growing al qaeda presence and mentioned being on an al qaeda hit list. and he said in june to a journalist, maybe you should head east to benghazi to the situation there which appears the be heating up. given what we are learning about the concerns that he had, does it make sense to you the small level of security that he apparently had with him? >> it doesn't make any sense. and i'll tell you what else doesn't make any sense, the white house spokesman, secretary of state and ambassador to the u.n. stating categorically that it was not a terrorist attack when obviously it had all the earmarks of a terrorist attack, including rocket-propelled grenades, heavy weapons an a well carried out military operation. and why they would want to tell the american people this that in face of facts i don't know. there are other reports that there had been other threats made, and there are reports that there's basically an al qaeda extremist outfit, militia in benghazi. >> fran toungzen who worked in the bush administration, told us she was meeting with the ambassador recently at a hotel in tripoli, although he arrived with a armored vehicle, he had no security at all with him, and that surprised her at the time. i mean, it seems that i have never seen an ambassador who does not have in a war zone and a place like libya with threats who does not have a larger entourage of security. is this an intelligence failure? i mean, what do you attribute this to? >> i attribute it partially to the courage of chris stevens. he lived in a hotel in benghazi during the fighting, but it is also clear that the security people should have given him more security, particularly in benghazi. as you know, that country is divided very badly, and there's significant competition, and there's far more islamic influence in that part of libya than in tripoli. >> previously as you mention, people from the obama administration said they felt this was not a planned attack, sort of an offshoot of this video. but the director of the counterterrorism center said that it did appear to be a terrorist attack. he didn't say whether it was preplan or not but it definitely goes beyond what we heard before. how significant do you think that is? >> i think it is significant that the president's spokesperson would go on our networks and tell people things that are absolutely false and, by the way, fly in the face of the facts. i think maybe the american people are owed an apology. but the most important thing is that we have to understand that this video was not the cause of it. the cause of it was islamists who use these videos in order to inflame these people in order to attack america. anderson, i am confident right now, there are people making videos right now. we should be standing up for freedom of speech. and that we will defend people's right to speak out and express their views rather than condemn, quote, hateful videos which are the vehicle, not the cause. the cause is radical islamists. >> do you believe that there needs to be some sort of investigation about what happened at the consulate in benghazi and elsewhere? >> there has to be. there has to be. i also want to emphasize, one, that libya is very weak. the borders are porous, and there is radical islamist elements throughout the country, but still, it is the obligation of the host country to protect our consulates, our embassies and our personnel and it is partially ours but we have to depend on the host country and we have to then sort out and rethink what presence we're going to have and what relationship we're going to have with these countries. >> you were campaigning for governor romney on monday. you hit president obama hard on policy and you said you don't believe the president has the quote strength or ability to lead the nation. you said that recent events have shown how weak he is. are you in any way saying the president is responsible for the attacks in benghazi? >> no, he is responsible for our failure in afghanistan and iraq. we left iraq, and it is now disintegrating and al qaeda is coming back. we didn't leave a residual force, which we should have. and in afghanistan he overruled the military advisers on several occasions including 30,000 instead of 40,000 for the surge accelerating the withdrawal dates and now we have this situation where the taliban and our enemies know we are leaving and the whole premise was to train afghans in order that we could turn over these responsibilities to them and leave. now, how can we train and work with these people if so many of them are killing americans that we can't even train and operate with them? by that policy, has been an abject failure. >> we will talk with senator mccain about domestic issues, including the 47% statement. joining us now is fran townsend a cnn contributor who is a former cia security council advisory member. as i said, you met with ambassador stevens. he had told another source that he was on the al qaeda hit list, that there were security concerns. >> you know, we had a long conversation, especially about darnah, to the east of benghazi. and we talked about the increase in numbers and access to weap s weapons. he suggested i go to benghazi. it was august 29th, less than two weeks before he was killed. the other thing worth mentioning, as senator mccain said to you, chris stevens had been in benghazi. he was with the rebels. and my take on the situation was that it was fragile and i was worried about the militias. and chris stevens perspective was, it was not as bad as it was at the height of fighting. the lack of security and security forces and their organization and training was shocking to me. i'm not sure that he was incredibly comfortable there especially with the familiarity with those in benghazi. >> the other thing which we don't have information on yet is whether those concerns that he had, that he had expressed to at least one source that we've talked to, were passed up the chain of command, whether other folks knew about it. bob, you're pretty upset about this. you say that ambassador stevens should not have been in libya if he was on an al qaeda hit list. >> anderson, i ended up on two lists and i'm not sure i was really on the list, but in each case the cia pulled me out of the country i was in and it was on very weak information. they said, look, it's a possibility of assassination, get out. one time i left in the morning at 2:00 with my wife. the second time i was evacuated the next morning and brought out with security, and this is standard protocol for state department when there is a threat and especially to an ambassador it is much more important than a cia case officer, and they are pulled out or moved or heavy security is sent in and i mean somebody like the s.e.a.l.s. the chain of command in this broke down and there needs to be an investigation somewhere in the state department that let our ambassador down. >> i should point out that cnn is talking to our sources who monitor al qaeda websites. they haven't come across specific threats against ambassador stevens, though that obviously doesn't mean there wasn't one. but a lot of diplomats bristle against the security they are required to have in the post 9/11 era saying it gets in the way of interacting with the host country nationals and get out there on the streets which they feel they need to do, and is that any explanation for his apparently light security? >> well, the ambassador was a consummate diplomat and he was out there. he was a brave man, doing exactly what i would have done in that case. on the other hand it is the higher ups in the washington who should have put a no to it. he knows the people and he understood them and he was a good writer, and he loved his job and died doing his job, but the point is that somebody has to step in and protect our diplomats, especially in a middle east that's circling the drain, and it is. more and more of this is going to happen, and we will have to take more precautions, and yes, it is going to put a distance between us and the locals which is very unfortunate. >> fran, do you agree that if the ambassador was on a hit list he should have been pulled out? >> i do. he certainly should have had a much heavier presence. as i mentioned to you, anderson, when he arrived at the hotel for breakfast, he arrived with a car and nobody with him. i was quite surprised because i waited in the lobby to greet him and walk him to breakfast and i was really surprised because it seemed very usual to me in those circumstances. i will say, anderson, in fairness, because we had an extensive conversation about islamic radicals and the growing extremism problem in libya. i find it remarkable if he was concerned or thought he was on hit list, this is the kind of conversation we had shared that with me. we had worked together for a number of years. this was my third trip to libya, the prior two were on behalf of the government. i know him. i'm surprised he wouldn't have mentioned it to me. as bob says, he was the kind of guy who it probably wouldn't have intimidated because he felt he needed to be without that in order to do his job. >> we feel very confident in the source and i obviously can't say who the source is, but in the information that we have been given. and bob, would anyone in that job be on an al qaeda hit list or target? say he was pulled out, wouldn't al qaeda go after whomever replaced him? >> oh, absolutely. remember the drones have killed a lot of libyans in afghanistan, and this is a tribal society which takes revenge, irrespective of the religion and we are number one target in libya and the fact that there are so many heavy arms included, that the ambassador was a natural target. and there's only one way to protect these people, and that is complete mobility. the s.e.a.l.s provide a security team, but the ambassador never would have been allowed to wander around hotels and meet with fran. she is absolutely right. this is surprise to me that he was wandering around that country without security. >> you agree, fran, with bob that there needs to be an investigation so that this does not happen again. >> absolutely. even if it is the ambassador's preference, he is national asset and we have to understand it to protect others better. >> fran townsend, bob baer, thank you both. let me know what you think about i am tweeting already on this. and also, we will talk about as mr. romney tries to refocus and move on the campaign is dragging the whole thing back into the spotlight, but are they bending the facts? we're "keeping them honest," next. hey! did you know that honey nut cheerios has oats that can help lower cholesterol? and it tastes good? sure does! wow. it's the honey, it makes it taste so... well, would you look at the time... what's the rush? be happy. be healthy. keeping them honest now what happens when the tape rolls and campaign operatives spin. we are talking about mitt romney's question and answer in this tape. >> for the past three years, all anybody's been told is don't wo wor worry, is how are we going to take care of it? >> well, there are 47% of those who believe that the president no matter what, all right, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to house, and to you name it. but it is an entitlement. and that the government should give it to them, and they will vote for this president no matter what. >> and remember that shortly after the liberal "mother jones" magazine put out that clip including several others when mr. romney talked about israel, mr. romney called for a late night news conference for the whole tape to be released which it was except for two minutes. according to "mother jones" the gap is there because the person accidentally stopped recording. fast forward to what happened today as mr. romney was asked to reshape that comment. as that was happening, this campaign staff seemed to be doing the opposite, picking a fight without the facts to win it. this afternoon, in response to an obama attack on mr. romney's israel remarks, romney campaign spokesman ryan williams sent an e-mail saying this, today, obama campaign spokesperson ben labolt attacked mitt romney on a debunked "mother jones" tape. a debunked "mother jones" tape. remember that. he is referring to the obama's spokesman calling him out for saying this. >> how do you think the palestinian problem would be solved? what are you going to do about this? >> i look at the palestinians not wanting to sea peace over political purposes. we live with that in china and taiwan. all right? we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately somehow, something will happen and resolve it. >> this afternoon, ryan williams, the romney spokesman deliberately truncated that clip to leave out the part that he said that the palestinians might come around. he writes, politico reported that mother jones video was selectively edited to give a false impression about mitt romney's views. "keeping them honest," that clip was followed yesterday by the entire tape and nothing truncated about it at all. later today, david korn who broke the story said it is ridiculous, this is not a case of selective editing. the point is showing what was newsworthy. and the romney campaign said that dylan beyars debunked the tape, he said he did no such thing. he joins us along with cnn national correspondent john king and chief political analyst gloria borger. and dylan, when the romney campaign points to the tape and say it is debunked and debunked by you and the column, is that true? >> no, it's not. it is true there are parts of romney's remarks were left out. those parts that were left out don't necessarily debunct the rest of the film. >> does it seem strange to you that the romney campaign would be talking up parts of the video, saying governor stands by what he was trying to say while at the same time saying it's been debunked? >> it is strange. and i think it reflects that the campaign is in a little bit of a crisis mode right now. they are scrambling to try to offset some of the negative press that they have got, because of the release of this video. and so what they are trying to do is to simultaneously trying to claim that it is somehow not legitimate and then you have romney out there giving press conferences where he's doubling down elsewhere in the film. they put out this press release that says somehow the video has been debunkt. the film is legitimate or it isn't. >> and john, would they have doubled down and they keep drawing attention back to it rather than away from it? >> well, a few things, anderson. one, you may be trying to apply logic to politics. i would advise you not to do that. and two, governor romney and mrs. romney and paul ryan have given different options of what he men to the say about the 47%. about the israel part, we are at a point in the campaign of 48 days out where everything is wrong. the romney campaign and the staff has had a rough week to ten days and sometimes you are taught in politics not to return every punch, and does this make a lot of sense? not always. one of the things they are trying to do, that the left leaning mother jones and debunct and try to stir up the dust. if voters are confused about all of this and think it is politics, they might turn the page as opposed to saying that governor romney is hot water about something. >> well, it is interesting, gloria, we got our first glimpse of how volters are reacting to this. according to gallup, many said they did not think it would make a difference and some said they would make it more likely and 53% said no difference. is that likely to influence how the romney campaign moves going forward? >> well, you may end up preaching to the choir as you look at those numbers. think think what you see in the romney campaign is a recalibration because you can't put the genie back in the bottle this late in the campaign. you have to make the best of it. they are talking about the redistribution of wealth and the 1988 audio from president obama trying to make it an issue of who is for a big bloated government, and that would be president obama versus who is for a government who can lift everybody up. that would be mitt romney. but in the end, there's a lot of confusion about this, and it is going to be hard to tell exactly how this is going to impact the race except, anderson, if it comes up in the presidential debates. and i bet it will. and then both mitt romney and president obama can explain their positions. >> and john, it does feel like this team is jumping from strategy to strategy, and does this kind of move just give the ammunition to what some republican critics have said about the campaign from the beginning especially since that politico story this week and the campaign is functioning as if it is not ready for prime time? >> in a word, yes. it does fuel those stories and that speculation and unhappiness among a lot of republicans both in washington and around the country. i'm in michigan and met with the chairwoman who says she wants mitt romney back here. she would like a consistent message. there are republicans saying romney should not be talking about israel, or redistribution but should be saying that president obama is a nice guy, but look at the last three years and where is the proof that he can create jobs and that is what he should focus on every hour. but this is the seventh presidential campaign and i cannot think of one who did not have a rough patch like this including then senator obama. that was back in 2008. we have 48 days to go. so when you talk to the republicans, they are nervous not only about the romney/ryan ticket, but about the collateral damage to other republicans down ballot and here's what they think. inside the romney campaign they would agree with this assessment, he has to get back on the economic message and get there by the first week in october when you have the first presidential debate and then a big report on the economy, and everybody believes that is a big