Privacy protection. Hayden and leahy only on fox news sunday. Obamas obamacare continues. I dont see how were still discussing if the website is secure or not, it is. There is no question about that. It is insecure. It is insecure, 100 . Well ask David Kennedy just how vulnerable the obamacare website s and our power player of the week. You can use these to save lives. You think of it as an ink jet printer. In these days it builds up a three dimensional model one step at a time. Hello again from fox news in washington. President obama tried to deal with a growing uproar over government surveillance friday looking to strike a new balance between National Security and Civil Liberties. Weve invited two men to discuss what the president did and didnt do. General Michael Heyden is former head of the nsa and then the cia, charged with gathering intelligence to keep the country safe. Democrat Patrick Leahy is chair of the Senate Judiciary committee and has already introduced legislation to cut back even more on government surveillance. Gentlemen, welcome back to fox news sunday. Lets start with the big picture. General, what do you think of the president s reforms he announced. Does he comprise this nations security . Chris, theres a lot to like about the speech. That first third is the most robust defense of why we conduct intelligence and how we conduct intelligence the president made. If he had been giving that speech for the last six months, im not so sure he would have had to have made the speech at the department of justice. Now, when you get into the substance, what he changed, i think theres a clear pattern with the domestic and the foreign piece. Hes going to cut back on capacities. He hopes that the margins, cutting into agility a little bit, putting administrative burdens on, that can be risky. It looks like hes willing to accept that risk to preserve the program. All right. Were going to get into the details in a moment. Let me get big picture perfefro. Does he go far enough . I think he is trying to protect americans. You always have that balance between the privacy and protection. The concern that many have had and this is united, republicans and democrats across the political spectrum in the house and senate is have we gone too much into americans privacy . And weve also reached a point of if we collect anything, do we have anything as we found in the past . Sometimes we have so much stuff we dont go through it. He went over what he might do. There is still going to be legislation on this. For example, attorney general holder is coming to before the Senate Judiciary committee january 29th, the day after the president s state of the union message. Were going to ask him a lot of questions. A lot of it was between what he and head of National Intelligence have to work out. Theres going to be a lot of questions again from both republicans and democrats or a concern that were going too much in the privacy of america. Okay. Lets get into some details. I think its fair to say the biggest debate is over the collection of metadata, the records of billions of americans phone calls, not the content but the fact that my number called your number, how long the call lasted. Heres what the president said about those on friday. I believe we need a new approach. Im therefore ordering a transition that will end the section 215 bulk Metadata Program as it currently exists and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the Government Holding this bulk metadata. The president wants the nsa to get Court Approval before it can search the data base. He wants someone other than the government to ohold the records and only two steps removed from a suspected number instead of the current three steps removed. General heyden, given the fact that the current nsa director says that this bulk collection of metadata prevented one or two stops at the most, cant you live with those restrictions . It appears they have to live with those restrictions. Two versus three hops. When you get to the third hop what that means is they identify that theres a bad number. Currently they can say okay, this number called that number. Called that number. Called that number. Three hops. Now it will be only two hops. If the third hop werent useful from time to time, we wouldnt have been doing it in the first place. By the time you get out there, you really discover, everybody has a dentist and everybody orders pizza. So there is an impact. Im a little more concerned about going to the court every time you want to clear the data. As you said, they have the data in the big data base. Then they have what is called a foreign number. You get a cell phone and you want to ask that data base has that seed number, that bad number you now have ever been in contact with numbers here in the United States . And the standard is do you have a reasonable, articulate suspicion that that seed number is al qaeda related . Thats a professional intelligence judgment. I dont know what role the court has in adding value. You know judge banks, former head of this in a letter to congress specifically said that. Let me pick up with you. In your legislation, the nsa freedom act, you are calling for an end to the bulk collection of this metadata. Are you going to fight the president on this . No, i think we have a way we can do this. But its not a question of the president , its a question of what is Congress Going to do on this . There is too much leeway. As you know, the fisa court is critical, in fact, a few years ago the abuses of the procedures we had to collect data. And asked them to clamp down. I worry because we just see what happened. There was so much stuff stolen, we dont know everything that was stolen from snowden. And that worries you. They you have your telephone calls, general heydens telephone calls, my telephone calls. Where is all this going . I would rather have some somebody overseeing where you get it. Now on the question of emergency, president made very clear the emergency did go in and they would go to the court afterward. I just think back in the history of this country, j. Edgar hoover, if he had the power when he was spying on protesters and those against the vietnam war and Martin Luther king, hed have the power thats in here. We americans believe in our safety. We also believe in our ability to be private. I was a prosecutor for eight years. I believe in going after the bad guys. I realize this is entirely different level than the bad guys i went after. You still have to have some checks and balances before you have a government that can run amok. Let me go to another subject. Perhaps the most controversial reform he announced friday is to extend privacy rights for foreigners. Heres what the president had to say about that. People around the world, regardless of their nationality should know the United States is not spying on ordinary people who dont threaten our National Security. And we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures. Senator leahy, i can understand that because of the diplomatic uproar the idea that were not going to wiretap or eavesdrop on our allies, someone like a foreign leader. Why on earth would we extend our constitutional protections to foreigners, particularly when we know those countries are spying on us . I dont think thats what the president said. Now as general heyden and i know without going into classified material, we have as people know we have relationships with all the Intelligence Services among our allies. We share great deal of information from them in both directions. I think a lot of these countries were getting such feedback against the United States saying why are they spying on us, too . I think the president had to Say Something like this to know were being protected. There is a growing and i think erroneous feeling in other countries that somehow the United States was in tapping all of them. I think this is probably a way of helping some of our allies say its okay for us to cooperate with the United States. Well, let me ask you, is this a pr move . Well continue to survey foreigners when it comes to pr is your word, not mine. I understand that. Counter intelligence or Cyber Security, is that what is that what this is basically that hes saying were not going to do things that we werent doing already . Look, if your definition of a pr move is to restore confidence domestically and abroad, thats what the president is doing. Its very interesting. The president s language was very precise. He did not commit to pulling back on collection against foreign targets other than heads of state and heads of government. What hes talking about is the retension of that data and then how it is dem nature isseminate. He said we use the same standards as we do for american president. Had this concerns me. You mentioned administrative burden. We do that with great oversight for americans. It is administratively burdensome. This is a tenfold increase in the paperwork requirement. Well see how much the system can stand that. I want to make it clear though as we wrap this up. I want to move to one other subject, that basically, theres a lot less that the president changes than what he does change. And i want to talk about that. The government will still be able to issue National Security letters of broad subpoena power. They will still be able to build back doors into hardware and software of private companies to collect information. Let me get to both briefly to answer this. The impression i get, maybe im wrong, general, isnt the basic surveillance structure that george w. Bush started after 9 11, isnt that still intact . Absolutely. And let me add one more item to your list, going after incription. His Commission Said we should pull back on that. He never mentioned incription once in your talks. In terms of the basic structure of george w. Bush exactly. The president embraced it. He has a political problem, i dont mean to trivialize it. In a democracy, political problems are serious. He is willing to shave points off flexibility and add administrative burdens. Do you agree . I think that we will we are going to maintain our ability to protect the United States, thats extremely important. Talking about incription, we know that there is a tax on the United States all the time from foreign governments which is enormous problem for this country. So we will protect against that. The concern everybody has is allowing our government to have such a reach into your private life, my private life and everybody elses that we are we have a government controlling us instead of us controlling the government. And thats what both republicans and democrats are joined together on the hill to try to change. All right. I want to talk about one other subject in the time we have left and that is that the six month interim deal between the u. S. And iran goes into effect tomorrow. It would limit the Irans Nuclear program in exchange for some easing of some sanctions that the west put on iran. General heyden, should Congress Leave the deal alone or should they go ahead and pass this legislation which would impose sanctions six months from now if there is not another deal and prescribe what has to be in the final deal . Yeah. Chris, im creature of the executive branch, you want to give them as much room as possible. I think having that congressional action just off stage, just in the wings mute actually be a powerful negotiating tool. Heres the problem. If this is a nuclear weapon, the iranians are parked right about here. In the surnt six months, somewhat freezes on there and gives it transparency. But theyre too close. What weve got to do is crank them back. Theyve got to deconstruct stuff. So you would support the legislation . I like the threat of additional sanctions hanging out there. Senator leahy, so far 16 of your democratic colleagues say that they are going to support imposing new sanctions against iran. Are they i think its a mistake. Ill tell you why. We voted for sanctions. I voted for a very tough sanction on iran. Right now we have five plus one of the countries working with iran on. This we have people that joined us on the sanctions. If they look like were prejudging the negotiations, theyre going to say, hey, United States, youre on your own. Theyre going to start pulling away. Briefly, do you agree with the white house that if senators vote for that theyre pushing a march to war . I think if we do that, we screw up the ability to have real negotiations. If the negotiations fail, if iran is seen cheating, well impose more sanctions in a nano second. Dont do it prematurely because if youre trying to negotiate something, you dont have a third party in this case the congress coming in involved in that negotiation. Senator leahy, general heyden, thank you both very much. Up next, our sunday panel joins the discussion on the president s nsa reforms. And were taking your questions on the topic. Just go to twitter or facebook and we may use what you ask on the air. Theres a saying around here, you stand behind what you say. Around here you dont make excuses. You make commitments. And when you cant live up to them, you own up, and make it right. Some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where its needed most. But i know youll still find it when you know where to look. [ male announcer ] what kind of energy is so abundant, it can help provide the power for all this . Natural gas. More than ever before, americas electricity is generated by it. Exxonmobil uses advanced visualization and Drilling Technologies to produce natural gas. Powering our lives. While reducing emissions by up to 60 . Energy lives here. Adding thousands of Products Online every day. From hard hats and goggles. To tools and cleaning products. To state of the art computers, to coffee to keep you fueled. From the sign over the door to the boxes to get it out the door. Yes, staples has everything you need to launch your big idea. Except your big idea. So when you get an idea, were ready with everything else. Staples. Make more happen. There are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. That places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do. President obama trying to strike the right balance between security and confidence. Time for our group, brit hume, robert costa of the washington post, Kimberly Strossel from the wall street journal and juan williams. Brit, the president was trying to find middle ground between the Intelligence Community on the one hand and the Civil Liberties folks on the other. What side should be happier . I think the intelligence folks should be happy. He trimmed the program at the edges as you heard general heyden describe. Did hedismantle it or propose to dismantle it. He does have central idea of moving all this metadata to other site, not sure he can pull that off. Nobody knows where to put it. By and large, the Program Remains intact. I think the president did this shows the president believes in the program and what he did was as little as he thought he could get away with politically. He felt he had to do something because he objected to this paranoid, some of them in my view, were pretty loud and a lot of people sort of on left and right were expressing that. Lets make the point there. The president continues metadata collection. He continues the National Security letters. He continues the governments ability to try to penetrate private companies, theyre software and hardware, incription to get information. I want to ask you the same question that i asked our two guests in the prior segment. Doesnt the president in effect maintain the basic surveillance structure that was created after 9 11 by george w. Bush . He does. There was a status quo speech in many ways. Efface sometimes challenges in congress. Hes not only fighting against opposition in his own party, but theyre forming a new coalition thats going to push back against the president s recommendations. You know, thats an interesting question. Will how much trouble do you expect . A lot of this the president cant do on his own. One of the things, kim, that he talked about in the speech, congress is going to have to approve if hes going to move the metadata, not the collection, but the storage from the nsa to either the phone company because as brit says, dont want it, or to a private new created third party and you wonder about that and you wonder about potential security leaks there and privacy concerns. Is Congress Going to go along with him . This is where the drama shifts to. You did have john boehner come out after that speech very short statement saying, you know, we in congress are not going to do anything that is going to degrade their operational ability of the government to continue to protect the country. Which does suggest hes going to get some push back on some of the things that he has suggested. Of course, whats interesting is that you have had for a real shift in the Republican Party in recent years, too. Youve had rand paul and very big critics of the nsa. They nearly dismantled some of this. So its going to be very interesting to see if john boehner republicans now step up for those who are actually worried about what the president s proposals will do to the ability to collect intelligence, that they are going to get a group that can actually push back against them. I want to ask you one other question. For all our talk about all the things the president maintains, is there anything in his speech that gives you heart burn . Is there anything there that you look at the reforms and say that may have gone too far . A lot. I mean general heyden is right, he maintains the structure. He makes this much harder to do. There is great thought put into the way this Program Actually works. One of the reasons the president was vague about some of the things, they dont know how to do the things that hes propose will. Ill give you an example. According to the president , were not going to spy on our allies anymore. I mean this sounds nice in theory. But what happens when Angela Merkel gets on the phone with Vladimir Putin . How do you make those distinctions . And where you house the data. One of the reasons weve had it all in one spot is its what allows you to make connections. If each of the phone Companies Keep it themselves, you cant make those connections anymore. We ask you for questions. We got one on facebook from a fellow appropriately enough named stephen colbert. He said why hasnt the congdon Anything Congress done anything about this . Stephen, i think theyre scared if not cowardly. I think theyre worried that they will be called soft on terrorism, that they will be said to be unpatriotic. If they do anything that goes towards the Civil Liberties end of the scale. So, you know, ive seen less oversight on capitol hill as a result and what you see in general even as we approach a reauthorization of the patriot act, is a sense that, yeah, we can take some steps but we dont want to go so far as to open ourselves to president obama saying hey a bomb went off and it was because of the congress that i couldnt do what i needed to do to protect americans. And i think thats a real risk for congress. I think theyre going to have to take some steps. I think your guests who did the pat y patriot act before is going to say we have to impose some limits because you want to make sure that people in power dont abuse it pro actively. So far, the fact is again they get back to stephens question, nobodys abusing. There is no evidence that somebody is abusing it. Thats the correct answer to the question. The correct answer to the question is what improprieties . This program really threatens no one unless its abused. And to date, not a single victim has been identified. Not a single abuse of the metadata has been identified that harmed n eed anyone in any. So thats, i think, the real reason why congress hasnt done anything is that the program has so far worked as intended although it hasnt done as much as they might have thought it could. But theres no one harmed. Brit, you know, you get the emails. Youre going to get them today. I get the emails. And there are a lot of very loyal patriotic americans who are outraged by this, jouj raged by what they learned of Edward Snowden and theyre concerned that maybe you cant point to the abuse but the idea can just vacuum up all of this information about law abiding citizens, theyre very offended by it. Theyre offended by the concept. Thats understandable. What many of them dont understand is these telephone calls are not being listened in on. It is simply a record of the kind that your phone company gets every time you place a call of the number you called, the duration of the call, the time of the call. Thats it. And when you have that when you see the number of phone calls made and the volume of this metadata, this is the ultimate hay stack. And, you know, if you have special procedures have to be undergone to search this vast amount of information, my basic thesis, i guess is everyone is supposedly under surveillance, everyone with every call, then no one is. A lot of people, brit, the Tea Party Folks and the libertarians, their fear is unlike you and me. I think you and i agree on this because we both assume theyre listening to whatever is going on and they should be. I dont think theyre listening to anything. I think they do. I think they look at everything. I think they have the capacity to. Thats a different matter. That anxiety is out there. Yes. You could look at alaska, that senator came out against the speech. They get the emails. They feel the unease among constituents. I think thats against the law. Bob, let me ask you about that. On one hand, you have two competing things here. Youre getting deluged by people saying you have to put an end to this. On the other hand as juan and kim suggest, boy, god forbid, if there is another attack, they are going to say you created the security gap. Look what happened last year when a vote came for john boehner who rarely votes as speaker, he voted support of the nsa and the National Security establishment. How hawkish can you be within your own conference and on the campaign trail . There are a lot of questions. All right. We have to take a break. Well have you back later to discuss a tough new report in the benghazi terrorist attack. Up next, how secure is the obamacare website . Hackers are a few clicks away from getting your information. He joins us next. And be sure to tell us what you think. Go to facebook and share your favorite moments from todays show with other fns fans. When does your work end . Does it end after youve expanded your business . After your companys gone public . And the capitals been invested . Or when your companys bought another . Is it over after youve given back . You never stop achieving. Thats why, at barclays, our ambition is to always realize yours. This week there was larming new testimony about the security of the obamacare website. Cyber experts told congress the site is vulnerable and personal information of obamacare consumers may be at risk. One of those experts is David Kennedy, founder of a security firm. Before that he worked for the nsa and marines. You testified before congress in november and you said that the website was very vulnerable to potential hackers. Now after his supposedly new and improved, you testified once again this past week before congress and you said the situation is even worse. Explain. Well, when we testified in front of congress in november, chris, what we learned was that they had rushed through what we call the Software Life cycle where they build the application. So when you do that, security doesnt really get integrated into it. And what happened with the rocky launch in october, they slapped a bunch of servers in trying to fix the website just to keep it up and running so that people could actually go and use it. The problem is they didnt imbed any security into it. So when you have another few hundred developors running code to try to keep the site up and running, you know, you increase the line count of code and increases more exposure. Thats what we saw over a period of time. Thats what we testified on. Its much worse than what we saw in november. Im going to ask you about that and how you know that. You say you did not hack the site and, yet, you say you could access 70,000 records of various people who signed up for health care under at the website within four minutes. How do you know that if you havent hacked the site . Thats a great question. There is a technique called passer reconnaissance which allows us to look at how the website performs. These type of attacks that im mentioning here in the 70,000 that youre referencing is very easy to do. It doesnt actually attack the website itself, it extracts information from it without having to go into the system. Think of it this way. Think of something where you have a car and the car doors are open and the windows are open, can you see inside of it. Thats basically what they allow you to do. There is no real sophistication level here. It is wide open. There is no hacking involved. 70,000 is a number that i was able to go up to. I stopped after that. You know, im sure its hundreds of thousands if not more and done within a fourminute time frame. Its just wide open. You can literally open up your browser go, to this and extract all this information. Lets talk about the information you say that you could access if you were to actually hack the site. Names, addresses, Social Security numbers, birth dates. And you also say that because healthcare. Gov is linked to the irs and department of home land security, you could also get in and see what they had to say about the individual person who was signed up. How do you know that . Again, how do you know that can you get this and even get into irs and get into dhs and if in fact that is the case, what could a hacker do with things with what seems like a lot of private information . Thats a great question what you look at for when you assess a website, ive been doing Website Security for a number of years. We break into web sites all the time. This is my area of expertise. What we do is look at problematic areas around the website. If youre seeing these type of exposures just on the website, just by looking at it, there is a much more larger problem on the inside. Its 100 certainty because of how the website was designed and how it was architected and sped along. There are problematic areas. I used the example in congress, if a car is driving by and ive been a medical for 14 years instead of security, the engine is making sounds or smoke puffing everywhere and loyal leaking, you probably have a good understanding that the engine itself is bad. Thats whats happening here in the healthcare. Gov infrastructure. Its a number of Different Companies that came together to match this thing up to make it what it is today. And youre seeing that, you know, happening right now. So the problem is if you look at the integration between the irs, dhs, Third Party Credit verification processes, you have all of these different organizations that feed into this data hub for the healthcare. Gov infrastructure to provide that information, validate everything. And so when a hacker gets access to that, they have full access into your entire onlane identity, everything do you from taxes to, you know, what you pay, what you make, what dhs has on you from a tracking perspective as well as obviously what we call personal identify information which a hacker would use to take a line of credit out from your account. Its damaging. I think its one of the largest web sites in history that we have that has this type of level of access into our personal lives. Now, mr. Kennedy, the Obama Administration is not happy with your testimony and theyre pushing back very hard on it. The chief Security Officer for the website was the very concerned about vulnerabilities back in october when the website was launched. Now says that its fully tested and that it is secure. This is what she said when testifying before congress. This Security Control ment all industry standards was an end to tests and conducted in a stable environment and allowed for testing to be completed in the alotted time. She now calls for full certification of the site. She says its secure, sir. I have to completely disagree with her. Its not just myself that is saying this website sin secuis , it is seven independent researchers that looked at the research ive done and came to the exact same conclusion. These are folks that work really well in the industry. Theyre highly respected, have an extensive experience with working for the government. You know, if you read the testimony and you read what she actually said, she said its done end to end security testing. They dont say what type of testing that. It could have been an audit that looked at paperwork. It could have been small testing that looks for basic things. But what is evident right now is that the site itself is not secure. All right. Its much worse off. All right. Let me talk about another complaint. Another Government Official from hhs says that for all your claims of vulnerabilities, there have been no successful hacks of the website so far. Here he is. No, there have been no successful attempts of what anyone has been able to attack the system and penetrate it. Question, if there are so many gaps and its been up since october 1st, why hasnt anybody exploited this . This is my favorite ones out of the whole testimony. There is no successful hack that theyve been able to detect. They basically said a Third Party Company was contracted to build out the Security Operations center which is what would detect these types of attacks. As of november, it hadnt even been started yet. You look at how long the Security Operations centers take to put in place, it takes several months if not years to fully implement the hacks out there. As of november we have no modern detection. From my understanding, its still not happening to this date. So theyre accurate in their statement. They havent detected any attacks because they dont have the capability to detect them. Just to throw it in comparison, they dont say what the cause for alarms are. But just a pure statistic, if you have a website that faces the internet just purely, you know, not popular, especially not as popular as healthcare. V healthcare. Gov, youre going to get hundreds a week based on that volume alone. They dont have the capability yet. You talk about the fact that a lot of independent Cyber Security experts side with you about how vulnerable the site is. The administration talks about an independent Cyber Security expert who says unless you personally hacked the site yourself and you say you havent, you cant possibly know basically what you claim. Here he is. If none of us here built healthcare. Gov, if were not actively doing not a passive vulnerability assess. But active assessment if running gode, we can only speculate whether or not those hacks will work. Mr. Kennedy, the Administration Says that your testimony is based on assumptions, not facts. And i have to disagree. The other seven security researchers would also disagree as well. Unfortunately, he is not a Web Application Security person. He folks more on higher level security audits than anything else. And its knots to throw into question his experience. He does great stuff with veterans, for Security Training and things like that. But he doesnt focus on application security. And that is absolutely false. You can definitely tell how secure a website is without actually penetrating into it and hacking the website. I wasnt the only one that agreed on the panel. There were three other gentlemen as well on the panel. I want to ask you, i need a ten second answer here. Since you testified, has the government gotten in touch with you and said here, come on in and show us how weak our website is . Absolutely not. They havent. And its been offered. We would do it for free to help out. Unfortunately, theres been no contact from them. Thank you. Thank you so much for joining us to day. Thank you. Well keep an eye on how the Health Care Website is doing. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Coming up, the Senate Intelligence committee knocks down claims the attack in benghazi was the work of local militias with no ties to al qaeda. Our panel weighs in next. Know the feeling . Copd includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Spiriva is a oncedaily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that helps open my obstructed airways for a full 24 hours. Spiriva helps me breathe easier. Spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fastacting inhalers for sudden symptoms. Tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. These may worsen with spiriva. Discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. Stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. Other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. Nothing can reverse copd. Spiriva helps me breathe better. Does breathing with copd weigh you down . Dont wait to ask your doctor about spiriva. [chris]still smoking up a storm . [tom]yeah. Pathetic,isnt it . [chris] ever try to. [tom] quit . Of course my best time was six days. The worst was. Uh. 23. 4 seconds. [chris] so can i ask you. [chris tom] why are you still smoking . [tom] [sarcastic] its so much fun. [chris]why not call the smokers helpline . The programs free,and. [tom]and theyll tell me. You oughta quit. [chris] not so. Just tell them youre ready to quit. Then,theyll tell you how. [tom] really . You wouldnt have that number on you,would you . I can say with complete confidence that al qaeda wasnt involved in it and certainly the state department knew that al qaeda had a major presence in benghazi prior to the attack. We have no indication thats they directed or planned this attack. And i just reiterate a point that every bad guy with a gun isnt al qaeda. That may be a useful shorthanded for politicians to use, but its not borne out by the facts on the ground. Top republican in the Senate Intelligence committee and state Department Spokesperson sharply disagreeing over the role al qaeda played in the 2012 attack on the u. S. Consulate in benghazi. And were back now with the panel. The Senate Intelligence committee came out with their report on the benghazi terror attack this week. Here was its conclusion. The Committee Found the attacks were preventable based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in libya to include prior threats and attacks against western targets and given the known security short falls at the u. S. Mission. Brit, this is a bipartisan report. You are surprised how tough it is . Yes, i was surprised. I didnt think i think what we would have is a mild set of conclusions from the committee as a whole because the democrats have the majority and then a stronger set of views from minority. We did a stronger set of views from the minority. The majoritys view of this was pretty tough and as you heard they noted, they did say al qaeda was involved. What is fun to watch here is the state departments incredible shrinking definition of al qaeda. Which gets down to what they call core al qaeda. That is getting to be so small it is hard to detect anywhere. Al qaeda has been you have to have a tshirt that says im with those guys. Im a Osama Bin Laden man all the way and i knew him and he personally trained me. Thats kind of where we are in this story. And you add to that what came out of the house side this week, the testimony of general hamm who happened to be in town at the time when this attack happened on september 11th, and he and the other senior people at the pentagon including the secretary were the view this was a terrorist attack from the get go and they went and panetta went to the white house and told the president that. So the president who waffled for weeks on end was told by senior military leaders right on the day i happened that it was a terrorist attack. Those two things have moved the ball forward. Lets talk about that. Well get to hamm in a moment. The report, bob, that report from Senate Intelligence basically says, one, al qaeda affiliates were involved and, two, it says that on september 18th, just one week after the attack the cia and fbi reviewed the videos of the attack and it was clear that it was terrorists. It was clear this was not some prote protest. That certainly contradicts what the president and his team were saying in the weeks after the attack. Its fascinating what you page through the documents. You really see a critique of foggy bottom, of administrative leadership within the president s administration. At the same time, the legs of this story i think are really questionable. Because this is a bipartisan report, will there be questions about safe leadership in the coming days . Sure. Will Hillary Clinton who is only mentioned once in the document continue to be the focus of republican scrutiny . Maybe not. Lets get the general and were going to get to clinton in a second. Lets get to general carter hamm. He was the head of the u. S. Command in africa at the time which had military control over u. S. Forces in that region. And he testified back this summer before congress and that testimony was released this week. He testified that within minutes of the attack, to me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just something sporadic. Again, kim, that is directly contradicting the narrative that came out of the white house after the attack, the narrative i heard and she was sitting right here where you were with susan rice that sunday after, september 16th. You have the general in charge of africon saying it wast terro. Thats why it doesnt solve anything. What we found out in this report, it was a serious condemnation of state and how they handled the security and intelligence failure which resulted in the deaths of four americans. Just to make the point, they talk about repeated intelligence warnings about the growing terrorism extremist presence in Eastern Libya and particularly of al qaeda. Theyre flooding the zone with reports about deteriorating security. They talked about how trip wires which were ment to actually bolster security were ignored. They talk about the fact that the cia was paying attention to these things. They bolstered their own security at the annex down the state department completely dropped the ball here. I think as a result, that news, that information, that settle. Also combined with the fact that general hamms comments about them knowing immediately, it does put this all again in a different light. And says, okay, did the white house understand just how bad this was . And did that inspire them to come out with the story . In an Election Year that simply was not the case of what had actually happened. Which brings us to the curious case of secretary of state Hillary Clinton who is not in the main report issued by this bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee is not mentioned one time. But the republican members of the committee had their own appendix in which they said she should be held accountable for benghazi. Heres what they said specifically. She was responsible for ensuring the safety of all americans serving in our diplomatic facilities. Her failure to do so clearly made a difference in the lives of the four murdered americans and their families. Juan, is that fair . I dont think its fair at all. I think that what you have here is a situation where as the report said, this was preventable. They could have prevented this because they should have been able to shore up security at the consulate. The problem is the intelligence wasnt very good. That is what the real finding was. I dont agree with that. They said the intelligence was good and in fact the cia reacted to it but state didnt. Carter hamm says there was no evidence of an imminent attack there. No, but i think they said the intelligence, especially the intelligence given to the president was given to the secretary rice was consistent with what secretary rice said here. So i think theres a big effort. I think thats what we see in the appendix group to try to pull Hillary Clinton in because Hillary Clinton is the leading candidate for 2016. They want to damage her politically somehow with this report. I dont see how that advances the ball at all. There are two different kinds of intelligence. The intelligence warnings that were out there that inspired the cia to bolster their own initiative. Which he said twice, i dont want additional security. Thats a different question from what intelligence the white house got about what happened on the day. What i dont understand is how her department that she was head of can be responsible for multiple failures in this thing and she is blameless. Shes not in channeling of securi charge of security. Juan, is she ultimately in charge . Is she ultimately responsible for what happens under her leadership . Exactly. You have an ambassador on the ground there that said twice i dont want additional security. The idea she has some personal culpability, no. This is just now new about this administration. No one is ever held accountable in this administration. This white house, there is no one accountable for irs, there is no one accountable for healthcare. Thats a political argument. Thats not a surprise. Thank you, panel. See you next week. Up next, a power player of the week. Saving a life with a 3d printer. Were still talking about benghazi. 3d printers are part of our daily lives, helping build boats, cars and even guns. But one of the nations top hospitals is using the technology to help save lives. Here is our power player of the week. We can make the model the same texture, essentially as the actual heart. And a surgeon can practice suturing and cutting on the model before doing the actual surgery. Kevin cleary is talking about the latest in medical technology. Using 3d printers to create models of hearts and other organs to help surgeons treat their patients. Cleary is the lead bioengineer at childrens medical center. He says this is a marriage of technology and medicine. A complex case would be a child who was born with multiple heart defects, perhaps unusual anatomy where the 3d model would be useful. So lets rotate this. It starts with sophisticated imaging of the heart. Preparing this for 3d printing, we can remove extra tissue. Which is then fed into the printer. You can think about it just like an ink jet printer except in this case it builds up a three dimensional model one layer at a time. Each layer can be as thin as a human hair. A typical mod. Caller ta model can be 30 or 400 layers. Dr. Peter kim, Vice President of the institute, says theyve used three dimensional models in seven cases so far. Imaging is so sophisticated now, what does this give that you imaging doesnt . We deal with our hands. Essentially its eyehand coordination. So even if you have a mental image of what youre applying, its applying a physical model to see and touch it and even physically calculate your moves and steps could be makes a huge difference. Dr. Kim showed us on a model of patients heart. This is the stent. And then this side it is actually sticking out. So knowing this narrowing and relative position of it i think this will help. But the uses dont stop there. Doctors at childrens are inventing medical devices that they need for tough cases. The beauty of the 3d printer is you can print anything can you imagine. If the surgeon has a clinical need and idea, we can prototype it and then validate it through various studies where eventually kit be used clinically. Theyre even working on some day being able to print artificial organs. This tech snolg sonology is off but its not Science Fiction anymore. It enables foam take their ideas and make them reality. The 3d printer has unlimited potential in terms of developing new technology. Very cool. Doctors say the plan theg do with 3d models makes surgeries quicker, cuts blood loss and is a clear benefit for their patients. Thats it for today. Have a great week and well see you next week on fox news sunday. Announcer the following is a paid advertisement for cold plasma subd by perricone md. How old does your neck make you look . Would you like to take years off your appearance and help remove some of the signs of aging on your neck for a look that is firmer, tighter, and more youthful . Well, now you can. Introducing dr. Perricones cold plasma subd. Subd is specifically formulated for the area called the submandibular. Often neglected, the skin in this area has unique needs,