so you get all of the pain and none of the gain, in effect. interesting cost/benefit analysis there. this is in 2006, this document, as you point out. during the previous administration, george w. bush. do we have any indication of whether or not this continued under president obama? well, as you know and you mentioned germany being one of these countries, clearly it was on this list, and this set up this very awkward phone call between president obama and angela merkel yesterday, where, in that phone call according to the white house, the president was able to say we are not now listening to your calls and we will not in the future. he did not say we did not in the past. the white house has been pressed on this and jay carney was again pressed on this today, saying wait a second, did this happen in the past. he wouldn t answer that question. in fact, this is how he characterized it when he was speaking to white house reporters today. we are not going to comment publicly on eve
did not specify that they had never done this in the past, and the white house has been pressed on this a number of times and as far as jay carney has been willing to go is to say we are not going to comment publicly on every specified alleged intelligence activity. of course, more difficult when you have so many of them. it s causing enormous diplomatic headaches for the united states. no question. today, you already have the german chancellor, the american ambassador summoned. you had the german defense minister saying there must be consequences for the relationship and you have angela merkel saying today in very strong words that trust between the u.s. and germany has been threatened. here s how she described it. translator: we are closely tied in with the u.s. and trust is an important part in the relationship, and now that trust has to be reestablished between us. spying among friends is never acceptable. trust has to be reestablished. the white house has said they are rev
general petraeus had coming into this. where he knew as this whole thing was going to unfold, two things he was very concerned about, one was his family and the impact on them, and also wh what then would be the impact on the agency and the impact on the country. i think he did, and general petraeus i think is a hero for so many young troopers. i think he did the right and honorable thing. but the key question come still comes down to, if an investigation was done and there were no criminal activities attached to this, at what point does this continue to rise up the chain of command? i think that s what s continuing to fall down. and i think these are legitimate questions that need to be asked as well. when you talk about the chain of command. david, now i want to bring you in. and we ll be talking about something you re reporting on, veterans day issues later in the show. but i want to put up the federal requirements under the law for reporting these kind of investigations. basicall
new warnings about japanese aggression in the days before pearl harbor. the surprise attack killed 2400 americans, leaving more than a dozen ships damaged or sunk, 180 u.s. war planes destroyed. and of course, it plunged america head long into world wariminity: author craig shirley is highlighting a memo from naval intelligence sent to president roosevelt days before the attack. one part says in anticipation of possible open conflict with this country, with the u.s., japan is vigorously utilizing information, paying particular attention to the west coast, the panama canal, and the territory of hawaii. now, president roosevelt saw the memo, alerting him of japanese intelligence activity, but he also received one from his army secretary that warned of possible japanese attacks in the philippines, without mentioning anything about hawaii. surely doesn t buy into theories that fdr knew the
i can interrupt, they looked at what you are saying, they investigated and said in order to collect, analyze, and share publicly available information about distinguished visitors is a lawful order. this would not be considered intelligence activity. that s two days later after captain scott s opinion that came to me and the order was, quote-unquote, clarified. and we took out the parts to actually report back on the impact and report, and to assess and analyze what to do forward. and we did carry that out. we carried that out for several weeks. but the thing that s really frustrating about this is we got this order, their own lawyer said it was illegal. it was later clarified and we took out the parts that were deemed to be illegal and then ten days after that the command launches an investigation against us and then, furthermore, the command also launched an investigation against captain scott. do you feel you re being targeted at this point? where do you take this from now? ab