Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Gonna go and out of one of the democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee congressman Adam -- from California congressman welcome to you sir thank you.
I'm not sure if you heard what congressman -- was saying there but but this seemed -- kind of the theme from the Republicans saying look.
I mean this is confusing and admittedly it is somebody took a very key piece of wording.
Out of the CIA's talking points and it changed the entire theme dramatically your response well.
First of all there was never NB a draft that said it was a pre planned terrorist attacks so that wasn't part of the draft.
Yes there were changes in the multi agency intelligence community process.
The the most important point though in General Petraeus made this very clearly today is that the changes that were made were made to protect classified information.
They didn't want to be specific as to the precise group they thought was responsible or groups.
Because there may have been multiple groups involve multiple groups of terrorists or extremists.
-- but it was done to protect classified information and he was.
Very clear this was never done for political purposes wasn't manipulated by the White House.
And all of the kind of conspiracy theories that this was done in in two.
Frame this in -- way the White House won one and were completely debunked by the general.
On the other point that I think was quite clear and I asked the general about this during the hearing today respected the UN ambassador.
Whether she was operating in the precise talking points or not.
I asked the general where the talking points that we ultimately got that you ultimately sign off on.
Were those and accurate assessment of the best information you have at the time that still protected classified information and they said yes.
And I asked him to the degree that the ambassador's remarks reflected those talking points and if you look and compare them they're almost identical.
Was -- giving us the best intelligence estimate at the time and his answer was yes.
But I'm not sure that's accurate congressman because tell me if you would go back and tell me how it is it protecting classified information.
Turns out to be something where ambassador rice goes on to these five Sunday shows.
And if she's protecting classified information how do you turn that around where she delivers in accurate information to the entire country because at that time the information she gave was inaccurate basing it well the best intelligence that she had.
Because the best intelligence the community gave us and gave the ambassador was wrong and the general admitted it was wrong and hasn't just changed is there.
No no no no the the intelligence that the raw intelligence and the information they gave us that the general gave us in person.
That they gave us -- the written assessment said this was based on A began as a spontaneous protest that was wrong.
That wasn't something that.
Susan Rice invented that was something the intelligence community thought at the time and they were wrong.
But the idea that they thought something different.
And at the end bastard departed from that is simply not true and the general today made it clear -- that was not true.
-- -- general have to acknowledge anonymous like -- -- now just but that he and the IC got it wrong.
They thought initially was spontaneous they thought yes.
It's terrorism because by definition you're shooting mortars and RPG's and American diplomatic -- that's terrorism.
The question though is.
Was it pre planned.
Should we have seen it coming.
And that is something -- that the general did not know at the time.
And two to suggest that they knew initially the general the -- new that's simply not the case.
Well from these intelligence -- we can tell you that the Democrats the Republicans came away with entirely different conclusions.
About exactly what happened California congressman.
Adam -- sir thank you so much for your time.
Filter by section