Top intel officials to testify at hearing on Benghazi attack
New York Congressman Peter King weighs in
- Duration 5:07
- Date Nov 8, 2012
New York Congressman Peter King weighs in
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Well -- new developments in the search for answers.
In connection with the big Ghazi terror attack with the Obama administration now agreeing to send a couple of its top Intel people.
To testify in a closed hearing.
Exactly one week from today.
That's where lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee will try to get to the bottom of who knew what and when -- once and for all.
About the terror attack that killed four Americans including our ambassador to Libya.
Congressman -- -- is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he is a Republican he's with me now -- -- good to see again.
I -- reduction chairman of Homeland Security -- the intelligence committee.
I'm a good friend Mike Rogers is the German -- held on the committee with him albeit there.
My apologies for that so.
Now we're we're getting some heavy hitters to -- appearing before the Intel committee.
Including CIA chief David Petraeus.
National Director of National Intelligence James clapper.
And another man named Matthew Olsen who already testified on Capitol -- he's he's the director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
And he was the first one actually say that this was terrorism and then reports came out -- he was told to dial that back -- that the industry was not happy he came out and said it the way he said it.
What do you think you're gonna get -- in this here.
Millions off what we have to get that because from day one I believe the administration has not been honest with the American people not honest with the congress.
They were saying part of how long that this was caused by a video turns -- and I was not the case of saying it was a spontaneous demonstration clearly this was not the case.
Despite what the president was trying to claim later on.
He did not doubt that this was terrorist attack for almost ten days we had his -- the Press Secretary -- on the repeatedly trying to deny the fact it was a terrorist attack.
We respect -- -- important -- leave but we know all the we know it -- those facts happened but what what when you have access to Petraeus.
Testifying before you.
Didn't -- what are you gonna ask him.
So right exactly that's him.
Was in contact with the State Department and I what was control what information which he -- what do question his CIA station people in Libya tell them.
Why did -- come forward with this a version that it would that it involved a -- a video what was that based on in view of the fact.
You know we know that that -- people at the compound in big 'cause he was saying that this was a that's terrorist attack why you why -- you why -- people on the ground saying one thing and why we he had the administration officials saying something else.
Dollar General -- -- called timeline yet as to what they were told when they were told that and why they -- -- the story for so long why they broke the story the first horse.
Clapper is the one who copped to if you -- so his his group and -- -- Director of National Intelligence said we're the ones who gave the will the White House.
His talking points memo.
That spoke of a video in the days after.
Do we know why to this moment do we know why he did that what what specifically he was basing that on.
No I don't and I think we look at the memo carefully which I had to go back -- myself.
-- put out by a spokesman for general -- right I think there's distinction as human you're trying to put distance between himself.
And that memo again that had to -- -- pressure from from the White House so many in the National Security Council who pressured him to do that.
And also those talking points.
Who told to put those talking points together in the first place.
Who -- those talking -- talking points with a refined with a change where they amended so all of this to me I think we have to show was there and tide and pollution.
Between the administration between the White House.
And also those in the intelligence community who are supposed to be nonpolitical until -- professional.
-- and I don't have access to President Obama vice president Joseph Biden and so on you've got access to the people who would have been talking to them.
Now -- also I imagine I talked to Petraeus about the CIA and whether they didn't fact it's saying no to the demands for help.
That were being made by the CIA operatives over there that that security got the former Navy SEALs or working at the CIA and -- were saying let us go over -- the ambassador.
They claim according our sources that they were that they are sources claim that they were told.
No don't go don't go don't go -- and at least one of them went anyway but I want to ask you this.
Deet -- is there any restriction so when you've got access to Petraeus clapper Matthew Olsen.
Can they refuse to answer your questions on some ground.
They should not intelligence committee -- post your full access to every all the information they have.
If they do try to claim some sort of executive privilege.
Then that could be bringing about a confrontation I'm hoping that doesn't happen.
We're not looking for a fight we just want the information.
But again just yet be ready pending -- they may try to say you do.
As I have great regard for General Petraeus Matt Olson.
General crop up but something went clearly wrong here and it just seems to me that was -- -- coming from outside and that should never happen when dealing with intelligence community.
And to me the only place that enforcement be coming from was demonstration itself.
We will find out as you continue to probe into it disturbing story.
chairman of the homeland security committee thanks for being here.
-- that you refused to you all -- there.