Debate over Amb. Rice's talking points on Benghazi

This transcript is automatically generated

Susan Rice did not set a that this was just a much -- demonstrators who turned a little bit violent there was a dispute about.

Where they're demonstrators were they all armed with some of them armed.

She said clear what.

There were extremists elements who came in heavily armed and attacked and the only dispute here is.

You were there other protesters what were -- doing it she was telling us things that were false someone gave her bad information.

And we need to get to the bottom of who did that and why did that.

And we are back with our panel to talk about Ben Ghazi and all of the fallout from that attack that left four Americans dead.

68 B and Charles.

And Charles and there is a lot of conflicting information here and there have to be someone who has the answer to.

Primarily the talking points that investor Susan Rice and used to facilitate her appearance for five days afterwards and she made the rounds on the Sunday shows.

I thought it was interesting that senator Saxby Chambliss was on FOX News Sunday yesterday he said we've heard from every department or agency that would have touched he's talking points.

Except for the White House they also say they didn't change that in the White House has said they did make -- change to one technical reference to the consulate.

But where does -- answer like Charles.

Well I think what we have what we've achieved over the weekend we finally have some clarity.

There's one track that is now generally accepted.

Up until now that we all these.

Kinds of charges and suggestions.

It's actually three -- and why was it was security before what happened in the seven hours.

And -- allies afterwards but now we have one fact.

That appears to be agreed upon by that Democrats and Republicans.

And even appears now in the mainstream press as a fact and that he has.

Any intelligence community.

Had given a report an assessment on the fourteenth that said it was a pre planned attack.

And when Susan Rice spoke on the sixteenth that all of a sudden had become a -- -- -- control there's some dispute over what Petraeus have said but put that aside.

That means that between the fourteenth and the sixty.

Between the intelligence assessment.

And the White House something changed someone changed.

That seems to be agreed so that's now clarity because at least it would clear question.

Who changed it why what exactly was that the nature of the change and the most suggested and damaging.

Was the change made to protect the administration line.

-- heated election that al-Qaeda was on his heels which Obama was repeated at every stop in the campaign.

So now we can all look at that and that's the question.

Dianne Feinstein who's the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and they Democrats said we have to get the answer to that.

So the -- is going to be somewhere.

It could be the White House would be extremely damaging.

But now we have a focus on one issue we all agree upon and that's a real achievement of the investigation.

AB do you think ambassador -- -- eventually testify about us.

Well usually a tremendous amount of pressure for her to -- so -- I don't know that we know whether or not it comes to pass and they successfully block it or not but she in the pressure will be on her -- as I said.

Plastic I think the pressure's building up on Secretary Clinton as well on really on many people who has agreed that she will testify at some point but I want to say two things one.

This whole lying that came out of the end of last -- at what was revealed about the scrubbing of the talking points.

That we as a policy.

-- talking points and we hold secret from the world any.

Any suspicion that we have -- al-Qaeda is responsible for these -- this is not what happens and it and ended it with a group if we did this for the underwear bomber anyone else.

There would be every person who was the routine person who -- discover and we would know what they were buying -- -- -- that doesn't happen.

But what is also disturbing to me is the Petraeus you -- you speech remember you heard from him on the fourteenth he pushed the video.

-- -- the video so whether it's from -- reasons that he felt pressure you know because he.

Has -- personal life on the line and no one -- loses job he denies that vehemently.

He changed his story and his story on -- it was a new one.

So this is really this is -- it's just more and more questions I'm glad we have discover you know we we know that that that was.

That happened -- this is not the routine policy and the intelligence community to say we can.

Cannot let al-Qaeda.

Get on to us to know that were on to them because clearly they did not know that before as -- -- -- doesn't know that right that's -- hundred I mean we killed the better leader rather abruptly kicked it just doesn't have.

The jig is up.

All right Steve -- I want to ask you about ambassador rice and all this talk that she could be nominated for secretary of state the president has very vigorously defended her in his news conference last week.

Today 97 house Republicans sent a letter him saying -- deeply concerned they'll do everything they can deposit of course they can't vote it's the Senate's deal.

But do you think he's gonna throw down the gauntlet and saying if I -- nominate her -- will he said those words.

-- I would be surprised because I think the president is eager to move beyond.

Ben -- as quickly as he possibly can I think they're all sorts of reasons that he won't be able to I was real substantive important reasons that he won't be able to but I think the last thing the president wants.

He's a high profile confirmation hearing of the person who is seen.

I think correctly as as you know one of that did real problems.

With the administration's.

Spin on what happened in Bend, Oregon the president -- when he went to defend her defenders in that something on an insulting way -- We set her up because she didn't know anything she was just there to recite talking points we do that.

If you don't wanted to screw up I mean if Hillary Clinton were to go -- David Petraeus regard they have institutional knowledge about what happens if they know what they were doing.

During the attacks they know what the story was in the discussions were in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

Susan Rice by the president's own admission did not know those things so she can go -- be counted on to only recite talking points is very I think insulting way.

-- here United Nations ambassador and it's even hotter than the president would decide that as his reason to hurry his defense of.

And the White House chooses who they send this -- that's that's not in -- we do about it certainly did.

-- -- -- -- --

Watch Live

Debate over Amb. Rice's talking points on Benghazi

Details

Clips

Editor's Picks

Megyn Kelly's heated debate with Kermit Gosnell's attorney

GRAPHIC video shows suspect in aftermath of London attack

IRS' Lois Lerner: 'I have not done anything wrong'

Florida shooting possibly linked to Boston bombing suspects

Jodi Arias on media manipulation, message to victim's family

Secretary Kerry pushes for Syrian peace talks

Victims begin to assess damage from devastating tornado

Tornado victim documents destroyed home

Senate minority leader 'undecided' on immigration bill

Will review board leader shed new light on Benghazi?

Oklahoma Tornado: Website helps survivors find pets

Is DOJ spying a violation of the First Amendment?

Transcript

Recommended