So with the disciplined approach you are a step behind. I would argue you have to be very efficient to be adaptable because those that you have to do otherwise you spend all your time just to make the machine run. That is where the balance balance, the san that where you start to get calcified is where your danger is. So with that adaptability and training and muscle memory, but as it develops you have to respond differently that day are not how it is any longer. Good morning. We are a the largest honker organization feeding 540,000 people regionwide. Not the military but very complex and much of what you have said applies to the nonprofit sector. We have been working very hard to push accountability down. The question i have we have 130 employees. Where you dont have so there the military has to process the daytoday tactical decisions. What are your thoughts to get the bottom up the back . In order to stay comfortable with sharing your Strategic Vision to delegate to have to be sure that it is not out of touch. But we dont all have that military capacities when interested in your thoughts on that. The nonprofit space is ripe with this. Many people sit on boards there is a lot of cannibalism in that space so coordination is a challenge. But on the battlefield it was not a huge staff effort we would use a rudimentary system to get to where they were capable the Large Communications as a talk about much faster but to figure out of balance and the right people to have that conversation and a very basic portal system allotted data went on to that but a system like that applies a commonplace to share the most current findings but if you have access of the right information with the dependable conversation at senior levels it can come through. I would argue aranda nonprofit world it is intangible people are not motivated by a compensation. It is not a driver or on a Commission Basis the feeling connected to what you are doing is the of factor if you are in a nonprofit helping veterans it can be pretty tiring play gave private on the battlefield so does us consequence given the big picture is important if they are tired or cold or scared that this makes a difference in then to tell them how difficult it was but the opportunities are remarkable. So we dont have a problem with recruiting working on the coolest stuff no one else has. Lucansky battlefield that is the big defense over the centuries. Looked at the organizational models to go through the book tour understand with certain respects that translates directly to where things are in the technological revolution. The Foundation Releases the results of their annual election live from the American Enterprise has to at 3 00 p. M. Eastern here on chasing news. In primetime continues on tuesday looking at the Book Publishing industry. Interview with adam bellow. A tour of the New York Times book review followed by an interview with oyster books subscription service. And prime time here on chasing news. This summer both tv will cover book festivals around the country. In nine nsf 30 year career with us the head also with president obama. During the raid in may of 2011 author of the new bestseller the cia fight. He will be he will be interview tonight by cbs reporter david brian. Ladies and gentlemen director michael morel. [applauding] [applauding] that is for you. With your permission i would like to ask for civil thank you for being here. Quakes absolutely. Thank you. Clicks you get a chance to ask questions. I wanted to ask how many people have had a chance to read the book and how many of you have actually gotten a copy of the book that you will be reading. That is great. You will have a great time. An easy read and the fascinating book with a lot of important information. We will start our interview tonight with some very Current Issues taking place right now. And, i mean today. Ay for fox news and cnn today the advisory of military personnel wa raised to the level. So who better to ask about this that the former Deputy Director and acting director of the cia. Tell me if this is something we need to be seriously concerned about. We hear about. We hear advisors being raised time to time. A matter of time before there is another inspired attack in the United States. The first was in new york. Just weeks ago. Individuals in the United States would never gone to iraq, syria but who were hearing the isys narrative and message and decided to act. We will see that again. What we saw the last couple of days as a result of a result of a couple of things. Isys is repeatedly said that we are going to attack the United States because of what the United States is doing against us in a rock and they specifically called upon people to attack us soldiers and to attack us military installations. Take it seriously. Absolutely. Another issue that is current. Sunday at midnight. Unless midnight. Unless the senate take action to prevent that. Something you wrote about your book. Admittedly. If this runs out on sunday night domestic terrorism prevention. A a very important program. The telephone metadata program. Short, received the call and the duration of the call. A very important program. It fills a gap that existed prior to september 11 and i believe, i dont know but i believe that i believe that if you were in place if we had seen some of the communications and we have been distracted, distracted that was an important program. But i also believe that is the Security Side of it and where i come at this but i also believe the importance of privacy and Civil Liberties and there is, given the amount of data and the type of data in the database there is the potential for government abuse. We know from our history there has been time when the government has abused its power, so we must take that seriously. Will we recommended to the pres. , whatever review Group Recommended was to keep the program but was to keep the program but dont have the government hold the data. The government accepted that recommendation, the president accepted that recommendation. It is but they recommended them with the house passed almost two weeks ago now usa Freedom Freedom act, and i the Senate Passes and follow suit. Lets move onto the next important issue, benghazi. Last week the the first batch of emails former secretary of state hillary clinton, 50000 or so emails involved here and only work only hundreds were released. First of all, have you looked through the emails that were released command is there anything in their a smoking gun . The power of email that everyone is focused on his emails from a friend of the clintons, mr. Blumenthal sending her emails about the gift prior to the benghazi bombing and then about benghazi after the benghazi bombings. I looked through the mall skimmed them did not read them closely. Closely. I have to tell you, i was underwhelmed. I do i do not think that there is any there there here. Most senior most senior officials and government including me get emails from friends and former colleagues providing you with this without thought or please read this or this is important. Happens all senior officials. It happened to the sec. It is secretary. It is not unusual. You pass them on your staff. Those emails never made their way into the highest levels of discussion. I never saw them until i i read them two days ago. I never showed up in the conversation or the principles conversation. I do not know if my analysts saw them or not. If my analysts did see them they would produce no credibility because they would have no idea where the information came from. Were there any of your emails . Secretary and i never exchanged emails. One of the issues about this you talk about it in your book and i will read you a section. Those arguing against me believe that by saying there had been a protest which was one of the issues was their protest zero was this a planned terrorist attack those who believe the saying that there have been a protest, cia in conspiracy with the white house trying to hide al qaeda and thereby protect pres. Obamas Campaign Theme that he was tough on terrorists. The issue in question was the first part of the analysis that the cia did two days after the attack. They said the assault on the Mission Facility had been a spontaneous event that evolved a protest outside. That was that was the issue i think. Was it just a spontaneous sort of corruption from a protest or was this a a planned terrorist attack. Right. And that is two days days after the event with the analysts at them to say till the present what they what they thought happened, they thought this was approach is that evolved into an attack. That was that was wrong. They did not get the right. But they they did not get it right because they were trying to be political. They did not get it right because they did not have the right information at their fingertips. The right information was not presented. That is what they thought, thought doing their job calling it like they see it being a referee, being an umpire. Umpire. Of all the judgments and made some of that is the only one that turned out to be wrong. The judgments they made two days after turned out to be right. With the administration was saying we are tough on terrorism and winning the war on terrorism while if this was a planned a planned terrorist attack that would not look good for the administration. One of the things that they said, but they still believe today is that there was very little preplanning and this was not an attack that had weeks or months of planning but an attack of probably had hours of planning. You can see that we talk about this in the book. A lack of a military style assault. You had guys running through the gate looking like there were they were happy to be in a compound. You have them try to kick down doors in a comical farcical fashion and failed to knock the door down and walk away. You have them successfully getting in some buildings where there are americans hiding. One guy walked out with an xbox, one guy xbox, one guy walked out of the suit, randomly setting fires some buildings were there are no americans, somewhere there are. This is clearly an event with not a lot of preplanning. There were more. Those with more of the military assault. Additional time to plan is attacks. Not one but three, three, it is hard to believe this is something spontaneous. The original attack on the mission was a a bunch of people looking over guns. A very good question. I i am with them on this. What the analysts believe is that the guys and benghazi saw what happened in cairo earlier in the day which was a bunch of guys went to the embassy, get over the fact the fence and set fire to vehicles. The guys and benghazi absolutely bad guys from extremist terrorists are what happened in cairo and say lets go do the same thing. And they did the assault on the state Department Facility and followed the state Department Facility to the cia facility conducted an attack and then came back four hours later with heavier weapons, including orders. While the questions you have to ask yourself is, people appointed to these borders this is evidence of preplanning. The effectiveness of the mortar fire, the questions you have to ask, if there was preplanning why do they not bring those mortars to the first attack or to the first attack against the cia facility. The answer to that question is they went and got the mortars at the last minute. People say they brought five mortars and three of them were effective. My effective. My question is why only bring five. Libya was a country awash in mortars. Why do mortars. Why do they only bring five . They had time to fire more. Answer, that is all they brought all they had all they could find in a short amount of time that they plan the operation clicks the question and issue that you raise is that did you work in conjunction with the administration . Absolutely not. These were called by the analysts. One of the things that people need to know is that analysts take great pride in calling things as they see them take pride in telling policymakers the your wrong. They like to stick a finger in the policy makers eye and say you are wrong. There there was absolutely no political influence on the analysis. I i did not tell the analysts what to think. Analysts of their job. The job. They defended the analysts. Defendant the next day. And like i said. We will move on to the iraqi war. You wrote in your book no one has come forward and apologize. Arming with bad intelligence to use on the basis of the un speech. Clearly failed him and the american public. Someone and the chain of command. I would like to use this opportunity to publicly apologize. Tell me about that. At the time of the month leading up to the war there were two big intelligence judgments to be made. The status made. The status of Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction and the second was the relationship between iraq and al qaeda. On the on the first, the status of the weapons of mass destruction program. The analysts and cia and in the entire Us Intelligence community and in every Intelligence Service on the planet they look at the question came to the same conclusion. This guy conclusion. This guy has chemical weapons, a biologic weapons production capability and is reconstituting his Nuclear Weapons program. That is what they believe. They turned out to be wrong all of these people looked up the question and turned out to be wrong. The reason i apologize is twofold. I think he is a remarkable human being. He served his country with great distinction and job after job after job. He deserves the stellar reputation that he had going into this un speech. This un speech and he did not say anything at the un that the cia and the rest of the Intelligence Committee did not believe. This un speech tarnished his reputation command he is the first to tell you that. I i have heard him say that the iraq wmd presentation will be on his tombstone. I have also heard him say no one from the cia ever apologize to. I was the number three on the analytic side of the agency when this was done. And so given all of that i i wanted to apologize. And also i did my surprise clicks on the basis of weapons of mass distraction clicks in a negative way. President bush would have to tell you himself. Very important. One of the things i try to do is put the Big Decisions in context. So what was the context in which president bush would make the decision september 11. September 11 had just happened, largest single attack in american history. 3,000 people had just been killed. The cia was telling him that Saddam Hussein one hussein, one of our primary enemies, a sworn enemy of the United States had active weapons of mass distraction programs including programs including a Nuclear Weapon program command we were telling him that Saddam Hussein supports International Terrorist can. Palestinian terrorist groups and so there since president bush having faced this huge attack on the United States understanding the job number one is to protect the American People how we are telling him this guy has weapons of mass distraction and provided support to terrorist groups. He is sitting there thinking if saddam uses these weapons against us where saddam gives his weapons these weapons so terrorist groups and they use these weapons that could make september 11 look small that is that is what drove president bush to action and is exactly what led the majority of congress to support him for exactly the same reason. So absolutely the analysis on a rack having weapons of mass instruction plate into his thinking. These are tough calls and no one gets them right moment of the cia have an obligation to do more to find out more directly rather than based upon circumstantial evidence . Clicks great question. When you read about the intelligence failure that was iraq weapons of mass distraction you will read mostly about the field analysis. There have been books written about it and academics have written articles. This has been studied to death command i have read it all. Part of the failure was something that never gets talked about not just the analysts at the cia but the people who were responsible for collecting secrets people who were responsible for recruiting other human beings to spy for the United States. They not successful in getting a human agent close enough to saddams saddams inner circle to find out what he was really doing, and what was really doing was believing that the only way he could get out from underneath sanctions was to be rid of get rid of his Weapons Program. He believed that the cia would tell the president about it for the pres. Would get rid of sanctions, but he did not want anyone else to know he had gotten rid of these programs because they were a deterrent to a deterrent to his main enemy iran. He wanted it kept secret. It turns out it turns out and by the way he planned all along to eventually go back to his Weapons Programs after said his sanctions programs went away. We know this because he told us this. He told us exactly what he was thinking. He overestimated the capabilities of the Central Intelligence agency interestingly enough. For example, the part that deals with having access to the nuclear or redeveloping Nuclear Weapons and understanding is it was based on the fact that a rack had a rack had acquired aluminum casings that are often used in the process but are also used for other things. It sounds shaky to me. Look, the aluminum tubes. I. I dont know that we need to go into that detail. That was one