he s connecting the investigation and what he said today at the white house, does that sound like national skus security issues to you? no. let s not forget john brennan had to explain in earlier media appearances when he said the russians have something on him. when he says that as a former cia director the assumption from viewers of television programs like this and other journalists is that he knows something. anyway, my point here is that very well may be true, but he really does have an obligation to put up or shut up and he has really gone much further out on a limb than other former officials. you don t hear mike haden and other former officials going quite as far as john brennan has calling him at one point a traitor and things like that. he has every right to criticize the president but when he implies he has information the rest of us can t see, that s not
systematically happening within the church. i think this is what people need to understand. i can appreciate what jennifer is talking about in terms of people wanting to stay in the church and fight, but when you re talking about an institution that moves very slowly, the only thing that seems to really put the pressure on them is legal action. i think we re at a point with the church that it s not going to take just lay people working with bishops and cardinals and things like to make changes. it s going to take legal action. that is the only way i have seen the catholic church really move in these kinds of situations. i was talking to mike who was part of that whole spotlight crew out of boston exposing all of this in boston and he was saying why is it the a.g. who is the one in pennsylvania who is the one wanting answers instead of church saying something has been wrong, something has been rotten and we need to fix it. this is what the vatican has now finally said in their respons
but congress doesn t seem exercised about the disclosures, compared to other issues, other controversies. are americans simply more interested in security than privacy? nbc s david gregory is moderator of meet the press. david, you ve done a lot of reporting and thinking about this issue. we saw benghazi and other issues that approach the scandal level. this one has a different tone to it, at least in terms of congressional oversight. well, i think that s the key. because i think what congress may want to do is have more oversight. they may want to make put some more parameters around these programs. i keep saying the bigger issue is we have to have a debate in this country about whether we want to abandon the level of security state that we created after 9/11. and congress has to have the guts to do that. i think people want to learn more. i think there s a lot of the country that is not concerned about this, if it s in pursuit of terrorists and people still perceive a
by, quote, enhanced interrogation. but in a new interview with time magazine, a former head of counterterrorism at the cia during the bush era, jose rodriguez, says the enhanced interrogation techniques use ds on khalid sheikh mohammed and abu faraj al libi is what eventually led to bin laden. joining those claiming a win for torture tactics, former defense secretary donald rumsfeld. i think that anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques, let s be blunt, waterboarding, did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence just isn t facing the truth. the facts are, general mike haden came in, he had no connection with waterboarding anybody. he looked at all of the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on al qaeda came from individuals, the only three people who were waterboarded.
no real strong drumbeat for releasing it. it s not necessary. i personally think it s morbid. i support the president s decision. i share the president s view. lindsay graham said he respectfully disagreed with the president s decision. because everyone knows photographs can be manipulated. i don t want a conspiracy theory developing. you can never really put them to rest. but what really happened inside the compound? more details are sort of seeping out. bha said yesterday stands. questions about whether he was armed or whether he wasn t armed. the changing narrative. you can imagine the chaos with gunfire and the like. there are going to be differing accounts obviously. i don t have any information for you on that. the first reports are always wrong. u.s. officials are providing a clearer picture of the kind of firefight that took place here. what could the details tell us? this operation was law full. it s lawful to target an enemy