Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Who changed CIA talking points on Libya attack?

Details

  • Description

    Rep. Peter King wants answers

  • Duration 5:01
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

As you know the battle for truth is under way General David Petraeus testifies -- the CIA's Ben Ghazi talking points were change.

To not include an al-Qaeda -- reference to the attack but changed by coma.

Congressman Peter King is the chairman of the homeland security committee and member of the House Intelligence Committee he was inside a closed door hearings yesterday.

And he spoke with the former CIA director congressman thanks for being there.

If you're -- our rights or did it General David Petraeus tell you yesterday that he always believed that this was the result of a terror attack it isn't that what he told you.

On September 14 the first study testified -- tiger -- It -- General Petraeus.

I said lately is saying now that he did believe from the start -- was area terrorist attack.

Quite frankly that wasn't my recollection.

Of his original a briefing.

And that really got your assessment resolved in the in the future whatever that is my concern right now is so -- YE there was it.

Why when the CIA had it right originally thought this was a terror attack.

Know why those talking points -- change and I think that's that's going to be a process that's going to be I'm going to find out who did that and why it.

And and who do you think could have change those talking was you know how this works it came out of Langley.

-- the CIA headquarters reading one way and when it came out of ambassador Susan Rice is now that read another -- who does change those things.

Of course -- whole process and the it's why it's important find out why it was done it could be anywhere in the media Defense Department State Department.

Justice Department the White House final -- -- was on what the purpose of course I think this is something that again has to be looked at -- they may have a valid reason I.

Again I I in my own beliefs of whatever reason -- -- the administration.

Honestly believe that organs -- al-Qaeda -- was pretty much over.

And I was administers and wanna present from the other hand here they may have some -- reason I think we have to.

Look at it and there's a number of committees of jurisdiction here is a number of different agencies and departments what we looked at him in the intelligence committee.

Looks at the CIA and intelligence community wildly you have the foreign affairs committee have the judiciary committee -- services committee or will have to look their respective areas.

OK but given that there's all of that sort of bureaucratic.

Tangled -- -- how are you going to get to -- answer of who changed it's.

Well because it is so spread out is -- -- yeah I mean I think intelligence committee is done what it has to do.

We found no we have to find out and now it has to -- any other committees are again.

Maybe there'll be a the broader investigation but we have to find it out.

Find out what the -- was what what the reasons where was done how it was done and they get what you what what prompted him to do it.

And because clearly the intelligence community had it right somewhere along the line the policy makers changes.

You know the president in his press conference offered.

Big support for ambassador Susan Rice and he basically said look don't blame her.

The buck stops -- -- she had nothing to do with Ben Ghazi.

Why would -- -- administration have sent someone out who had nothing to do with Ben -- Sorts -- the president is claiming now that investor -- had nothing to do with the guys who white putter out there.

All I can think of was perhaps.

The approach is articulate and that also this was -- audition for secretary of state.

This is -- he's one of the favorites for secretary of state -- thought -- -- -- an opportunity.

But even if you weren't giving -- talking points general you're gonna wanna show like that you're gonna ask questions and I would like to find who she spoke to who the National Security Council staff you spoke to.

Who intelligence community she spoke to who briefed her on that I hope she -- net five national shows.

Just based on three brief talking points go ahead and sort by somebody so -- the American -- right maybe.

First we should be looking at is is present himself as to what his role in this there was what the role -- -- for us.

We have a lot of questions for ambassador Susan Rice -- you call her in front of the committee.

Well and you know this is chairman Mike Rogers is the chairman of the year.

Intelligence committee and also for the most part we deal.

With the intelligence community so this is really very bifurcated process here I'm not trying to throw -- bureaucratic obstacles in your way other people's way.

We -- limited by the jurisdiction that we have.

And primarily this would be it involving intelligence committee.

Meaning -- hands mom -- I mean in other words since you think that.

Ambassador rice may have the answer is can your committee call her.

Well yeah it we can cause you know the -- Patrick Kennedy -- -- -- for the committees and the State Department.

So we cabinet -- this would primarily be the the house foreign affairs committee would be the one with primary jurisdiction over Susan Rice or the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Concentrator king thanks so much is really helpful to have your throughout that first person.

You flight from being inside that room and obviously there's a lot more questions need to be answered thanks so -- -- I think you -- leash.

Load More