Face the Nation transcripts May 12, 2013: Gates, Pickering, Ayotte, Durbin, and Angelou

(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on May 12, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Amb. Thomas Pickering, and CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. Plus, a special Mother's Day interview with acclaimed poet and author Maya Angelou.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. Ambassador Thomas Pickering is the one who led the State Department's investigation into how those Benghazi attacks where handled. Mr. Ambassador, you and I have known one another as you had various posts in the government for many, many years. You headed this investigation. But the three state department employees who testified this week where frustrated with the report--they said it was incomplete, one of them, Greg Hicks, even told investigators his words, not mine, it let people off the hook. Is that a fair criticism?

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: I don't believe so and I think that's an unfair criticism. They've tried to point a finger at people more senior than where we found the decisions were made. The decisions were made and reviewed at the level that we fixed responsibility for failures of performance. Those people were named in the report. Two of the four that we felt failed in their performance were, under our recommendation, relieved of their jobs. The State Department is now considering what further steps to take. I believe that that's correct. We interviewed under Secretary Kennedy. People have pointed to him. We believe in fact, that while he made a significant decision to keep the post open, he was not a security specialist, he was not engaged in a daily review of the decision making that took place that we felt in some cases was seriously flawed. And as a result, we don't believe it went higher. We interviewed Secretary Clinton; we interviewed Deputy Secretary Burns, and Deputy Secretary Nides. We briefed them on the report, we told them where we were, it was near the end. We had plenty of opportunity had we felt it was necessary, all five of us, to ask them questions. We didn't believe that was necessary and I don't see any reason to do so now.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But let me understand what you're saying. You had Secretary Clinton but you didn't ask her any questions? And why not?

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: Because in fact, we knew where the responsibility rested. She had already stated on a number of occasions, she accepted as a result of her job, the full responsibility. On the other hand, legislation setting up our board made it very clear that they didn't want a situation in which a department or agency had accepted responsibility and then nobody looked at where the decisions were made. And how and what way those decisions affected performance on security. And whether people where thus responsible for failures or performance. That's what we were asked to do and that's what we did.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think in retrospect it might have been a good idea to question her? And some of these other ranking officials?

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: I think that we knew and understood because we had questioned people who had attended meetings with her. What went on at those meetings and how they were handled. What was relevant. I don't believe that it was necessary to do that. I don't think that there was anything there that we didn't know.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Did you, Ambassador, take--did you have a recording of this. Was any of this transcribed and recorded?

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: We did not do recordings. We did notes and we made a record of all of our notes and they're part of the voluminous document that in effect was produced when we did these two months of work, over 100 interviews, thousands of pages of material, classified and unclassified, hours of video tape.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Why would you not record it?

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: Because we didn't feel that it was necessary for us to get the essential elements of information down, to make recordings.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Now you have said in other places, that you did not look into how the talking points that officials were given to talk to the public about this. And why would that be?

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: Because we were asked to look in under the law at five questions, all of which had to do with security, with the adequacy of security, with the preparation of security, with intelligence and whether anyone breached their duties. That was in effect, our mandate. At the time, and still now, I find it hard to see how the talking points issues relate to the security at the Benghazi mission.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just, I mean I have a copy of the talking points and how they were changed. In the first version, the talking points said, "We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack." This went through this various scrubbing till the end, they took out the word Al Qaeda, they took out extremists, then they took out Islamic and in the end, it said, there are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. They didn't even call it an attack. If you were looking into the security, wouldn't it have been of interest, to find out, doesn't that deal with security? What the people where talking about? And what they were coming up with? I just don't understand why you wouldn't have check as part of this investigation.

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: Because the talking points came after the fact. They made no difference at what happened at Benghazi. They related to how and in what way people where explaining to the Congress and the American Public. The question of culpability, which is hinted at, in the recitation of the talking points, was specifically reserved under our criminal statues for the FBI. They have that responsibility. They were concurrently reviewing that question. Who did this? Why did they do it? Who was responsible? Were there criminal charges under U.S. law possible? We and they shared our records of the conversations we had with the people, particularly those who were in Benghazi on the night of the events. And so there was broad transparency between us. But we had a different set of responsibilities and we had a different set of questions that we had to address.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I have an email from the House Oversight committee that one of their investigators had talked to you about testifying before the committee. He reported back that he, that you told him, you were deeply disinclined to testify at that congressional hearing because of the way, and he meant the Congress, you said, had turned this issue into a political circus. I asked him if he meant this committee in particular or Congress in general and he said, Congress in general--

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: Yes.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Was that your feeling?

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: That was, but that was after several conversations. One of which, I was invited on a specific date and I was out of the country. Another asked me whether I would come down and talk informally with the committee. And I said, yes I was positive. The day before the committee hearings last week, I said, through the White House, and they transmitted it to the committee, that I was fully prepared to come at any time, and deal with the accountability review board and the issues, or any issues that might arise surrounding that. I am still ready to do that. The answer that I received back was, the committee majority, was not inclined to include me on the day of that testimony. They'd like to see me some other time.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you feel that this investigation should be reopened?

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: I don't see yet any reason why what we did at the accountability review board should be reopened. The questions that were asked about our work were in themselves answered at the time they were raised. The question of, could military aircraft have made a difference? Could they have gotten there in time? And the answer at that time, through the defense attaché, to Mr. Hicks was, "No." Subsequently, Admiral Mullen looked at that very carefully. General Dempsey did. They both have testified that there was no military capacity to get there.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Alright, Mr. Ambassador thank you so much for joining us.

AMASSADOR PICKERING: Thank you very much, Bob.

BOB SCHIEFFER: We're gonna get more comment on this in just a minute.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And we're going to turn now to two key Senators, Richard Durbin, he's the Senate's number two Democrat, he's in Springfield this morning, Senator Kelly Ayotte is in Manchester, New Hampshire. Senator Ayotte, I know you've been critical about of some of these things. You heard Ambassador Pickering this morning, what's your reaction to what he said this morning?

KELLY AYOTTE: Well, Bob, my reaction is, is that the Accountability Review Board report was not a substitute for adequate congressional oversight, and there were already questions raised - I have respect for Ambassador Picking--Pickering, but there were already questions raised, for example, Eric Nordstrom said that there were key decision makers that weren't interviewed by the ARB, Mark Thompson who was a top counterterrorism official, asked to be interviewed by the ARB, was not. I was surprised today to hear that they did not probe Secretary Clinton in detail, because obviously she was the decision maker at the State Department. And in addition, the testimony we heard this week from Mr. Hicks, certainly much of that was not within the ARB report, even though he was interviewed by the ARB, so I believe there needs to be further congressional scrutiny of this, and again, I don't believe that the talking points issue was within their charge, as I hear him saying this morning, and I think it's a very important issue to get to the bottom of what happened there.

BOB SCHIEFFER Senator Durbin, what's your reaction?

DICK DURBIN: Thomas Pickering appeared on your show this morning. I wish he would have appeared at the hearing last week. He asked to be there. He should have been there. He's the most respected diplomat in Washington. For over 25 years, presidents of both parties have given him the toughest diplomatic assignments, and you heard what he just said, Bob--he, together with Admiral Mullen went through a lengthy review of the security aspect of this. They came up with a recommendation for changes, which were accepted by Secretary Clinton and President Obama. The bottom line is this--this was a tragedy. We lost four Americans who were risking their lives to represent our country. We want to find those responsible and hold them responsible and we want to make sure that the security in embassies in the future, and consulates, is going to be the very best for the men and women who work for us. But unfortunately, this has been caught up in the 2016 presidential campaign--this effort to go after Hillary Clinton. The reason she wasn't interviewed was she didn't have any direct-line responsibility for the decisions that were made, but they want to bring her in because they think it's a good political show, and I think that's unfortunate.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator Ayotte, let's just cut to the chase here. Do you think there was a cover-up here? Was somebody trying to protect Hillary Clinton here, or was somebody at the same time trying to protect incompetence, for want of a better word, that, that the State Department had not been prepared to take care of these people and the security was not what it should have been. What--what's your take here?

KELLY AYOTTE: Well, well, I believe, Bob--let's get to the issue looking at what happened with the talking points. All you need to do is hold up the original version and then what was actually released to the public, and think about it. Were those--the information that was deleted was very important, so in terms of that, that information, the reference to al Qaeda, Ansar al-Shariah, the prior attacks on the consulate? Yes, I believe that the real question is were they manipulated in terms of, in the middle of an election to not tell, really the full story, give the picture to the American people, and I think that's a serious question. With regard to Secretary Clinton, there are serious questions that remain. I mean, Eric Nordstrom mentioned this week, as certainly did Mr. Hicks, the fact that facility requirements for the consulate in Benghazi, the waiver of those requirements, by law, apparently, have to come from the Secretary of State. Was she involved in that decision making? Who was not? In addition--or, or was she not? In addition to that, there have been serious questions raised about individuals within her chain-of-command with respect to the talking points and what happened afterwards. So I think those are fair questions when we have, obviously, four Americans murdered, in addition to the fact that these were--you know, to have an ambassador murdered. This is about getting to the bottom--to line of the truth, not about what happens in 2016.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, what about that, Senator Durbin? I mean, the fact is that what we now know from emails and other information is that there were 12 revisions of what the government's version of what happened was that night. And the first version said that there were elements of al Qaeda involved in this, they said it was an attack. The people on the ground said there was never any question in their minds that this was some sort of a spontaneous demonstration, and when the first version of those talking points came out, all of that was mentioned, and then at the end, you come up with this, 'there are indications that extremists participated in violent demonstrations'--a totally different take on things. Why--why would they do that?

DICK DURBIN: Bob, let's start at the beginning. What you're reading is emails provided by the Obama administration, 25,000 pages of email. There's no attempt to cover it up. Secondly, this was a squabble between two agencies, the CIA and the State Department, about the wording. The person representing the State Department happened to be Victoria Nuland who has worked for Democrats and Republicans alike, at one time worked for Vice President Cheney. So she's certainly not a partisan in this exchange about how they're going to term this. Now, when it gets down to the point that Senator Ayotte made about Secretary Clinton, let me tell you, there are two things you should remember. First, there's been breathless non-stop coverage of this issue by FOX from start to finish, and second, when the Washington Post looked at the assertion as to whether Hillary Clinton should be held responsible and what came out at the hearing, they awarded it four Pinocchios, which means the lowest level of credibility that you can possibly have. It is unsubstantiated, and yet, the witch hunt continues.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And finally, Senator Ayotte, what should happen next, in your point of view?

KELLY AYOTTE: Bob, what I believe should happen next is that there are serious questions that need to be answered before the facility requirement waiver. In addition, there's a different rendition as to why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi today in the ARB report--

BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay, alright--

KELLY AYOTTE: --and what Mr. Hicks said. I think there are serious questions, we need a select committee, Bob, we also need to make sure the witnesses are called forward.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Alright, I'm very sorry, we have to break there. We'll be right back.

Bob SCHIEFFER: We spoke yesterday to former Secretary of Defense bob gates at historic William and Mary College in Virginia we asked to give us his perspective on the Bengazi situation.

BOB GATES: Well, first of all I have to say I only know what I have read in the media. I haven't had any briefings or anything. And I-- I think the one where place where I might be able to say something useful-- has to do with some of the talk about-- the military response. And I listened to the testimony of-- both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey. And-- and frankly had I been in the job at the time-- I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were. We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East. Despite all the turmoil that's going on, with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so getting somebody there in a timely way-- would have been very difficult, if not impossible. And frankly, I've heard "Well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare 'em with the noise or something?" Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft-- over Benghazi under those circumstances. And-- and with respect to-- sending in special forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I have read, people really didn't know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously. And to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous. And personally, I would not have approved that because we just don't it's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way. And there just wasn't time to do that.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But I guess that would bring up the question why not? Why wasn't there not some force? I mean, there were Americans there. They-- they obviously were-- were in danger. And there was nothing to protect them.

BOB GATES: Well, I don't-- I don't know the circumstances leading up to Benghazi in terms of requests for additional security there at the consulate or-- or any of that. I frankly just don't know. These things always look a lot simpler in retrospect though.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you-- General Mike Hayden, a former head of the C.I.A., said this week that the continuation of a false narrative that the administration perpetrated in the weeks after the Benghazi attack was not understandable and is not forgivable. Do you agree with that?

BOB GATES: Well, I think that's pretty strong. I mean, I've got a lot of respect for Mike. And-- and he's a good man. But-- I think-- I think without knowing all the facts, without knowing exactly what happened-- it's difficult to make that kind of-- that kind of a harsh judgment.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Have you talked to-- Secretary Clinton about this?

BOB GATES: No. Not at all--

BOB SCHIEFFER: You have not?

BOB GATES: No.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I know you worked very closely with her. And I mean-- you know what they're saying. The Democrats say the Republicans are on a witch hunt here, they're playing politics. Republicans are saying that the Democrats have been part of a cover-up, perhaps to protect her political future. Have you come to any judgment-- about any of this?

BOB GATES: No. I-- I think the only thing I'd say is that-- I mean, I worked with Secretary Clinton pretty closely for two and a half years. And-- I wouldn't want to try and be somebody to con-- trying to convince her to say something she did not think was true.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You don't think she would do that?

BOB GATES: No.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You-- let's-- talk a little bit about Syria. You originally opposed going into Libya because you said you didn't think we had a vital interest there. The President intervened. He said that the U.S.-- couldn't stand by while thousands of people were slaughtered. How is Syria different from Libya?

BOB GATES: I believe that we have-- misjudged-- the Arab Spring and the Arab revolutions. And I will call it the Arab revolutions. And I, looking at it from a historian's standpoint. We tend to forget that if you look back over the last 200, 250 years, the history of revolutions is not a pretty one. And in truth when you think about the American, the French, the Russian, the Chinese revolutions and many others, only one turned out reasonably well in the first decades. And that was our own. There are no institutions in-- any country in the Middle East, in any Arab country that provide a basis or a foundation for enduring freedom or democracy. There is no rule of law. There are no civil institutions. And there is no history along these lines. And our preferred approach would have been an evolutionary change during which reforms could be enacted, institutions could be built, and you could have something long term. Now, I think in all of these countries, including Syria you have the threat of civil war, the threat of these countries falling apart. Syria, Libya both artificial creations of colonial powers putting together historically adversarial groups, religions, and sects. And-- and for us to think we can influence or determine the outcome of that, I think is a mistake. I thought it was a mistake in Libya. And I think it is a mistake in Syria. We overestimate our ability to determine outcomes, even if we had intervened more significantly in Syria a year ago or six months ago. I-- I think that caution, particularly in terms of arming these groups and in terms of U.S. military involvement, is in order.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well-- what should we do?

BOB GATES: Well, my-- my question back to you is: Why should it be us? There are other powers in the region, Turkey-- and others, that have military capabilities. You have Europeans that are much closer and whose interests are much-- are-- are equally affected. I understand our broad interests in the Middle East. And I understand the risks to us of chaos in Syria and of-- a of-- an ethnic cleansing there-- once the civil war comes to an end, no matter who wins it. But-- but the question that you asked me is the question I think there-- we don't have a satisfactory answer to. What should we do? What can we do? I believe that if we're to do anything, it is to pick and choose the opposition groups that we think have some-- moderation and would, you know, espouse what we m-- think is in the best interest of the region-- provide them with intelligence, with basic military equipment, work through Turkey and other countries perhaps in providing some-- some basic military equipment. But I think our direct involvement and particularly our direct military involvement-- would be a mistake. You know, I oversaw two wars that began with quick regime. And we all know what happened after that. And as I said to the Congress when we went into Libya, when we were-- when they were talking about a no-fly zone, "It begins with an act of war." And haven't we learned that when you go to war, the outcomes are unpredictable? And anybody who says, "It's gonna be clean. It's gonna be neat. You can establish the safe zones. And it'll be-- it'll just be swell." Well, most wars aren't that way.

BOB SCHIEFFER: More of that interview in page 2.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Welcome back to the Face the Nation. Here's more of our interview with former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You think, on reflection, it was a mistake to go Iraq?

BOB GATES: I think that what we know, with what we know now, in terms of the fact that they did not have weapons of mass destruction will always taint the fact that we went to war in Iraq. I think, I think historians will judge Iraq in the context of whether it is seen as a huge strategic mistake or as the, or the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as the first crack in a region of authoritarian governments that began a long, if difficult, path to democracy. And so I think-- I think it-- it's too soon to make the judgment whether it was the right thing to do or not. I think you have to look back a long time from now or some period from now and see how this all turns out. If Iraq falls apart and falls into civil war again, again then that's one thing. But if it somehow struggles through, and most of these politicians are arguing with each other, not shooting each other right now, then I think you could come to a different conclusion.

BOB SCHIEFFER: We are leaving Afghanistan. How do you feel about that?

BOB GATES: Well, I always supported Karzai's proposal that Western forces leave at the end of 2014. At the time that was first proposed, that gave us five more years to try and subdue the Taliban and build up the Afghan forces. And I felt that that was enough time to do that. And I think that based on what I'm reading in the press, that we are actually making pretty good headway with the Afghan forces. When people talk about, "Well, they have very limited number of units that can act on their own," that doesn't mean they won't fight, and they're not ready to die. What it means is they lack logistics support, they lack air cover, they lack intelligence. And those are things that we can easily help them with after 2014 with some modest residual force, which it sounds like everybody thinks is a good idea. I will tell you this: For us to leave lock, stock, and barrel at the end of 2014, and abandon Afghanistan as we did after the Soviets left, would be a disastrous mistake.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think that's what's gonna happen here?

BOB GATES: I think we actually will end up with some kind of residual force. And my hope is that the draw down do that residual force will be slower rather than faster to give us the full time through 2014 to train and help the Afghans improve their capabilities.

BOB SCHIEFFER: What do we do about North Korea?

BOB GATES:Well, that's as tough as Iran in my view.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Is it a greater threat at this point than Iran?

BOB GATES: Right now, I would say it is because they have capability, they have nuclear weapons now. They do, are testing longer range missiles. I was quite surprised when I learned, as secretary, they were going straight to the development of a road mobile intercontinental ballistic missile. And frankly, I worry a lot about Kim Jong-un. I think that he does not have the experience or the sophistication, if you will, of his father or grandfather in terms of knowing where the red lines are. I also worry that he does not, and the other-- and the North Korean generals do not realize that there has been a dramatic change in public opinion in South Korea, and that after 30 years of swallowing provocation such as the sinking of their warship, the Cheonan, the artillery attacks on the island that killed innocent civilians, that the North, the South Koreans are not prepared to take that anymore, which creates an environment in which the next provocation could result in an escalation and the situation getting out of control. I worry that the North Korean leader does not have an understanding of that. That's what I told Hu Jintao in China on my last visit there. And that-- and that they needed to understand the risks of that. I think the Chinese are very uncomfortable with this whole situation. The last thing they want's another war on the peninsula. They also don't want this huge reinforcement of U.S. forces in the region. So I think that they are weighing in to try and calm this guy down. But their influence, they do have influence. But they don't have control. And that worries me.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And Iran? How do you see that situation going right now?

BOB GATES:Well, I've always said this is the toughest, I went to work for the C.I.A. 46 years ago, 47 years ago this year. And and this is the toughest problem I think I've seen. Because there are really no good outcomes unless the sanctions finally begin to bite enough that they-- that the regime decides that its own survival is at risk from economic troubles. Because the other alternatives-- if-- if there is no military attack and they don't change their policies, you will probably see a nuclear-armed Iran igniting a nuclear arms race in the most volatile part of the world, emboldened to be even more aggressive and with missiles that can reach Israel now and Europe soon. But if you do hit them, then I think the consequences of their retaliation could spin out of control.

BOB SCHIEFFER: What is the best argument we can make to them that they should not become a nuclear power?

BOB GATES: Well, I think that the face-saving measure is to power, or for medical research, or whatever that is adequately policed by international agencies to give all of us, including the Israelis, confidence somehow figure out a way for them other have a peaceful nuclear program for electric that they're not working on nuclear weaponization and that we would have enough lead time, should they change their minds and go back to that program, to act militarily. I think providing some kind of face for them in this is the only way to avoid the really nasty consequences. But the bottom line still has to be: They can't have nuclear weapons, and there has no be an inspection regime that is adequate to give all of us confidence that they're not working on nuclear weapons.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You are, one of those, there used to be a lot of people like you around-- who were seen as those who served their country rather than serve their party. I mean, you are a Republican. But you worked for Democrats. You've been back and forth. Now that you've been away from government for a while, what do you think is the greatest threat at this point to America's security?

BOB GATES: I think that the greatest threat to us right now is-- is the inability of our political leaders to come together on bipartisan solutions, long-term solutions to the very real problems we have. Whether it's the deficit, whether it's government spending, whether it's entitlements, immigration, infrastructure, education, that broad middle band that used to be so strong in the Congress, of members of Congress, center left, center right, people I used to call bridge builders. That's where the country has always been governed from. The country has moved forward based on great ideas from both the left and the right. But it's been the centrists that have translated those into law through compromise. That's the foundation of our political stability and of our political system. The American Constitution is built on compromise and created a political system that demands compromise. And unless we can come together on policies to deal with these problems that can survive one Congress and one Presidency, then I think we're in real trouble. One of the reasons I think we were successful in the Cold War, was we followed a basic strategy toward the Soviet Union of containment, through nine successive presidents, both Republicans and Democrats. Big problems require a long time to solve. It took us a long time to get in the fix we're in. It'll take a long time to get us out. And this striving for momentary political advantage or to score ideological points on either side of the spectrum, I think is doing serious damage to the country.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mr. Secretary, thank you so much.

BOB GATES: Thank you, Bob.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Joining me now, CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Atkisson, who hasn't been just covering the Benghazi story but has been out front most of the time as we've been trying to get to the bottom of what really happened. Sharyl, where does this go from here? What do you see happening now?

SHARYL ATTKISSON: Well, I am still learning new things, including this past week we learned some new things about the way General Petraeus felt as head of the CIA when those talking points went through those huge revisions. We saw emails that seemed to express deep disappointment on his part if not aggravation that so much material had been taken out. I wonder if he has more to say if someone were able to get him to talk. I also wonder if a pattern is emerging now that we've seen all mention of terrorism, Islamic extremist, al Qaeda, al-- I'm sorry -- al Sharia, removed from the talking points. Additionally, there was no convening of the counterterrorism security group by the White House that night, which is described to me as required by presidential directive . Is there a pattern of someone wanting to avoid the terrorism narrative in exchange for, basically, the YouTube spontaneous demonstration narrative?

BOB SCHIEFFER: John McCain, I think, called today for a select committee to investigate this. You heard Ambassador Pickering say this morning, He thought that his investigation pretty much did the job, but I'm not sure he's going to find a lot of agreement of Capitol Hill with that statement.

SHARYL ATTKISSON: Well by Admiral Pickering's own admission, to some degree the investigation was limited in its definition and scope as to people he did and didn't talk to. I was surprised to hear him say that he decided there was no need to ask Mrs. Clinton any questions, I would think that even if you think you know all the answers at that point you would still want to get her version of what she knows and make sure everything matches up and see if you know anything new. I think those will be questions that Congress wants to ask.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Someone who is sort of close to this said to me, "Never take it for granted that it is always malice. Sometimes it's just incompetence." So, while I think, I think that there are many different factors going into where we go right now, but as far as I'm concerned we still have not gotten where we ought to be to have a really clear understanding of exactly what happened and why it happened.

SHARYL ATTKISSON: Agreed. I think everyone agrees that in the security decisions, some of which may have been bad, nobody wanted anybody to get hurt. The question is, what willfulness occurred once this happened and perhaps giving a different story. I'm not saying that there was a cover-up, but there are questions and allegations of a cover-up. What happened in that regard, and moving forward have these problems really been fixed whereby if our embassies come under attack on foreign soil again, can we now be in a position to move more quickly? Will warning that were issued by the CIA be heeded or acted upon in a better way to protect Americans than they were on September 11th last year?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Alright well Sharyl Attkisson one thing I want to say to you is keep on digging but I know I don't have to say that because you always do.

SHARYL ATTKISSON Thanks, Bob.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And we're back now with a very special guest on this Mother's Day, poet and author Maya Angelou, who has a new book out just in time for Mother's Day, it is called Mom & Me & Mom. It is an honor to have you, Dr. Angelou, and this is not just a book for Mother's Day, it is a great story.

MAYA ANGELOU: Thank you.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I started it last week and simply could not put it down. And I would say everybody in the office who read it came away with the same feeling. We just loved it. So it's really a pleasure to have you and to see you and you look like you're feeling fine this morning.

MAYA ANGELOU: I'm feeling great and it's a wonder to talk to you. You're one of the wonders of the world. I never thought I'd have a chance to talk to you, let alone have you talk to me.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well the honor is mine. I want to talk to you about this book...

MAYA ANGELOU: Thank you.

BOB SCHIEFFER: ...because it is such an unlikely Mother's Day story. Your mother sent you off to live with your grandmother when you were three and you stayed with your grandmother until you were 13 and then you came back to live with your mother, yet you came to love your mother and the two of you had this life-long bond and this wonderful relationship. How did it come about that she chose to send you away when you were three years old?

MAYA ANGELOU: She and my father fell in love, or maybe in lust with each other. They were both freely beautiful human beings and it was after World War I, and my father was pompous and pretentious and had learned some French in France, and my mother was very beautiful, and he was very handsome, and they fell in something together. I think they'd like to think it was in love, but I don't know about that. But they were together for about five years and found they didn't like each other at all. And so they decided that neither of them wanted these, the toddlers. I was three and my brother five, so my grandmother, my father's mother, said send the children to me. And so they put us on trains in Los Angeles, without adult supervision, with tags on our arms, which said these children are to be delivered to Mrs. Annie Henderson in Stamps, Arkansas.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Till you were 13?

MAYA ANGELOU: Well until I was seven.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Seven.

MAYA ANGELOU: But my father, at seven, came and picked us up and took us to St. Louis, where my mother had returned to her family. And that was really nice, we thought, and we were trying to become city kids, but after about three months, my mother's boyfriend raped me.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Oh my God.

MAYA ANGELOU: And I told the name of the rapist to my brother, he told it to the family, the man was put in jail for one day and one night, and after a few days the police released, came over and told my mother's mother that the man had been found dead and it seemed that he had been kicked to death. That was said in my hearing. My seven-year-old logic told me my voice had killed the man, so I stopped speaking. For six years I stopped speaking.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You were how old when you were reunited with your mother and went to live with her?

MAYA ANGELOU: I was 13.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And those were not easy years. You went through a series of things...

MAYA ANGELOU: No they weren't...

BOB SCHIEFFER: ...you had a child when you were 17, but you had this unbelievable record, we talk about women in the work place now, you must have had every kind of job a man or a woman could have had, including being a street car conductor.

MAYA ANGELOU: I had gone to visit my father, at my mother's encouragement. And he didn't like me and I didn't like him. And so I came back home to my mother in San Francisco and she said, well, you know, you're a semester and a half ahead of yourself if you don't want to go to school right now, you don't have to, but you have to get a job. So I decided I wanted to have a job on the streetcars. I had watched women on the streetcars. I hadn't noticed that they were all white, they were just women. And they wore cute little uniforms and bibs on their caps, and they had moneychangers on their belts. I thought they were swank. And so I said I wanted to be a streetcar conductor. My mother said, "Go get the job." I went down there and the people wouldn't even give me an application. So I went back home, really broken up, and I told my mother they wouldn't let me apply. She asked me, "Why? Do you know why?" I said, "Yes, because I'm a negro." She asked me, "Do you want the job?" I said yes. She said, "Go get it. Go get it." Well about the third day, Mr. Schieffer, I was really, I was finished with it. I wanted to go home so badly because the girls who worked there spat, and they used racial pejoratives, and they pooched out their mouths, and they made fun of me. But I couldn't go home and tell Vivian Baxter that I wasn't as tough as she thought I was. So I sat there. And after two weeks, a man came out of an office and he said, "Come in." And I went into the office, he asked me, "Why do you want to work for the Metropolitan Railway Company?" Or whatever. And I said, "Because I like people. And I like the uniforms." He asked me what experience had I had and I lied. I said I had been the chaufferette for Mrs. Annie Henderson in Stamps, Arkansas. My grandmother had hardly ridden in a car, let alone had anybody drive her around. But I got the job. I got the job. And after, I stayed with the job until it was time to go back to school, and my mother asked me, "Now, what did you learn from that?" Every day she would drive with me out to the barn to pick up the streetcar and she had a pistol on the side of, you know, on the seat of her car. She would ride with, just following my streetcar all the way down to the ferry, and all the way back to the beach, and all the way until day break, and she'd blow her horn and blow me a kiss. And she'd ask me what did I learn. So I said I learned that I had probably the best protection anybody could have in the world. She said, "No, but did you learn that with discipline, with decision, determination, and intelligence, you can do anything? Anything." And you know, I have done a lot of things. And Vivian Baxter, my mother, told me that with determination, preparation, intelligence, you can do anything. Anything good. And so I'm still doing, listen to me, I'm sitting here talking to Bob Schieffer. I'm doing anything.

(Laughter)

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well may I just say that I think I've fallen in love with you and that hasn't happened to me on this broadcast very often. I want to wish you the happiest of Mother's Days and I know what you have said today means a lot to Moms out there and also to daughters. I want to wish you the very best.

MAYA ANGELOU: I thank you.

BOB SCHIEFFER: This is a wonderful, wonderful time. Thank you so much, Dr. Angelou for being with us.

MAYA ANGELOU: Thank you. I thank you with my heart. I thank you with my heart.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And we'll be back in a minute.

BOB SCHIEFFER: So we come to another Mother's Day, anyone who knows me knows my Mother was the dominating and shaping force of my life. Here are a few lines I wrote about her back in 2006 that I would like to share with you:

What is there to say about Moms that hasn't been said before?

Here are just a couple of things, maybe three or four.

When you were just a little one,

Who was it that taught you a song?

And even more important, the difference 'tween right and wrong.

When others turned against you,

Who was always there?

Who always took your side

No matter when or where?

If you're like me, it was Mom.

Who kept the family going

Whether times were good or not?

Who always could remember

The things that we forgot?

Birthdays, homework deadlines

A hundred things or more.

And on school days, wide awake or not

Got you out the door?

If you're like me it was Mom.

Who told you you were just as good

As any rich man's son?

And not to look for some excuse

To not do what needed done?

You've known movers and shakers

Some may even know you.

But in the final accounting,

Who taught you most that's true?

If you're like me it was Mom.

Don't forget to tell your mom today that you love her. And we'll be back in just a moment

BOB SCHIEFFER: Thanks for watching Face the Nation. Before we go, we want to take note of the retirement of longtime Face the Nation announcer John Wilcox, John has been the voice at the top of this broadcast for 40 years and we will truly miss his smile, his humor and his work here at CBS News. Good luck John. And to all those mothers out there, Happy Mother's Day. We'll see you next Sunday, right here on Face the Nation.