Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Hi I'm Greg Gutfeld in for Bill O'Reilly thanks for watching us tonight let's get right to our top story General David Petraeus on Capitol Hill testifying about Libya.
Exactly one week after resigning as the head of the CIA because of an affair.
Petraeus testified today and closed door hearings in front of both the house and Senate Intelligence Committees.
According to those who were there Petraeus said the C -- immediately suspected that al-Qaeda was involved in the 9/11 been -- attack.
But for some reason the original CIA talking points had been altered the al-Qaeda references removed.
This of course raises all kinds of questions and joining me now to answer them senator Roy Blunt a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
He's in Washington this evening senator -- I gotta say.
This isn't just a smoking gun it's I -- smoking can end this news is pretty big.
Well I think it is big and I think it's big and in really questioned how the intelligence operation we now have in the country works how what we did after 9/11.
Has impacted the system and you know what -- after 9/11 -- all we have to coordinate everything there has to be eight.
System that bottles through the Director of National Intelligence.
And I have real questions about our our capacity to make decisions and then to pass those.
Decisions along -- you know -- from among other things.
Until we got the surveillance.
Tape from the compound and that had to come.
After the Libyans had retreat average retreated Forrest looked at it.
Given it to us it took ten.
Twelve days to decide there wasn't a demonstration.
Right if all of the intelligence.
Efforts of the United States government can't figure out.
Something this basic that they that many people were saying.
Were the key to the whole situation that it didn't even happen at all.
For twelve days that's pretty amazing -- of all the effort we make to find out what's going on the world.
I mean is that this administration has created more -- -- a tuxedo factory to the point now that we don't know.
What's going not why do you think the line was removed.
Well you know and the people we've talked to the last couple of days nobody seems to be willing to take responsibility for that or know when it happened.
And seems to me everybody was this served as the people who use these talking points -- to serve the people who heard.
A what was being said we're just served by eliminating the part of the discussion that indicated there were people involved.
Who had ties to these terrorist organizations and that this was a planned attack though.
There is some view that it might not have been a long planned attack but it clearly didn't have anything to do with the spontaneous thing occurring out of -- demonstration that by the way -- didn't happen exactly it was a politically correct fantasy so we end it once again when we began who pushed the video.
Who knew where did this story starts.
Well that who pushed this that the start about the video that's a good question I think that they're actually may have been a Cairo.
Elements to that video I think that may have had something -- do -- what happened in Cairo.
Nobody died in Cairo and in jumping into the conclusion or deciding to advance the conclusion.
In Ben Ghazi that well it's all about the video that turned out to be.
And very misleading to the people have heard those talking points and that we're talking about what what's the difference in classified and unclassified -- talking points.
Apparently -- classified talking points are things that you can almost of this if you work hard enough could to could get from anywhere.
But if you've got classified talking points that show that that's not right.
Why wouldn't you use those as well do you know did.
And -- rice have access to different information in addition.
To the talking points are I think a very fair question for her in the administration.
And the president answer all right -- I think he's generally gotta run okay more on the startle.
Filter by section