Original subtitles

>> NARRATOR: Dangerous

missions...

>> ALLAN LICHTMAN: It involved

a rogue agency accountable

to absolutely nobody.

>> NARRATOR: ...covert

operations...

>> PETER KORNBLUH: Operations

were being done without the

knowledge of the American

public, but in their name.

>> NARRATOR: ...and

assassinations of American

citizens...

>> WEBSTER TARPLEY: American

citizens are killed by drones.

>> NARRATOR: ...at the order

of the President of the United

States.

>> DOUG WEAD: Only a few years

ago, a President of the United

States could not wiretap your

phone without the signature of a

judge.

Now he can kill you without the

signature of a judge.

>> NARRATOR: Just how far can

our nation's chief executive go

in the interest of national

security?

And how much information does

the public have a right to know?

>> KATIE PAVLICH: There are

cover-ups that go on in

Washington, DC, and government

every single day.

>> MARTIN MORGAN: It could have

resulted-- at any time-- in

nuclear war.

>> NARRATOR: There are those

who believe in the existence

of a book.

A book that contains the most

highly guarded secrets of the

United States of America.

A book...

whose very existence is known

to only a select few.

But if such a book exists,

what would it contain?

Secret orders?

Secret missions?

Secret crimes?

Does there really exist

America's Book of Secrets?

>> NARRATOR: Benghazi, Libya.

September 11, 2012.

On the 11th anniversary of

the most devastating terrorist

attack in U.S. history...

(men shouting)

(machine-gun fire)

...the United States consulate

is overrun by militant rebels

and set ablaze.

American Ambassador Christopher

Stevens and three diplomatic

aides are murdered.

The following morning, President

Barack Obama gives a statement

in the Rose Garden, condemning

the attacks, and vowing to bring

the perpetrators to justice.

>> PRESIDENT OBAMA: And make no

mistake, we will work with the

Libyan government to bring to

justice the killers who attacked

our people.

>> REP. MIKE ROGERS: The attack

in Libya appears to be a very

coordinated, military-style

attack.

This was not a-a demonstration

gone bad.

>> NARRATOR: Five days later,

United Nations Ambassador Susan

Rice appears on five Sunday

talk shows and blames the attack

on a spontaneous reaction to

an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

>> RICE: What sparked the recent

violence was the airing on the

Internet of a very hateful,

very offensive video.

>> NARRATOR: But when

intelligence reports later

indicate that the president and

his staff had earlier evidence

that the attack was the work of

al Qaeda, questions begin to be

asked.

Was the American public being

told the truth?

>> WEAD: After the embassy was

attacked in Benghazi, a lot

of people, uh, questioned what

the White House knew and when

they knew it.

>> LICHTMAN: Some claim that

the terrorist attack was covered

up by the Obama administration.

Now, why would the Obama

administration want to cover

this up?

This attack occurred right

before a presidential election.

The last thing the Obama

administration would want would

be embarrassing information

coming out on the eve of the

election.

>> PAVLICH: They blame a YouTube

video for sparking the attack,

but al Qaeda terrorists took

responsibility for it.

>> MICHAEL ISIKOFF: There

clearly were intelligence

failures; there clearly was

great confusion about what had

happened.

>> MICHAEL GENOVESE: The

administration made a mistake.

They did not have sufficient

security.

People said, "We need more

security..." they didn't get it.

>> NARRATOR: Could the murders

have been prevented?

And why was President Obama

reluctant to blame al Qaeda?

>> PAVLICH: The U.S. consulate

had asked for multiple rounds

of security, was denied it.

The cover-up part comes in when

the administration is

campaigning on the idea that

al Qaeda is no longer a threat

to the United States.

>> TARPLEY: The goal of the

Benghazi September 11

assassinations was to embarrass

Obama, to refute his contention

that al Qaeda was defeated.

Al Qaeda, of course, is not

defeated.

>> PAVLICH: Well, the Vice

President of the United States

told the American people that

it was an intelligence failure.

But they had been told that

the YouTube video had sparked

the attack.

>> NARRATOR: Did the Obama

administration really conceal

al Qaeda's involvement in the

attack on the U.S. consulate for

fear it would undermine the

president's bid for re-election?

Or was there another-- perhaps

even more secret-- reason for

the administration's reluctance

to admit the truth?

>> WEAD: A president would

justify a cover-up if national

security was at stake.

But the problem comes in...

(chuckles)

...when is the national security

at stake?

And I think presidents are very

elastic about that.

>> NARRATOR: There are some who

believe the attack in Benghazi

was at the center of an even

greater presidential cover-up--

one involving a secret CIA

outpost located approximately

a mile from the U.S. consulate.

>> PAVLICH: When President

Obama came into office, he

immediately signed an executive

order stopping what they call

"enhanced interrogation torture"

at CIA facilities overseas.

What came up in the Benghazi

cover-up is that the CIA was

actually holding prisoners in

the consulate in Benghazi,

which maybe was a reason why

there was an attack.

>> LICHTMAN: Apparently,

the compound in Benghazi was not

really a consulate.

Many believe it was primarily

a CIA operation.

And nobody exactly knows what

the CIA was doing in Benghazi.

And whether CIA activities

were involved with sparking this

terrorist attack on the

compound.

>> NARRATOR: Is it possible

that the CIA facility near

the Benghazi consulate was

the real target of the al Qaeda

attack on September 11?

If so, why?

Was the compound involved in

covert operations?

And is this the secret being

covered up by the White House?

>> LICHTMAN: Some have

speculated that the CIA in Libya

was recruiting rebel fighters.

In other words, if there is

a cover-up with respect to

Benghazi, it likely comes from

the CIA and, uh, is still

ongoing.

>> TARPLEY: Ambassador Stevens

had his last meeting with a

Turkish diplomat.

Now why would the U.S.

ambassador be meeting a Turkish

diplomat in the terror capitol

of Libya?

The CIA was in Benghazi to

direct the shipment of weaponry

from Gaddafi's arms depots and

guerilla fighters to Turkey so

those could be sent into Syria

to overthrow Assad.

The embarrassing thing about

this, of course, for the Obama

administration is that they are

caught doing this.

>> SENATOR RAND PAUL: Is the

U.S. involved with any, uh,

procuring of weapons, transfer

of weapons, buying, selling,

anyhow transferring weapons to

Turkey out of Libya?

>> HILLARY CLINTON: To Turkey?

I do not know.

>> TARPLEY: Concerning

the attack on the U.S. consulate

and CIA post in Benghazi,

Libya, the attempt to pin this

on Obama is pure, big-lie

propaganda.

CIA asset kills ambassador,

CIA assets run away.

That's nothing to do with Obama.

It has to do with the CIA.

>> PAVLICH: Everything goes

back to the President in

the United States.

So, what his Cabinet does, what

his department does, what his

departments within the federal

government do... eventually is

his responsibility.

>> NARRATOR: Was the attack on

the U.S. consulate in Benghazi

perpetrated by al Qaeda

operatives who had been secretly

working with the CIA?

And is this the reason why the

Obama administration was quick

to blame the attack on a

15-minute YouTube video?

>> TARPLEY: After Benghazi and

around the time of the election,

a whole series of top admirals

and generals get fired.

Petraeus is out.

General Allen.

Admiral Stavridis at NATO.

The head of the Missile Defense

Agency.

General Carter Ham, the head of

U.S. AFRICOM.

There's a whole series of

high-profile careers that

mysteriously come to an end in

the autumn of 2012.

And nobody has come up with a

satisfactory explanation.

The public has not been told

the entire truth.

>> NARRATOR: Are the details of

the attack on the U.S. consulate

in Benghazi really part of

a presidential cover-up?

And if so, is it to protect

American interests and national

security?

Or is the reason purely

political?

>> GENOVESE: Most cover-ups are

for presidential gain or to

protect the president, either

personally or politically.

>> RONALD GOLDFARB: All

governments like to operate in

secret, and whether you come in

as a liberal or conservative,

once you're in power,

you seem to prefer to

operate in the shadows,

or secretly.

>> GENOVESE: There's a great

temptation to think, "I have to

save my political behind and

so what I'll do is I'll declare

something secret that shouldn't

be."

Sometimes you get away with it.

But once it starts to unravel,

it almost certainly becomes

completely unraveled and

the president suffers greatly--

either impeachment or his place

in history.

>> NARRATOR: Washington, D.C.

June 17, 1972.

The Watergate office and

apartment complex.

Five burglars break in to

photograph documents and plant

listening devices at the

Democratic National Committee

headquarters located inside the

landmark building.

A security guard notices tape

covering the latches on the

office doors.

The burglars are caught

red-handed and arrested.

Upon questioning, the police

discover that the men-- later

identified as a clandestine

group known as the "White House

Plumbers"-- are operating on

behalf of President Richard

Nixon's re-election campaign.

>> DON FULSOM: The White House

Plumbers were experts at

break-ins and other illegal

activities.

Their main function for Nixon

was to stop the types of leaks

that occurred when, for example,

the Pentagon Papers were

disclosed by Daniel Ellsberg.

They, in a somewhat humorous

fashion, put a sign on their

door at the White House in

a secret location that just

said "Plumbers."

>> TIMOTHY NAFTALI: The Plumbers

included a former CIA

intelligence officer named

E. Howard Hunt.

E. Howard Hunt recruited some

Cubans that he'd worked with,

uh, in the early 1960's when the

Eisenhower administration and

then the Kennedy administration

tried to overthrow Fidel Castro.

When the Watergate burglars are

arrested by the Washington

police in June of 1972 and their

names reach the White House,

Nixon knows who E. Howard Hunt

is.

He understands immediately the

challenge to him.

>> NARRATOR: A few days after

the arrest of the Plumbers,

President Nixon's

press secretary Ron Ziegler

dismissed the event as a "third-

rate burglary attempt."

The cover-up soon to be known

simply as "Watergate" had begun.

>> NIXON: I neither authorized

nor encouraged subordinates

to engage in illegal or

improper campaign tactics.

>> LICHTMAN: The big question is

why did the Nixon administration

care so much about covering up

a petty burglary?

The reason they cared is that

the Watergate break-in was the

tip of the iceberg of a raft of

illegal, immoral and abhorrent

activities being conducted by

the Nixon administration.

>> NARRATOR: If the reason for

the break-in at DNC headquarters

was to get information on the

campaign activities of Democrat

nominee George McGovern, Nixon's

supporters needn't have worried.

The Republican incumbent won by

a landslide.

Still, persistent questions

remained about the break-in.

And Democrats-- as well as the

American media-- would not let

the story go.

>> MORGAN: In the spring of

1973, in the aftermath of

these break-ins, there was an

exposé piece written for

The Washington Post by Woodward

and Bernstein.

And this piece revealed the

possibility of there having

been a presidential cover-up

associated with the Watergate

break-ins.

>> NARRATOR: On May 17, 1973,

the Democrat-controlled Senate

began hearings to investigate

the break-in.

And soon, the focus boiled down

to one crucial question.

>> HOWARD BAKER: What did

the president know and when

did he know it?

>> ISIKOFF: "What did the

president know and when did the

president know it?"

And it's since then become the

key question that investigators

have asked in every presidential

scandal ever since.

>> LICHTMAN: That phrase comes

from a Republican senator,

Howard Baker.

And that question was actually

fed to him by his council,

Fred Thompson, later also a

United States Senator.

And the notion was, "Look, the

buck stops with the president."

>> NARRATOR: When it was

revealed during the hearings

that Nixon had recorded nearly

all of his conversations

in the Oval Office, the Senate--

and the media-- began a feeding

frenzy for information.

Did Richard Nixon order the

Plumbers to break in to the DNC

headquarters?

Or, if not, did he orchestrate a

cover-up in an effort to

protect his reelection campaign?

>> KORNBLUH: Let me just say,

these tapes cover a lot more

than just Watergate.

They revealed a lot about what

Nixon knew and when he knew it,

about all sorts of sordid and

illegal and unethical foreign

policy operations.

His discussions with Henry

Kissinger about operations

in Chile, and the U.S. role in

overthrowing a democratically

elected government there.

There are tapes about Cambodia

and Laos.

There are discussions about the

illegal wiretapping that they

were doing.

>> WEAD: The list that Richard

Nixon had someone make on the

number of Jews that worked in

his government, for example.

All this is being verbalized

with people sitting there.

And they had no idea it's being

tape recorded.

>> KORNBLUH: The tapes

themselves serve as a truth

serum, if you will, for history

on what Richard Nixon's

presidency was all about.

>> NARRATOR: In the decades

since the Watergate scandal,

numerous conspiracy theories

continue to circulate as to

Richard Nixon's numerous

secret activities.

>> FULSOM: One of Richard

Nixon's cover-ups was his

relationship with Bebe Rebozo,

who befriended Nixon in the

1950s.

He was the guy who contacted

mafia figures on Nixon's behalf,

made deals.

Rebozo served as the middleman

in several dealings with

Howard Hughes.

One example, a bribe from

Howard Hughes to Nixon's

brother Donald of $205,000,

to set up a chain of hamburger

stands.

A friend of Howard Hughes tells

me that the money actually

went directly to Richard Nixon

for his personal use.

>> GENOVESE: Watergate, in its

narrowest sense, was just

the break-in of the Democratic

headquarters at the Watergate

complex.

They wanted to get into Larry

O'Brien's office.

O'Brien was the chair of the

Democratic Party.

And they thought that Larry

O'Brien, who had business ties

with Howard Hughes, might have

the dope on what Nixon and

Nixon's brother were getting

from Howard Hughes.

>> NARRATOR: The Watergate

break-in-- and the attempt to

cover it up-- ultimately led to

Richard Nixon's resignation as

President of the United States.

>> NIXON: I shall resign the

presidency effective at noon

tomorrow.

>> KORNBLUH: This is a cover-up

of a crime that brought down

the President of the United

States, led to the resignation

of a President of the United

States.

And it reverberates continually

through the history of

presidents thereafter and to our

current day.

>> GENOVESE: The roots of

Watergate can be found in the

personality and the character of

Richard Nixon.

And when he got into power, he

didn't have the kinds of

constraints that most of us

would have.

He thought that politics was

war, and he thought that

political adversaries were

enemies out to get him.

>> NARRATOR: But if the

Watergate scandal was simply a

consequence of Richard Nixon's

personal paranoia, is it safe

to say that political espionage

and so-called "dirty tricks" are

now a thing of the past?

>> WEAD: If there was an

American Book of Secrets, and

you turned to the pages of

Watergate, I think you would be

very disappointed.

I think what you would find is

this president got caught and

subsequent White Houses became

much more sophisticated.

But not much changed.

And I can tell you personally

of incidents where spy

organizations were run in an

opponent's political campaign,

long after Watergate, um,

infiltrating the opposition.

It still goes on.

>> NARRATOR: Abbottabad,

Pakistan.

May 2, 2011.

Shortly after 1:00 a.m. local

time, Osama bin Laden--

the founder of al Qaeda and

mastermind behind the deadliest

terrorist attack ever on U.S.

soil-- is killed during a raid

on his compound.

The raid is the result of a

top-secret mission called

Operation Neptune Spear.

>> PRESIDENT OBAMA: Tonight, I

can report to the American

people, and to the world, that

the United States has conducted

an operation that killed Osama

bin Laden, the leader of

al Qaeda.

>> NARRATOR: The success of

the mission offers a prime

example of where keeping a

secret-- even from the American

public-- pays off.

But when does legitimate secrecy

end and a cover-up begin?

When does the American

government flirt with criminal

behavior, even in the name of

national interest?

>> PAVLICH: There's a difference

between a cover-up and citing

national security in order to

keep the American people safe.

Cover-ups are used to cover up

bad behavior and poor

decisions-- not to help the

country, but to help the

commander in chief.

>> NARRATOR: Another case of

a top-secret mission that became

a scandalous cover-up began

in the early 1980s...

>> OLIVER NORTH: I do.

>> NARRATOR: ...under

then-President Ronald Reagan.

It involved the covert sale of

arms to so-called "moderates"

within the government of Iran in

exchange for the Iranians' help

in freeing seven Americans held

hostage by a militant terrorist

group.

>> MORGAN: In the negotiations

about the release of these

hostages, there was an

indication on the part of the

Iranian group that they needed

certain weapons.

They needed some arms.

The Reagan administration then

sought to provide the weapons

that were needed by the

Iranians.

That began a process that we

historically refer to now as

"arms for hostages."

>> GENOVESE: The problem was, we

delivered a plane full of

military equipment, and they

didn't release a hostage.

The United States comes back

and goes, "Hey, wait a minute,

where-where's the hostage?"

"Well, we need more."

So another plane is delivered,

and they release a hostage.

We think, okay, this is working.

The problem is, right after they

released one hostage, they took

another.

This happened three consecutive

times before we figured out what

they were doing.

We were played for fools.

>> NARRATOR: But why was the

Reagan administration so willing

to sell arms to a nation openly

hostile to the United States?

The answer may lie 8,000 miles

away...

in the Central American

country of Nicaragua, where a

bloody war was taking place

between the Communist-controlled

government and opposition forces

known as Contras.

Reagan believed strongly that

the Contras deserved American

funding and support.

Unfortunately, any such funding

had been banned by Congress.

>> GENOVESE: They passed what's

called the Boland Amendment,

which forbad any use of

American funds in any way

to the Contras.

>> LICHTMAN: Blocked from

spending official government

money on the war in Nicaragua,

the Reagan administration went

to great lengths to find

outside sources of funding

to support the Contras.

>> GENOVESE: And so he went

to one of his operatives-- a guy

named Ollie North, a bizarre

little colonel-- and he said,

"We've got to keep the Contras

together, body and soul."

North took that as marching

orders, and he said, "What a

great idea.

We'll take the funds that we

get from the sale of weapons and

give it to the Contras."

>> NARRATOR: There were those in

the president's inner circle

who argued that the elaborate

scheme-- while shady-- was

perfectly legal, at least in

a technical sense.

The arms to Iran would be sold

not by the United States, but

by the Israelis.

Residual money would, in

turn, be used to secretly

finance the Nicaraguan rebels.

>> KORNBLUH: Oliver North was

the central bureaucratic and

operational manager for both

the sale of arms to Iran and the

illegal support and financing of

the Contras.

Either one of those things

could've led to Ronald Reagan's

impeachment.

His aides all understood this.

>> LICHTMAN: Right from the

start, the Iran-Contra operation

was organized as a cover-up,

and a truly significant

cover-up, because it involved

the creation of a rogue agency

within the government itself.

>> NARRATOR: In November 1986,

information about the

arms-for-hostages scheme began

to leak, so much so that an

embarrassed President Reagan

quickly set up a special review

board to look into the matter.

Oliver North and his activities

would be the focus of most of

the investigations, which was

made more difficult when the

Marine lieutenant colonel later

admitted to shredding thousands

of documents related to the

case.

In 1988, North was indicted on

16 felony counts, and later

convicted of three: aiding in

the obstruction of Congress,

shredding official documents and

accepting illegal payment.

His convictions, however, were

vacated, since his testimony had

been protected under an earlier

grant of immunity.

In the end, several high-ranking

members of the Reagan

administration were either

indicted, convicted, or had

their careers forever tarnished

by the affair and the cover-up.

But what about Ronald Reagan?

Is it possible that the

President of the United States

was as innocent of the

Iran-Contra scheme as he

claimed?

>> REAGAN: We did not, repeat,

did not trade weapons or

anything else for hostages.

>> LICHTMAN: Nobody knows

exactly what Reagan's role and

responsibility was in

Iran-Contra.

Reagan claims he didn't know

anything about what was going

on.

Most historians don't believe

that.

>> WEAD: This goes to the skill

of Ronald Regan as a politician

and-and as an actor.

Nobody can really prove what

the president knew and when he

knew it.

The theory is put forward that

this was some rogue operation

going on, that the president

didn't know.

That has not been my experience

in the White House.

I don't care who the president

is; the information flows to

the top.

>> MORGAN: One theme that runs

current between many of these

scandals is the idea of

plausible deniability-- that a

presidential administration will

authorize a clandestine mission

only as long as they maintain a

level of plausible deniability.

That they can say, "I do not

recall the details of this

meeting."

>> WEAD: It's theatrics to

think a special assistant to the

president can launch a project

that would attempt to overthrow

a government and circumvent

the United States Congress.

>> NARRATOR: But why-- less than

two decades after President

Richard Nixon's humiliating

resignation-- would Ronald

Reagan put his presidency, his

party, and arguably the entire

nation at such great risk?

>> GENOVESE: The Reagan

administration was a conviction

presidency.

Very principled conservatives

who had a very strong

ideological bent.

And that justified doing almost

anything, even when it was

illegal.

>> NARRATOR: There are even

those who claim that the real

cover-up wasn't the involvement

of President Ronald Reagan, but

the more secret involvement of

a man who had been the former

director of the CIA:

Vice President George Herbert

Walker Bush.

>> TARPLEY: The reality of the

Iran-Contra affair is all of

this was directed from the

White House by Vice President

George H.W. Bush.

Oliver North was directly

attached to his staff, Oliver

North was later selected to be

the fall guy, and above all

prevent the scandal from

reaching George H.W. Bush,

who, of course, was preparing

his run for president in, uh,

in 1988.

>> WEAD: As a historian who

admires Ronald Regan, I think

he knew all of it.

I just can't conceive of a

president giving up that kind of

power or forfeiting that kind of

power.

Iran-Contra turned into a

cover-up because the president's

men and women around him claimed

he didn't know about it.

The president himself played

along with it.

>> DAN WEBB: Do you have any

recollection of approving for

John Poindexter to send these

specific letters to Congress?

>> REAGAN: Well, again, it's a

case of memory.

I... I don't recall.

>> NARRATOR: Washington, D.C.

July, 2004.

President Bill Clinton's former

national security advisor, Sandy

Berger, is brought before the

U.S. Justice Department on

charges of illegally removing

classified documents and

presidential papers from the

National Archives.

They had been requested as part

of Congress's investigation into

the murder of nearly 3,000

Americans...

on September 11, 2001.

>> MORGAN: Sandy Berger was

conducting some research in

the National Archives.

And it was revealed, ultimately,

that the archival record that

was being held there at the

facility-- he was purging it

of information that tended to

incriminate the Clinton

administration.

>> NARRATOR: During testimony,

Berger admitted to

"inadvertently" putting a total

of five documents related to the

thwarted millennium attack plots

in his briefcase.

>> LICHTMAN: He stole copies of

classified documents and

possibly even some originals.

And some of those may have

included handwritten notations

from the president himself.

These documents related to

analyses of the Clinton

administration's response to

terrorist actions.

>> NARRATOR: But there are those

who maintain that Berger removed

not just a handful of documents,

but dozens of them.

And there are even a few that

allege he removed them not

inadvertently, but by

deliberately hiding them in his

clothes, and even in his socks.

But if so, why?

What could have been so damaging

to President Clinton that would

prompt his former national

security advisor to risk his

entire career?

>> LICHTMAN: Critics say the

Clinton administration had

plenty of overt acts of terror

committed on its watch.

The 1993 attack on the World

Trade Center, the bombings of

American embassies in Africa,

the bombing of the USS Cole.

Despite all of these very

terrible terrorist activities,

the Clinton administration never

launched a concerted campaign

against al Qaeda or other

terrorist elements.

What President Clinton may have

been trying to hide, with

respect to the millennium plots

and other acts of terror, is

that he dropped the ball.

>> SANDY BERGER: I deeply

regret it.

It was mistaken, and it was

wrong.

>> NARRATOR: Berger ultimately

pleaded guilty to a charge of

unauthorized removal and

retention of classified

material, for which he was fined

$50,000 and sentenced to serve

two years of probation and

100 hours of community service.

But why was such an outrageous

offense punished with what many

believed to be nothing more than

a slap on the wrist?

>> GENOVESE: Well, the way our

government is constructed is to

have a rough check and balance

with a rough balance of power.

But since, really, World War Two

and the Depression, that has

shifted towards the presidency.

We're the only superpower,

and when that happens, the

president becomes more

important.

And so we've become, in many

ways, a country with an imperial

presidency, a presidency that

sometimes thinks it's above the

law, a presidency that has

abrogated to itself all sorts of

powers.

And that imperial status, which

is dangerous in a democracy, in

some ways though was

inevitable because of the rise

of American power

internationally.

An imperial power, a power with

its tentacles all over the

globe, seems to necessitate a

strong, centralized presidency.

>> NARRATOR: Has the office of

President of the United States

become so cynical towards the

American people and their laws

that almost all behavior can be

justified under the guise of

national security?

When it comes to the White

House, do they really believe

the ends justify the means?

>> WEAD: Of the last eight

American presidents before

Barack Obama, think about this:

only four of them were

reelected.

And of the four who were

reelected, one was impeached,

one resigned, and one left

office in disgrace, with the

lowest approval rating of any

president in his last month in

office.

Only one president of the

last eight left with any degree

of dignity intact, and that was

Ronald Regan.

And he experienced Iran-Contra.

>> NARRATOR: Has the president's

power-- to work autonomously,

to bypass Congress, and to

cover up illegal actions-- only

grown greater as the United

States has expanded its presence

around the globe?

And is it possible, with the aid

of new technology and under the

premise of fighting terror, that

the president could even conduct

a secret war?

A war that would not only be

fought against foreign enemies,

but even against American

citizens here at home?

>> NARRATOR: Washington, D.C.

February 6, 2013.

Under pressure from Congress,

President Barack Obama agrees to

allow the Senate and House

Intelligence Committees to

review classified legal memos

regarding a drone strike in

Yemen in 2011.

A strike that targeted and

killed a U.S. citizen.

Born in New Mexico, Anwar

al-Awlaki was a known al Qaeda

terrorist who was instrumental

in recruiting American jihadists

over the Internet.

Also killed in the strike was

his 16-year-old son,

Abdulrahman.

>> TARPLEY: Drone wars become

the object of a cover-up when,

for example, American citizens

are killed by drones.

Right, and we have one big

example: Anwar al-Awlaki.

That takes you beyond the pale.

That takes you into the targeted

assassination of U.S. citizens

without due process of law.

That may already be impeachable.

>> NARRATOR: With a growing

arsenal of high-tech tools

available to the White House,

has the commander in chief

gained even greater ability to

wage secret wars and conduct

covert operations?

Even when those operations

target U.S. citizens believed

to be engaged in acts of terror?

>> TARPLEY: We have Terror

Tuesdays at the White House

every week, with John Brennan

essentially deciding who's gonna

live and die.

Economic sanctions, economic

warfare, another important part.

Cyber warfare, color

revolutions, destabilizations,

what they call "buck passing."

If you want to bring down Libya,

don't attack Libya, let France

attack Libya.

You want to bring down Syria,

get Turkey to do most of the

dangerous work, and so forth.

So, this is a different kind

of foreign policy.

The drones are at the center of

it.

>> NARRATOR: Long-time observers

of Washington politics know a

full-fledged cover-up is only

attempted by the White House as

a last resort.

Not only is it less effective--

especially in today's 24/7

information age-- but it is also

less preferable to two other

means by which the president or

his staff may hide the truth:

spin...

and controlled leaking.

>> WEAD: Presidents are

masters... (chuckles)

...of the leak.

It's very valuable.

They use leaks all the time.

They may wake up in the morning

and that be the first order

of business is: what are we

leaking and how and why?

>> GENOVESE: A controlled leak

would be, for example, they'll

have a staffer call a friendly

news reporter and say,

"You know, the president's

thinking of appointing John

Smith to be Secretary of X."

And then they write about that

the next day in their column,

and then people start commenting

on it, and you see, well, oh,

there's a lot of kickback.

>> WEAD: There are things that

they want people to find that

they'll cover up because they

want them to find them.

And then there is misdirection

because they don't want them to

find something that they're on.

So that's how sophisticated

this spy versus spy versus spy

is at the presidential level.

>> MORGAN: We are in a brave

new world of transparency.

A brave new world where the

freedom of information is such

that people expect it at all

times.

>> NARRATOR: Have presidential

cover-ups become so

sophisticated that the American

public will never really know

what goes on behind the doors

of the Oval Office?

Are secret operations, covert

wars, and even political

assassinations actually being

perpetrated by the leaders of

the free world?

And if so, are they ever

justified?

>> JIM RASENBERGER: Presidential

cover-ups are necessary

sometimes for American national

security.

They're necessary when a

president has to undertake an

operation where it has to remain

secret or the entire operation

will get blown.

There are good reasons for

presidents to do things in

secret.

>> MORGAN: There was a time when

the public was much more

comfortable with the idea of a

presidential administration

that's willing to bend the

rules and a presidential

administration that's willing to

do things in a less than

transparent way.

But those days are gone.

>> NARRATOR: Perhaps the only

real protection the American

public can have against an

unscrupulous or unethical

commander in chief isn't from

the Constitution, but in the

form of personal judgment.

Because only in the voting

process can the public best

protect themselves.

And even then...

they can never be too sure.

>> PRESIDENT CLINTON: So help me

God.

>> PRESIDENT BUSH: So help me

God.

>> PRESIDENT OBAMA: So help me

God.

Captioning sponsored by

A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS