Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Rep King: I want to know why the talking points were changed

Details

  • Description

    New York congressman on Petraeus testimony, Benghazi attack

  • Duration 4:35
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Latest News

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

Are here with his reaction -- the Israel and Libya situations Homeland Security chair and intelligence committee member.

Congressman Pete king chairman thank you so much for your time today sir -- and thank you very much.

-- let's start with Ben Ghazi and Libya but what we do know what we don't know there is this great mystery over the talking points says that you have noted and others have as well.

It seems that from when they left the CIA or at least left would General Petraeus had seen -- them.

Two when they ultimately got to ambassador rice there was a change how do we get to the answer.

About who made those changes.

First I don't know what the Democrats and the white house of trying to hide because -- -- what any of -- -- any.

General Petraeus and general -- -- said the intelligence community.

-- society signed off on talking points they went to the administration.

And when they come back he language was changed.

Now -- it was a White House or the Pentagon or the Justice Department.

But the National Security Council.

Someone in the administration change those talking points only the administration -- tower at the White House said they didn't know what or who did was in the Defense Department was just department.

Was -- National Security Council why why won't they admit who did it that's me is the question why was his changed made offensive try to blame this on Petraeus crop is wrong.

When whatever Petraeus and -- it did that was changed by the administration.

Not by Petraeus -- -- as number one so I think the only answer right now is for the public to demand that the that this administration tell who in the administration did it.

Who made the change who told him to do what.

And why they made it and as far as Susan Rice is concerned.

There's no reason why should we had to be confined to talking points.

She could shouldn't she get access to all of the intelligence available to everyone else and the real intelligence obviously was different from -- thwarted I'm talking point.

Do you think that she as you -- -- do you think that she did have the full span of information or that she may be in some way was made a sacrificial -- that she was given talking points that didn't help her the whole story and then she was the one who was sent around.

To the confusion of many why the UN and -- was the one who was doing the Sunday shows.

Do you think that there's any level in the sense for her because of what she was presented with or do you think she had an obligation to know more.

Politically Susan rice is great ability.

I've known as somewhat over the years great -- -- regard for great respect for her ability.

But in his case issues given talking points and -- just accepted them all -- But I think it's -- what's hard to -- -- is as UN ambassador.

As being in the chain of command with the State Department he has access to all classified information she wants what's.

Whatever the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence that.

So to me she had an obligation to look at that itself -- Maybe some of the White House was told this in the entire story and she believes himself I think -- we're looking for the culprit yeah.

At that someone above Susan -- I think she had more responsibility.

To find out more information but also had to be somebody above -- who ordered the talking points -- and again I just wish they would tell us who did it why and -- All right I want -- -- -- to another situation General Petraeus obviously it testified this week and closed hearings.

I'll ask you about the FBI investigation which initially uncovered.

This extra marital affair what do we know about the investigation who knew what when who should have known.

The White House you know says it didn't know until election week.

Where do you think the failure is the or did somebody withholding information from the president of the FBI -- the information from the CIA what do we now.

Shot and I really can't go into that I was told Latin closed session and really -- -- -- that other than to say that I think.

That the attorney general of the United States had an absolute responsibility.

When she was told about this which was back awhile ago.

He of the absolute obligation to tell.

The president of the United States the president of the United States cannot have -- key component the key member of his foreign policy team.

-- -- carry out the most sensitive missions was under investigation.

By the FBI or something which could have made him -- as security -- the president was all of that.

And it's hard for me to believe understand why the attorney general did not tell the president.

And if he did tell him why the president didn't take action.

Do you feel that there so you just feel there's a possibility the president did know earlier in the White House has represented to us.

I don't know I'm just saying that if the attorney general.

Didn't tell and in the attorneys general asked to explain why.

-- the attorney general did -- -- -- the president have to explain why you didn't act so as of now I believe the the version is that the attorney general.

Did not tell the president that to -- the burden is on the attorney general the -- is on the attorney general.

I believe he has absolute obligation to telepresence.

All right chairman Peter King sir we thank you very much for your time thank you --

Load More