Face the Nation transcripts August 11, 2013: Hayden, King, and Ruppersberger
(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on August 11, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., Gen. Michael Hayden, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Eric Schmitt, Margaret Brennan, Len Downie, John Harris and Bill Keller.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And, good morning again. The retired Air Force General Michael Hayden, who served as both the CIA and NSA director, he now consults for the Chertoff Group here in Washington, joins us as our lead guest this morning. Well, General, the President made that news conference on Friday--
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN (Former NSA Director/Former CIA Director): Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --and he said the American people need to know more about what the National Security Agency is doing because there are a growing number of people in the Congress who-- who are wondering is the NSA infringing on Americans' right to privacy? What do you think-- you ran the place.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What-- what do you think is the most significant thing that the President said?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, it was a very interesting speech, and it was a speech in front of a press conference. To me the most telling thing he said was, perhaps, something he didn't quite say. He didn't suggest he was going to operationally change this program. I mean there-- there is no suggestion that what he was doing and what President Bush was doing before him with regard to these programs was anything other than lawful, effective, and appropriate. And so that's I think the-- the first thing. He also suggested and I think this was heartening for people with backgrounds like me and, particularly, folks who are still doing this kind of work--he also suggested that the oversight regime for this was already quite good. He pointed out there have been no abuses under him or under his predecessor, but he does have this issue of confidence, this issue of transparency. And so the President is trying to take some steps to make the American people more comfortable about what it is we're doing. That's going to be hard because, frankly, Bob, some steps to make Americans more comfortable will actually make Americans less safe.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, some of the privacy advocates when they hear you say well the good news is he didn't-- what he didn't say he is not going to change anything. That's going to-- that might cause them to be a little uneasy.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, I don't know. And-- and if you look at the commentary on this, folks from the so-called left, are a bit uneasy. They don't want a little more transparency with regard to the metadata program. They want the program stopped. I don't think it will be.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you a little about one of the things he proposed for the FISA Court. This is the court that meets in secret and any time NSA comes across something they think we need to go in and listen in because they don't listen in, just because they get a tip or something.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right. Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: They have to go to this court to get permission to listen in.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right. If the target is an American person.
BOB SCHIEFFER: If it's an American person. Now one of the things that the President is talking about doing is adding a kind of a privacy advocate--
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --on to the court. This would be someone that when the government comes in and says, "We need to go in and wiretap this person. We need to eavesdrop." This person would say, "Wait a minute, here. That's going too far. You really don't have a reason to do that."
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Is that workable?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: You know the President was-- was, I think, quite artful with that portion of his commentary. He didn't quite say what you said. There are two kinds of decisions that the court makes. One is getting a warrant on an individual person. The other, these broad questions of lawfulness about broad programs, I think the President was talking about that and was not talking about getting a public defender in there for Tony Soprano every time you want to go up on a wiretap with him. Now, the question becomes is that more narrowly defined, that privacy advocate, is that a good or a bad idea? It may be useful for transparency, Bob. It may be useful for confidence, but-- but-- but let me tell you, right, looking through your windscreen when you lay this on, it just looks like more thorough oversight. Okay. When you're looking in your rearview mirror after the next successful attack, this runs the danger of looking like bureaucratic layering and so you need to be careful about how many processes you put in there, even though, I freely admit you don't get to do this at all unless the American people feel comfortable about it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well-- well let me just cite an example and let's say that the NSA runs across something that they think an attack on the country is imminent--
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --and they want to go into the court and say, "We got to do this right now."
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Is it feasible? Is it practical? Is it even possible to say, "Well, wait, let's-- let's argue this a bit?" I mean it would seem to me that time was of the essence.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: No, it is very much of the essence. Now, again, if it's just going up on a specific number I-- I think that can happen rather quickly, and I don't think-- frankly, I don't think the President is arguing for an advocate there. But if now, you'll find yourself in a period of increased danger-- let me make something up, Bob. And this is no one's proposal. All right. But you got this metadata here. It's now queried under very, very narrow circumstances. If the nation suffers an attack, there are other things you could do with that metadata. There are other tools. So in that kind of an emergency, perhaps, you would go to the court and say, "In addition to these very limited queries we're now allowed to do, we actually want to launch some complex algorithms against it." That's the kind of argument that, frankly, even I could accept you might want to have an advocate there.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you-- do you think, General, that the public understands what it is the NSA is doing?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: No.
BOB SCHIEFFER: They have this large collection of phone numbers, but if I understand it, they're not listening in on people's conversations.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: No, no.
BOB SCHIEFFER: They don't do that until they do get a court order.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: That's correct, to an American, to target an American. And actually the President was quite candid in his commentary. He actually pointed out that when he was Senator Obama and wasn't quite fully knowledgeable about these programs he was opposed to them and only becoming President Obama, when he actually saw what was going on that he become actually a very forceful advocate for them.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think the President was asked-- says now that you're saying we need to shine some more light on this, now we need more transparency, he said-- he was asked, "Does this mean now that Edward Snowden was a whistleblower?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Yeah.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you have a different idea?" And he said, "Well, he's not a patriot." What-- what do you think of Edward Snowden? Did-- did he do us all a service here by bringing this forward?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: I'll offer two comments. And I've-- I've actually thought about this and-- and, clearly, the debate was coming. He accelerated it. He didn't inform it. He made it more emotional. And so, you know, there are-- there are some real downsides to what he's done. I'll give you an example. You and I witnessed Katrina, right? I'm telling you right now, Bob, that the levees around Lake Pontchartrain are the strongest they've been in a century, but Katrina was still a bad thing and that's how I view Mister Snowden. And-- and with regard to how to categorize him: We used to have a word for somebody who stole our secrets, who got the job to steal our secrets, and then he moved with those secrets to a foreign country, and made those secrets public. It wasn't a whistleblower. It was defector. And I actually think that's a very good word for him.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think he is a traitor, would you go that far?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Traitor is narrowly defined in the Constitution. I will stick with defector.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Some of the people quoted in Washington Post today suggest some of the classified briefings that the NSA has given to members of Congress were-- were at best inadequate, that they felt like they were having to play twenty questions, that if they couldn't think of the right question, they weren't going to get the answer that they deserved. Has the agency been candid with members of Congress whose job is to hold oversight on them?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: The agency has been tremendously candid, and let me apologize to members of Congress that this is just a complicated subject, all right? And it's just hard to understand. Bob, I used to do this briefing under President Bush's terrorist surveillance program. We would huddle up about once a quarter before we briefed congressional leadership. My guidance to my people at Fort Meade was I want to be full Monty here. I don't want anyone to be able to say when this becomes public and we knew it would be, "Well, I got some sort of briefing." I wanted them to know exactly what we were doing and the scale on which we are working. And, by the way, every member of Congress was invited to read a letter in '09 and in 2011 that specifically said, "We are gathering the metadata on all calls in the United States."
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you think the Congress should be criticized? Do you think they've not been doing their job? Not because it's the fault of the NSA, but--
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Yeah. Look this is really hard. It is-- it is really complicated. You don't need ill will on either side to make it difficult to communicate on subjects as obscure and as technically vibrant as-- as signals intelligence is, but it really does require a great deal of work. And, Chairman Rogers, chairman of the House Intel Committee had a great phrase in some recent commentary. He said, "Hey, look, if you don't have time to be a member of the Intelligence Committee and dedicate your time to it, then you shouldn't be a member of the committee."
BOB SCHIEFFER: Some people say the President was just being preemptory here, that-- that the Congress was getting ready to take away some of the ability that the NSA has to do some of the things it does. What if they did do that?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: You're referring to the vote, on a twelve-vote margin a couple of weeks back. Bob, that wasn't-- that wasn't regular order. That wasn't thoughtful procedure. Let me be a little critical here, all right. That looked a lot like mob action. I mean people acting out of emotion with a false sense of urgency, and with a great deal of misinformation.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But would the National security be damaged if that happened?
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Oh, absolutely, absolutely.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, General, it's always good to have you.
GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Thank you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And thank you for being with us this morning. We'll be back to talk to two members of Congress who have that oversight responsibility in just a minute.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And to continue this discussion joining us now Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger, who is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence committee; and in New York Congressman Pete King, who is on both Intelligence and the Homeland Securities Committee. Let me just start with you, Congressman King, up there in New York. You heard what General Hayden said. Do you think that the reforms the President announced on Friday are necessary? You came down pretty hard on him. You said this is-- the problems we have here is just a failure by the President. What did you mean by that?
REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING (R-New York/Intelligence Committee/Homeland Security Committee): Well, what I mean is I fully support the NSA program. It's been effective. It's done an outstanding job. General Alexander, who is head of the NSA, is a true patriot, and I applaud the President for continuing the NSA program. What I am very critical of him for though is basically he's been silent for the last two months. He's allowed the Edward Snowdens and the others of the world to dominate the media and that now we have so many people who actually think the NSA is spying on people, is listening to our phone calls, is reading our e-mails and to me he would just-- for some reason-- you had Dutch Ruppersberger out there, Mike Rogers is out there. I was doing what I could do, Saxby Chambliss, all defending the program. The President should have been out. He's commander-in-chief. We're in war. We're in a very desperate war with al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates and the President of the United States as commander-in--chief had the obligation to be aggressively and effectively defending his program and he really didn't do it and even the other day when he was at the news conference and I agree with General Hayden. I think the President wants to keep the program going but I just thought there was too much equivalency there. I think he should have denounced Snowden, you know, he is not a patriot. He's a person who's been indicted for espionage in time of war. And that this program has so many misconceptions, so many misperceptions out there, and I think that's partly because the President who has the bully pulpit did not use it during the last several months when people in my party, Dutch's Party, people in Congress were, I think, being very irresponsible. I think the vote on the House floor was irresponsible. I think that much of the stuff that's being said on television by, you know, prominent politicians saying that the government is listening to their phone calls--that's all nonsense.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING: But it spread a paranoia in the country. The President should have been out there sooner.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let's bring Congressman Ruppersberger in here. I thought it was interesting. General Hayden said he-- he calls Edward Snowden a defector.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER (D-Maryland/Intelligence Committee): Well, I think.
BOB SCHIEFFER: He said, well, he wouldn't go so far as to call him a traitor, but a defector, which I think was comment, interesting.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER: Well, when you work for the intelligence community, first thing you take an oath not to violate classified information. This individual now has said that he went in for the purpose of getting information. He turned his back on his country and where did he go once he got this information? He went to China and then he went to Russia. So that speaks for itself. Bottom line, we need to move forward with this. I think any-- anyone who is working in the intelligence area, including the President, understands that this program helps protect us. It really might have protected us from 9/11 attack because we didn't know that one of the terrorists was in San Diego in the United States, and if we would have known that, it might have helped.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, what about-- do you think any reforms are necessary?
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER: Yes, and this is the reason. We in politics have to deal with perception, not just reality. And we need to do better in educating our public so they are not fearful that we, the government, are violating their privacy. That's very important. And Chairman Rogers and I, Chairman Feinstein and Chambliss, we all in the Intelligence Committee, went to the White House--and I applaud the President for bringing us there--and talking about how do we educate the public? That we need this program and the President understands that to protect us.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you at this point feel that the agency has invaded anyone's privacy?
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER: Absolutely not.
BOB SCHIEFFER: They are not.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER: There are checks and balances that we have. We have congressional oversight which we need to do and we continue to do. We have the court oversight. We have those checks and balances in our country. Better privacy rights than anyone. And during the whole time that this program has been in effect there has not-- there have been some mistakes, but not one intentional violation. And-- and-- so this speaks for itself but we have to do more and Nancy Pelosi and I feel very strongly that we need to educate our members. Since the Snowden event, we've had General Alexander come to Congress, briefing both the Republican caucus and the Democratic caucus. He's been there on three occasions. Anyone who wants to come has the ability to come. Now remember, we specialize in intelligence and we work this every day, but people who are on the Education Committee, on the Budget Committee, on the other committees they have their work, too. But we have opened it up. It's unprecedented that the amount of hearings that we have, classified hearings, so members if they want, they are not required can get this information.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Congressman King, let me ask you about one of the things that the President talked. He-- he talked about putting this so-called privacy advocate into that the FISA Court, the secret court that tells the National Security Agency, gives it permission to wiretap people's phones and things of that nature. In a real world is that practical because it occurs to me that some of this may be depend on split-second decisions, I mean, if we find out the country is under imminent attack, can you actually sit there and-- and have a long argument about the pluses and minuses of this, or do you have to leave that to later?
REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING: Bob, I agree with what you just said. I think it would be very impractical to have it done. Now maybe on some general policy issue where the court is going to make a decision, perhaps, you could bring in an advocate. But, no, on day to day, life-and-death decisions I believe absolutely not. And also I think we should keep in mind and somehow people say this is secret, this goes against all our traditions. Grand jury proceedings are secret. There is no adversary lawyer allowed into a grand jury room and also any other-- whether it's drug cases or organized crime cases, child pornography cases, the government obtains warrants from judges without advocates being there for the other side. This is a legitimate role of government, and when we're talking about life and death and having lived in New York through 9/11 I know what life and death means. We cannot afford to have this become a debating society. We need decisions made quickly, yes or no, up or down, because lives are at stake.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask both of you, I'm sorry--
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER: Sure.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --Congressman Ruppersberger, you wanted to add something?
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER: No-- no, I'm fine.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I just want to ask both of you about this. These embassies that we closed last week are now opening today. There was some criticism of this decision to close them that maybe there may have been an overreaction to that. Do you-- do you think that was--
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER: Absolutely, not. No, there was strong intelligence information, and any time an American is put at risk in the world or in our homeland, we have to deal with it. We have to be cautious. It wasn't just one incident. There is corroboration it's-- it's occurring and there was strong intelligence, especially in Yemen, you know, we have done a good job in Afghanistan and Pakistan, dealing with the core of al Qaeda, but al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula is getting stronger and their focus has been the United States. If you recall, awlaki who was brought to justice, targeted on the United States; the shoe bomber; the cartridge bomber; and they keep focusing on the United States. So we have a lot of work to do. And it's not just us. It's also our allies who are working together on these issues. Do you think they overreacted, Congressman King?
REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING: No, Bob, I don't. I agree with Dutch. The intelligence that I saw here was at least as powerful as anything I have seen since 9/11. Probably, the closest to this would have been the liquid explosive plot out of London in 2006. But this was very credible. It was corroborated and it spoke of a massive attack and to me it was the right thing to do. Now, I think we should stay on this. If we do get through this without there being an attack, I do think we have to be more aggressive. We should be doing more interrogating to try to-- to head these off in the future. But, no, the President did the right thing. And I think we should try to put partisanship aside here-- and I've been very critical of the President on certain aspects. I have-- when it comes to this, we can't be critical of Benghazi because there was not enough protection and now to say we're being critical because there's too much. It's best to opt to secure American lives, especially in this situation. This was really out of the ordinary. In an-- in an extraordinary world, this was the most extraordinary I've seen in at least the last seven years, and I think--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well--
REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING: --Dutch would agree with that.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER: Yeah. I would.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Can-- can either of you give me a little more detail on-- on why you thought it was so serious, Congressman Ruppersberger
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER: I can only say. Look, we can't give out sources and methods but we say that we got a lot of intelligence from high levels in al Qaeda, both with their leadership and also in the Arabian Peninsula. We also just got other sources of information. We check corroboration, and, clearly, the people of al Qaeda and the terrorists and jihad, they'll be-- they are out there planning every day to kill us, and that's why it's so important that we do the best we can. The best defense against terrorism is intelligence. We have men and women who work at the NSA, work at the CIA. They get up every morning thinking they're helping their country. They do it pursuant to the law and we have checks and balances but we have to do better and we will. We will have some more legislation but we're not going to hold people's hands behind their backs and say that you can't do this, you can't do that. But we have to do it pursuant to the law and deal with this perception. And I'm happy that the President has made this an issue.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, Congressman King, what was it, if you can say, that convinced you that this was the most serious thing since what we were finding out about in the days after 9/11? Is there any specific thing?
REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING: Yes, there were several. This was not a case of connecting the dots. This was clear, explicit intelligence, and evidence, and that's as far as I can go. But if I could add on to what Dutch said, these people in the NSA are patriots. It's probably what's annoyed me the most over the last several months is people casually using words like "spying," "snooping." What is the NSA up to now? Does anyone really think that General Alexander wants to snoop on Americans or is listening in on private conversations? I think that has really demeaned the whole political dialogue and that's why I wish the President be more outgoing before this war and defended the NSA a lot more than he did because this has really been a slander on the thousands of good men and women who every day dedicate their lives for our country. And, particularly, General-- General Alexander, who is as patriotic as anyone I has ever met in government or anywhere. And this is-- there is too much loose talk here. Again, every time I hear snooping and spying, it just drives me crazy. Because we know, Dutch and I know-- know what these men and women are doing and they're absolutely dedicated patriots.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well--
REPRESENTATIVE DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER: You know I just want to point out, Peter and Chairman Rogers, that we have a very bipartisan committee in the intelligence committee. We have far left, we have far right. But we work together as a team because the stakes are too high. And-- and that's a very important issue. Peter, I thank you for being on with us today and I agree with a lot of your points.
REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING: Thank you, Dutch.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thanks to both of you.
REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING: Sure. Good.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I'll be back in just a second.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I don't always agree with the columnist Charles Krauthammer but I enjoy his column, and he had a good one last week on the linguistic hoops that the government jumps through to make the news seem better than it is. As when our embassy in Yemen was evacuated because of a terror threat; and the State Department referred to it as a "reduction in staff." As when Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano referred to terror attacks as "man-caused disasters." He notes that the episode at Fort Hood where an Army doctor who said he killed thirteen of his comrades in cold blood because he was a proud soldier of Allah, is officially listed as "workplace violence," not an act of terror. This is nothing new. When the news goes bad, governments invent new words and phrases to explain it. During the Vietnam War, newly invented phrases like "collateral damage" a kinder way of saying innocents killed by bombs meant for others. And "terminated with extreme prejudice" read that, murder--became part of the lexicon. It never works because people are not stupid. But government never seems to learn that good public relations never trumps bad policy, and bad PR never defeats good policy. Nixon's men mounted a massive PR campaign to cover up Watergate. It failed. The good things Nixon did--the opening to China for one--live on with no PR help. If we want to cut the federal budget, why not start by eliminating the people whose job seems to be inventing these new words and phrases to make the news seem better than it is. It's a waste of their time and our money. Back in a minute.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, some of our stations are leaving us now. But for most you, we'll be right back with a lot more FACE THE NATION.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And welcome back now to FACE THE NATION. Joining us, Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post, Eric Schmitt of the New York Times, and our own CBS News State Department correspondent Margaret Brennan. Welcome to all of you. Eric, you wrote a lot about this threat that caused them to close down the embassies. The embassies are now open. Is there anything new on this? I mean what is the latest on this threat that we-- does the government think it's still out there?
ERIC SCHMITT (New York Times): Well, the latest, Bob, as you said, all but one of the embassies now has reopened the one is that still remains reopened. That one that still remains closed is the one in San'aa, the capital of Yemen--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
ERIC SCHMITT: --where counterterrorism officials believe this threat emanated from. Just last night there was the ninth drone strike--American drone strike in Yemen, Southern Yemen, the ninth in two weeks. What's striking about this is the flurry of drone strikes that have coincided with this increased threat, basically going after operatives on the ground in Yemen that the U.S. believes may have been part of this plot. The U.S. still does not know exactly what the target was of this plot that forced the closings of these embassies but they believe it emanated from Yemen and there probably was going to be some kind of attack against American or Western interests, perhaps an embassy, in Yemen itself. So there is-- there's still concern about this today.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me-- let me ask all three of you this because this is the question I asked the congressmen--does anybody have an idea what it was about this threat that caused them to take it so seriously. Rajiv.
RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN (Washington Post): Well, nobody-- we have not heard specifically what-- what that communication was between Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, and the leader of al Qaeda's Arabian Peninsula, affiliate based in Yemen. But it was significant enough and described as-- as one of the most significant bits of intelligence chatter picked up in years that led to this. And it comes at a time of-- of heightened scrutiny post-Benghazi, Bob.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN (CBS News State Department Correspondent): You know I-- I would agree with that. I mean we are in a period of heightened scrutiny post-Benghazi. The question is really has the security improved enough to protect our diplomats abroad? This immediate threat you have seen with the reopening of embassies people sort of turn the page on, but there's going to be extreme nervousness coming up, going through that September eleventh holiday. But there are questions back in Washington to ask about who's got their shoulder behind this legislation to improve funding and to improve security at consulates or is our new reaction simply order departures, a C-17 lands at dawn and every American has to get on it every time we see this kind of wide-ranging threat? I think there are real questions about how we gauge risk and our interests abroad now.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know you wrote a piece this week, Eric, where you talked about the evacuation may not have made us look all that great to-- to those who oppose us.
ERIC SCHMITT: That's right. There were some, particularly, a few early on in the Jihad-- Jihadi forums, who were claiming a victory. Even-- even though, the plot didn't actually carry forward. They had their effect. It was disruptive of American operations across the Middle East and North Africa. That said, however, the United States, as Margaret has said, is still worried about the threat post-Benghazi and they weren't going to take any risks.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you have any idea what specifically it was that caused them to take this so seriously?
ERIC SCHMITT: Again, even the U.S. intelligence officials I talked to as early as this morning still do not know exactly what the target was, but they believe at least one of the targets would have been in Yemen.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Margaret, does the State Department think this threat has passed now?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, with reopening the embassies there's the idea that the immediate threat is less intense, but there's going to be heightened security. There already is increased security at high-threat embassies. So, no, they don't believe that risk is totally gone here. And you saw that with the ordered departure from the consulate in Lahore, which is a slightly different threat that was just announced this week.
RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: We're in a fortress environment. I mean if you look the two embassies that opened up the soonest were Baghdad and Kabul, places where we essentially have walls and walls and legions of guards. That's going to be the new normal in parts of the Middle East. And even when these embassies reopened, Bob, we should be-- we should recognize that, you know, this isn't really the old diplomatic business as usual. Our diplomats aren't always as free as they have been in the past to go out, take the pulse on the street. You know, when-- when events were unfolding in Tahrir Square recently, we didn't have very many diplomats for our embassy in Cairo who were out walking through those protests. It's just not safe for them to do. They're largely cantoned within those thick blast walls that surround these buildings.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I want to talk a little about-- about the peace talks that Secretary Kerry is trying to get going again. I guess it is supposed to reconvene, Margaret, in a couple of days. And today the Israelis announced they are going ahead with twelve hundred new settlement apartments on the West Bank.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What-- how is that news greeted at the State Department?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, settlements are considered illegal under international law. It certainly doesn't help the Palestinian position in terms of building trust coming into these talks that start, as you said on the fourteenth. And then more talks beyond Jerusalem later on in Jericho to be held in the next few days. But the way the U.S. is sort of digesting it and saying we can still go ahead with this is to say these were previously announced. They're just getting built now. But it's damaging, you can't say it's not.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I want to also talk a little bit about Putin and what we see relations between the United States and Russia are obviously not what we would hope them to be. Eric, why do you thing Putin has taken the position and-- and sort of a direction he seems to be going with relations? I mean I'm not sure I understand what he thinks he gets out of this?
ERIC SCHMITT: Well certainly, you have the conflict in Yemen-- excuse me, in Syria, that's one of the main flashpoints here between the U.S. and Russia. The Syrians are one of the biggest clients for arms in-- for the Russians. They also have a port there that they use. And so here you have a conflict between the two countries there. But clearly the most immediate flashpoint is the Russians' acceptance of Edward Snowden on this asylum claim that he has. That has basically what prompted the President this week to announce that he will not hold a summit with the Russian leader, as he had scheduled, and brought the comments that the President made, you know, talking about the tensions and trying to deny there's personal tensions. But, clearly between the two men this is, obviously, a major irritant.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What I don't get, though, is why Putin has decided this is the way to go.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-Hm.
BOB SCHIEFFER: I mean he's almost like he's taken Hugo Chavez as his hero here, as this role model. And I mean why would the leader of Russia take that position? I don't understand what he thinks he's going to get out of that.
RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Something that plays well at home in a growing anti-American sentiment in Russia. It certainly rallies the nationalist base over there. And, look, this is the culmination of-- of a series of disagreements between the United States and Russia. Not just Snowden, not just Syria, Iran, human rights issues, trade issues, arms control issues, some of your-- Tom Donilon, the former national security adviser, went to Moscow this spring with a letter from the President trying to, you know, kick start an arms control discussion only to get rebuffed, essentially, by Putin. On-- on every single major set of issues, there is fundamental disagreement and so you see the White House now saying, look, it's time not just to reset this relationship but to take a fundamental pause.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But, interestingly, that opposition-- that position of just opposing what the U.S. wants has in some ways empowered Russia on the international stage, arguably so with Syria where they've become more entrenched and emphasize we still matter not only because we're a nuclear power but we've got a veto at Security Council and we can stop you. And that anti-Americanism sentiment that the administration points to as helping Putin at home has international consequences. They have got real stakes in Syria now.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Iraq.
RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: The Syrian war--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Yes.
RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN:--is -- is the real immediate cost of all of this. The-- the-- this decision to grant Snowden temporary asylum, the cost here is millions of Syrians suffering in this bloody civil war.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Speaking of bloody, Iraq seems to be worse than it has been in years. What is it now, sixty-nine people killed there yesterday? Last month, more than a thousand Iraqis were killed. Is the whole thing just coming apart?
ERIC SCHMITT: It certainly seems to be getting worse, and there are a couple of signs here that talk about the spread of violence. You had a major prison break in Iraq along with others in places like Libya where you have al Qaeda operatives, apparently, helping these guys to break out. And so you have more terrorists spilling out into the field. But you also have the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq exerting more force and basically saying that they are now in charge of the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. This is a major development because it links even more tightly the Iraq affiliate in-- in Iraq with the current violence in Syria, and it only exacerbates that-- that sectarian tensions.
BOB SCHIEFFER: So, where does this lead, Rajiv? You were there for a long time as the bureau of chief of the Post.
RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: Mm-Hm. Yes, Bob. And-- and--and the violence is horrendous. Yet, most of-- of the killings being committed by-- by Sunni militants linked to al Qaeda, most of the victims are Shiites. Thus far, what we haven't seen is a lot of activity by the Shiite militias to go and target Sunni communities. And, you know, if there's-- if there's any hopeful sign at this point is that those militias, those Shiite militias, haven't yet fully joined the fight. If they do-- and they could very easily--if they do we're into an all-out civil war and-- and getting back to the depths of the violence that-- that racked the country in 2006 and '07 and we hope we don't get to that point.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, I'm going to have to leave it there. But I want to thank all of you. Plenty to worry about and think about, and write about and report on-- on the foreign beat these days. We'll be back in just a minute.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, we're back here now to talk about some business news that went far beyond the business section of most newspapers and-- and television stations around this country. It sent shockwaves through this city last week, the sale of the Washington Post, the newspaper of Woodward and Bernstein, owned by the legendary Graham family. The sale was to the CEO of Amazon.com, Jeffery Bezos. Here now to talk about it, one of the former editors to the Post, Len Downie, who the newspaper won I think a record number of Pulitzers under your reign. Also in New York The New York Times former editor, Bill Keller. He's in our studio there. And we're joined by John Harris, who used to work at the Post and today a columnist for New York Times says you may well be responsible for the decline of the Washington Post because you left the Post and formed Politico, John. So, we're glad to have you sitting across from Len. Let me just talk with you first, Len. Was the sale of the Post to Jeff Bezos a good thing?
LEN DOWNIE (Former Washington Post Editor): I thi-- I'm cautiously optimistic that it will be a good thing for several reasons. The Washington Post Company as it's currently called is a public company, the corporation is. So it had to-- it could not tolerate losses year after year in the newspaper. As Don Graham said he just didn't want to keep cutting anymore in order to make the bottom line work out. Jeff Bezos has bought it with a private company, a family company, ironically, as the Graham family was before that became a public company, so that he doesn't have those same restraints, those quarter-by-quarter reports that you have to give, the concern about shareholders. So it's now up to him to decide whether or not he's going to spend money that he has to spend and tolerate losses to do the kind of investing, particularly, in digital change, that is necessary to take what was once a newspaper and is already a multimedia, multiplatform news organization and make it profitable.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Bill Keller in New York, the New York Times is very much like The Washington Post. It is a publicly traded company, but one family, the Sulzbergers own most-- most of the stock, the controlling stock in the company. Do you think The Times is going to be sold or will it remain as it is?
BILL KELLER (Former New York Times Editor): Well, obviously, I don't speak for the Sulzberger family or-- or for the Times but I would be very surprised. They have been quite emphatic about saying that the Times is not for sale. And when you think about it there's no reason why it would be for sale. I mean the Times is not in need of a rescue, to the same extent the Washington Post was. We got out early on digital. We've turned the newsroom and the business side into a pretty inventive laboratory of how to exist in this new world. The company has sold off enough assets to generate some cash so we can invest in trying new things. So I don't think there's any particular reason for the Times to be looking for a buyer and the families-- the Sulzberger family has always seen this as a sort of sense of mission that they're deeply devoted to.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, let me turn now to John Harris. Ross Douthat wrote in The New York Times this morning that it's possible to date the moment when the Post was no longer the first place Washington turned to for political news. "...it happened in 2006, when John Harris and Jim Vandehei, left the Post to found Politico," which is the website that is all about politics. John, there's no question that Politico has had a major impact on the world of journalism now. And-- and I think it is absolutely true that a lot of people who used to turn to the Post first for political news now turn to your organization. How do newspapers fit into this new world we're in now where we have websites like yours and there are going to be more of them, and-- and we have newspapers?
JOHN HARRIS (Politico Editor-in-Chief): Politico, the organization that I run, is very different in its mission and its purpose than a newspaper like The Washington Post or The New York Times. We aim to cover one thing and dominate one subject, a particular niche politics and policymaking here in Washington. Those institutions, great institutions, and I grew up at The Washington Post. It's still part of my values. They are a broad-focused organization. So the business challenge and the editorial challenge is much different. I do think-- and I welcome Jeff Bezos coming to the Washington Post. I think it's going to quicken the pulse of the Post and the entire city. It's going to be a good thing. I think that we're not going to ever return to a stable status quo where we have editors know where their audience is, publishers know where their revenue stream is. That's never going to happen again. We're in an era of nonstop, constant innovation, constant turmoil. And so they're-- they're-- we're just not going to return to any kind of settled new order.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But I think that, even though, if we say Jeff Bezos has bought it, but not necessarily because he wants to make a profit on it, but he-- he's going to have to figure out a way to at least not lose money because people just don't get into these things--
JOHN HARRIS: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --for altruistic charitable reasons. I mean you-- you can own the Washington Redskins--
JOHN HARRIS: Right.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --for example. But if you just keep losing so much money, there comes a point where you can't lose anymore, when you own a major League sports franchise.
LEN DOWNIE: Right. But Jeff Bezos is an innovator.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
LEN DOWNIE: He-- he completely changed the world of retail, beginning with books and now covering the whole rest of the world in retail. And I expect that he'll apply that same imagination, that same creativity to the issues facing a newspaper. How-- how do you maximize revenue from-- we have a larger audience than ever before.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
LEN DOWNIE: It's worldwide, but not very much revenue comes in from that audience yet. He's figured that out in other-- in other areas. So that's why I think he will be focusing on here.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Yeah. And that's kind of what I think. I think when we talk about-- we keep saying are-- are paper, newspaper is going to continue to be printed on paper. I think it's an interesting question, but, really, it's the wrong question. The real question is what is the content going to be? What is the news product going to be that these publications put out? And will it be-- will it be held to the same standards that we have come to expect from The Washington Post and which Politico now follows. What is your take on that, Bill?
BILL KELLER: I think the future is a mix. The present is a mix. We're already in the future of-- of journalism, and we see, as John has pointed out, very specialized journalism like Politico. We see international journalism. I mean, the Guardian and the Daily Mail are now huge presences in the American market. You know everything-- it is kind of a golden age of journalism for the consumer. We just haven't figured out the precise business model to make it sustainable for the long run.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But, you know I have the feeling that somebody is going to figure that out. And that-- that is what gives me hope about all this because I-- I have noticed when societies need something they find a way to get it. And somebody finds a way to make a profit in delivering it to them. You can name any number of products that we can't get along without, and people have found out a way to produce those and get them to people and fulfill those needs.
JOHN HARRIS: I think lots of different people are going to figure it out in different ways. To me it is important that you have a business model that sustains the-- the newsroom model. I don't think--and I do think Leonard would feel the same way--that we don't want journalism to be basically a-- a-- a rich person's play thing--
LEN DOWNIE: Right.
JOHN HARRIS: --or a-- a kind of ward of the state being subsidized. I think you can only have a vigorous journalism over the long haul if it's tied to a vigorous business model.
LEN DOWNIE: And in his letter to the staff, Jeff-- Jeff Bezos made clear that he believes in the journalism of The Washington Post. He believes in its standards. He almost echoed Eugene Meyer, who-- Katharine-- Katharine Graham's father, who bought the paper at bankruptcy in the 1930s and set its standards. He echoed his words in saying this is-- this is really should be in the public interest and not in a private interest. And I think he's determined to show that, that would-- he would not have decided to do this I believe, if he wasn't determined to show that it can also be a good business.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What do you think, Bill Keller, is the greatest challenge, for example, just facing the New York Times today in this new world?
BILL KELLER: Our greatest challenge is to figure out what life post print looks like. And I-- I think we're making pretty good headway there. One other thing I wanted to throw in, I mean I-- I-- I take Jeff Bezos at his word when he says that he's in this for the public interest, and I-- and I do believe that he wants to figure out a way to make a sustainable profit out it-- out of it. It's-- it's at least worth since we're all journalists here and all skeptical by nature--to raise the question of whether there-- there might be another motive which is, you know, a place like the Washington Post wields a lot of power, a lot of influence in the-- in the place where they regulate things like Amazon. Jeff Bezos has been a-- a brilliant, long-term thinker as a businessman. He's also been a pretty ruthless competitor. Just, you know, ask Barnes & Noble or Best Buy or other people in the retail sector. So it's-- you know, John Cassidy has an interesting piece in the New Yorker this week taking the-- the sort of skeptical approach maybe a little too far, but raising the question of whether he doesn't see this as a way of protecting his other interests.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, he wouldn't be the first person who bought a newspaper, had a newspaper because he wanted to have influence. You think of Colonel-- Colonel McCormick at the Chicago Tribune, you take Horace Greeley, way--
BILL KELLER: Mm-Hm.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --way, way back there. Hearst--
BILL KELLER: Absolutely.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --person-- Eugene, I mean the people who bought the Washington Post. I mean I think that-- that was part of the reason that, in the beginning, that that came about. So the-- the thing that I think-- the key question here is-- the fact is we could get along without newspapers, but we can't get along without what newspapers do. And if there's not some in this entity to do that I mean we'll have corruption in this country like we've never seen. I-- I sort of always feel like national news will take care of itself, but it's that newspaper at the local level that's keeping an-- an eye on the city council and the sheriff's department, and all of that. I think that is the key thing to think about it.
LEN DOWNIE: Right. And it's, obviously, another one of the questions about Jeff Bezos' intentions, too, because he lives, as he says, in the other Washington. He lives and
BOB SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
LEN DOWNIE: --works in the other Washington, the state of Washington, and the Grahams were very much part of the Washington community in every possible way. And so what presence will he have? What presence will the Post continue to have in the local community when Jeff Bezos is owning it is one of the questions facing him.
BOB SCHIEFFER: John, talk a little bit about the-- the news consumer, the people that get the paper, the people that read Politico. We're talking about it from the standpoint of-- of those of us who gather and report the news. What does this mean to-- to the consumer?
JOHN HARRIS: Well, as Bill suggested, the-- for the consumer, it-- it's a kind of a limitless buffet. There's so much news. People are so saturated and there're so many different sources the challenge for editors is how do you break through? How do you get an audience and make it a sustainable audience, somebody that comes back again and again and again? At Politico we are most focused here in this city. We want to be indispensable to the community of-- of influentials, members of Congress, their staff, people that live and breathe politics, people in our industry. If we're succeeding there, we figure the larger audience kind of takes care of itself. If I were running the Washington Post, or if I were running Huffington Post, I probably would have a different theory of the case in terms of what my audience is. To me that's the key. If you're going to be an editor in this business or you're going to be a publisher, you have to have some theory of the case, some strategy. You can't just wing it and improvise.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know, Bill Keller, one of the things that occurs to me, consumers, they have to be sophisticated enough, it seems to me, to figure out who to pay attention to because they're so overwhelmed now with information from-- from all sides twenty-four hours a day. Stuff pops up on the internet. Much of the time it's just simply untrue. How does the news consumer, how does he find out that he's getting the right stuff and not just a bunch of stuff?
BILL KELLER: I always cringe a little when I hear myself using words like "brand" and "content," but, in fact, people gravitate to brands that they trust in-- in any marketplace. And so at least at the New York Times--and I assume at the Washington Post and another sort of multi-subject news organizations--the aim is to draw people to you-- to-- to keep coming back to you because you're the one that they trust to get it right or at least to get it--
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.
BILL KELLER: --as right as it can be got.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right, Bill. Well, I want to thank all of you. And we'll be back in a moment.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally today it is with great sadness that we note the sudden passing of our longtime friend and colleague, Arlene Weisskopf (INDISTINCT). Arlene was a producer at FACE THE NATION for nearly twenty years. She was first on the phones every Monday morning to start lining up the broadcast, and she became a friendly and familiar presence to many in government and politics. Arlene began her career at NBC News and moved to CBS in 1986. And before coming to work for FACE THE NATION, was a producer for the late night news show Night Watch with host Charlie Rose. Arlene, we'll miss you. All of us here will miss you at CBS.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, that's all of the time we have for us today. We appreciate you being out there and watching FACE THE NATION. And we'll see you here same place next Sunday.