counterterrorism center director at the a senate homeland security hearing. >> i would say yes, they were killed in the course oa terrorist attack on our embassy. >> he went on to say that they lacked significant advanced planning or coordination. they are looking to connections to al qaeda and local al qaeda affiliates. now, are you looking at the scene, just outside the consulate in benghazi, as a pro american crowd tried to rush ambassador stevens, wounded, still alive, to the hospital. tonight, "360" obtains exclusive information about the climate that led up to all of this. ambassador stevens said in the month before his death, he talked about being worried what he called the never-ending security threats, specific until benghazi. the source telling us that the ambassador mentioned the rise in islamic extremism, the growing counterclaim presence in libya, that he was on an al qaeda hit list. in addition, our source tells us he e-mailed a journalist in the wake of a bombing near a consulate in june. he wrote, and i quote, maybe you head east to benghazi to check out the situation, which appears to be heating up. we don't know why, given all that ambassador stevens, why he traveled with such an apparently light security detail. did he want it that way? or did his warnings go unhead heeded, and did he and his people die because of it? we don't know. senator john mccain has criticized some of the steps taken since gadhafi has been outed. and he has been critical of what happened to ambassador stevens and the three others. i spoke to senator mccain today. senator mccain, a source told us in the months before ambassador steven's death, he was worried about the never-ending security threats in benghazi and the rise in islamic extremism and growing al qaeda presence and also immensed being on an al qaeda hit list. in june, he wrote in an e-mail to a journalist and i quote, maybe you should head east to benghazi to check out the situation there which appears to be heating up. given all of that, what we are now learning about concerns that he had, does it make any sense to you, the level of -- or the small level of security he apparently had with him? >> it doesn't make any sense, and i'll tell you what doesn't make any sense, is the white house spokesman, secretary of state and ambassador to the u.n., stating categorically, it was not a terrorist attack, it had all of the earmarks of a terrorist attack, rocket-prop rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons and a well carried out military operation. so why they want want to tell the mesh people that and face the facts, i don't know. there are other reports that there had been other threats made and also reports that there are basically an al qaeda extremist outfit militia, right there in benghazi. >> fran townsend, who worked in the bush administration, told us she was visiting libya recently, about a month or so before this attack, actually met with ambassador stevens at a hotel in tripoli, he arrived in an armored vehicle with a driver, when he entered the hotel, he had no security with him at all. and that surprised her at the time. i mean, it seems -- i've never seen an ambassador in a war zone, in a place like libya with threats, who doesn't have a larger entourage of security. is this an intelligence failure. what do you attribute this to? >> i attribute it partially to the courage of chris stevens. as you know, he lived in a hotel in benghazi during the fighting. as you know, it's pretty clear that security people should have given him more security, particularly in been ghazi. as you know, the country is divided very badly. there are far more islamic influence in that part of libya than tripoli. >> previously you mentioned people from the obama administration said they felt this wasn't a planned attack, an offshoot of this video. but the director of the national counterterrorism center said at a hearing today, attack in benghazi was "a terrorist attack." he didn't specify if it was preplanned or not. it goes beyond what we've heard before. how significant is that? >> i think it's significant that the secretary of the united nations would go on our networks and tell people things that are absolutely false and 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. i mean, anderson, i'm confident right now there, are people making videos, just as a french cartoonist made cartoons, are making videos right now. we should stand up to freedom of speech and we'll defend people to speak out, rather than condemn hateful videos which are the vehicle, not the cause. the cause is radical islamists. >> do you think there needs to be some sort of investigation about what happened, about the security situation at the consulate in benghazi and perhaps even elsewhere? >> there has to be. there has to be. i want to emphasize, one, libya is very weak as you know. their borders are porous, there are radical islamist elements throughout the country. but, still, the obligation of the host country to protect our consulates, embassies and our personnel, and it's 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 will have with these countries. >> you were campaigning for governor romney in new hampshire on monday and you hit president obama hard from everything from economic policy to recent attacks in libya, and according to reports, you don't believe the president has "the strength or ability to lead this nation." you said recent events showed how weak he is. are you saying president obama is benghazi? >> no, but i'm saying he's responsible for failure in afghanistan and iraq. iraq is now disintegrating, al qaeda is coming back. we didn't leave a residual force in afghanistan, he overruled his military advisers on several occasions, including 30,000 instead of 40,000 for the surge and accelerated withdrawal dates and now we have a situation where taliban and our enemies know we are leaving, and the whole premise, was to train afghans to turn over these responsibilities to them, and leave. now how can we train and work with these people if so many them are killing americans we can't even train and operate with them? by that policy, it has been an abject failure. >> we'll talk more with senator mccain about domestic issues a bit later in the program. first, bob baer and fran townsend. fran, served as a member of the cia external advisory committee, and last month visited libya with her employer, mccannkancan forbes. he said that there were security concerns. >> we had a long conversation, especially with darna, to the east of benghazi, and he was aware of the increased threat. we talked about them increasing in numbers and threats, access to weapons. consistent with what you heard, he suggested i go to benghazi. august 29th, so less than two weeks before he was killed. he understood it was heating up, but because of my background, thought i would have an appreciation of it. the other thing worth mentioning, as senator mccain said to you, you know, chris stevens had been in benghazi, before gadhafi fell, was with the rebels. my take on the security situation, it was very fragile, very chaotic, worried about the militias, and chris stevens' perspective, it was certainly not as bad as it had been during the height of the fighting, so i really was -- as we were looking at the same facts, it was shocking to me, his lack of security, the lack of sort of security forces, and their organization and training and so i'm -- i'm not sure he was incredibly comfortable there. >> the other thing, we don't know, we don't have the information on yet, is whether those concerns that he had, that he had expressed to one source we talked to, were passed up the chain of command, whether other folks knew about it, bob, you're pretty upset about this. ambassador stevens shouldn't even have been in libya if he was on an al qaeda hit list. >> anderson, i ended up on two lists, but in each case, the cia pulled me out of the country i was in. very weak information, they said, look, there is 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, brought out with security. this is standard protocol for state department when there is a threat, especial tolan ambassador. it's much more important than a cia case offer. pulled out, moved, or heavy security is sent in, and i mean somebody like the s.e.a.l.s. the chain of command broke down and there needs to be an investigation, somewhere in the state department let our ambassador down. >> sources that monitor al qaeda websites haven't come across a specific threat against ambassador stevens. that doesn't mean there wasn't one. i know a lot of diplomats bristle against the tight security on the post. post-9/11 era, they say it gets in the way of them to interact with the host country, get out in the streets, which they feel they need to do. is that an explanation for light security? >> the ambassador, a consummate dip lo mate. he was out there. a brave man, doing exactly what i would have done in that case. but on the other hand, it's the higher ups in washington who got to put note to it. he knows the people, understood them. a good writer, doing his job. and he died doing his job. but the point is, someone has to step in, protect our diplomats, especially in the middle east, that is kirkli lingcircling the. and it is. it will happen more and more, and it will put distance between us and the locals which is very unfortunate. >> do you agree if the ambassador was on a hit list, he should have been pulled out? >> i do. when he arrived at the hotel to have breakfast, he arrived with a car and driver and walked in, and there was not anyone with him. i was quite surprised. i waited in the loebby to greet him, walk him to breakfast it seemed very unusual to me in those circumstances. i will say, in fairness, we had an extensive conversation about islamic radicals and the growing extremism problem in libya, i find it remarkable, if he was really concerned or thought he was on a hit list, this was the kind of conversation where he would have 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. and i knew him. so i -- i'm surprised that he wouldn't have mentioned it to me. but, you know, as bob says, he was the kind of guy, who it probably wouldn't have intimidated, because he really felt like he needed to be without that in order to do his job. >> we feel very confident in the source. i can't say who the source is. in the information we've been given. bob, wouldn't anyone in that job be on an al qaeda hit list? wouldn't anyone in that job be an al qaeda target? say he was pulled out. wouldn't al qaeda go after whomever replaced him? >> oh, absolutely. remember, that there is -- the drones have killed a lot of libyans in afghanistan and this is a tribal society, which takes revenge, irrespective of religion. we're the number one target in libya. and the fact that there are so many arms, heavy arms included. the ambassador was a natural target, and only one way to protect these people, and that's complete mobility. the s.e.a.l.s provide a security team, but the ambassador would never have been allowed to wander around hotels. she's absolutely right. this is a surprise to me that he was wandering around that country without security. >> you agree with bob, there knees to be needs to be an investigation? >> absolutely. even if it was the ambassador's preference to have a heavy footprint, we have a government to protect. >> more on mitt romney's effort to restate some of his remarks. restate i guess is the word on the i hadden camera video. in a more appealing way. mr. romney tries to refork discuss move on, his campaign is dragging the whole thing back. are they bending the facts? keeping them honest, next. ♪ [ sneezes ] [ male announcer ] if you have yet to master the quiet sneeze... ♪ [ sneezes ] [ male announcer ] you may be an allergy muddler. try zyrtec®. it gives you powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin® because zyrtec® starts working at hour 1 on the first day you take it. claritin® doesn't start working until hour 3. [ sneezes ] [ male announcer ] zyrtec®. love the air. join zyrtec® rewards. save up to $7 on zyrtec® products. silverado! the most dependable, longest lasting, full-size pickups on the road. so, what do you think? [ engine revs ] i'll take it. [ male announcer ] it's chevy truck month. now during chevy truck month, get 0% apr financing for 60 months or trade up to get the 2012 chevy silverado all-star edition with a total value of $8,000. hurry in before they're all gone! i'm an expert on softball. and tea parties. i'll have more awkward conversations than i'm equipped for because i'm raising two girls on my own. i'll worry about the economy more than a few times before they're grown. but it's for them, so i've found a way. who matters most to you says the most about you. massmutual is owned by our policyholders so they matter most to us. massmutual. we'll help you get there. keeping them honest now what happens when the tape rolls and campaign operatives spin. we're talking about the hidden camera remarks. including this question and answer. >> we'll take care of it, how are we going to do it? two months before the election to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself? >> well, 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. 47% who are with him, dependent upon government. believe they are victims, believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, you name it. and it's entitlement, and that the government should give it to them and they will vote for this president no matter what. >> now remember, shortly after the liberal "mother jones" magazine put out that clip, mr. romney called a light-night news conference and asked for the whole tape to be released, which it was the very next day, mind us in two minutes. the gap is there because the camera person accidentally stopped recording. fast forward to what happened today as mr. romney tried to reshape that comment. articulating it in a way less likely to offend anyone. as that was happening, this campaign staff seemed to be picking a fight without the facts to win it. this afternoon in response to the israel remarks, romney campaign spokesman ryan williams sent an e-mail saying this, ben la bolt talked on debunked mother jones tape. remember that. he is referring to the obama's spokesman calling him out for saying this. what are how do you think the palestinian problem would be solved? what are you going to do about that? >> i look at the these thorny issues and say there is no way. what you do, you move things along the best way you can, you hope to some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is a problem. i mean, we live with that in china and taiwan. all right. we have -- 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 to resolve it. >> well this afternoon ryan williams complained that mother jones truncated that clip to leave out the part that the palestinians might come around. he writes: this morning, politico reported that the mother jones video was selectively edited to give a false impression about mitt romney's views. keeping them honest, that clip was followed later yesterday by the entire tape and nothing truncated at all. david corn who broke the tape story wrote this is getting ridiculous. this was not a case of collective editing, the pnt was to show what was news worthy, mitt romney stating views that he has not stated publicly. and with the allegation for the romney campaign, he said he did no such thing. when he says it was debunked, that true? >> no, it is not. it is true that there were parts of the film -- parts of romney's remarks that were left out. those parts don't necessarily debunk the rest of the film. >> does it seem strange to you that the romney camp wane would be talking up parts of the video, saying that the governor stands by what he was trying to say, saying at that time it has been debunked? >> it is strange. it reflects the campaign is in crisis mode right now, scrambling to offset some of the negative press they got because of the release of this video. and so what they are trying to do. simultaneously trying to claim that it's somehow not legitimate and at the same time have you romney out there doing press conferences where he's doubling down on remarks elsewhere on the film. whether they are referring to the clip about his mid east remarks hardly matters. the film is legitimate or it isn't. >> john, does it surprise the campaign, we keep saying double down, they keep drawing attention back to it, rather than away from it. >> well, a few things, you may be trying to apply logic to politics. governor romney, mrs. romney and paul ryan have given somewhat different explanations about what he was trying to say. or what he meant to say about the 47%. look the israel report? the romney campaign, especially the staff, has had a rough week to ten days. sometimes you are taught to not return every punch, does this make a lot of sense? not always they say left leaning mother joans and debunked. if voters get confused and think it's just politics, they might be willing to turn the page. >> we got our first glimpse of how voters are reacting. a slim majority said it wouldn't make any difference at all. some said it was less likely to make to back romney, do you think these tapes will make a difference movin forward? >>ith very hard to say. what you may end up doing is preaching to the choir, particularly as you look at those on -- at these numbers. i think what you see in the romney campaign is a recallbration, because you can't put the jeanne back in the bottle this late in the campaign. make the best of it. so they are talking about redistribution of wealth. 1998 audio from president obama, trying to make this an issue of who is for a big, bloated government. that would be president obama versus who is for a government that can lift everybody up. that would be mitt romney. but in the end, there is a lot of confusion about this. it will 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. >> john, it does feel like this team has been jumping from strategy to strategy, i mean, does this kind of move just give ammunition to what some republican critics have said since the beginning, that this campaign still functions as though it's not quite ready for prime sometime? >> in a word, yes. it does fuel those stories and that speculation and unhappiness among a lot of republicans. i'm in michigan today, met with the county chairwoman, she wants mitt romney back here, would like a consistent message. they say mitt romney shouldn't be talking about israel, redistribution, they sudden say president obama is a nice guy, but where is proof that he can create jobs? that's what mitt romney should focus on every day, every hour. i had say this this is my 70th presidential campaign. i cannot think of one presidential campaign that doesn't have a rough patch. we have 48 days to go. republicans are nervous about the romney ryan