Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Let's not forget ambassador rice one on each show every major news network five days later.
But it wasn't just ambassador rice the president in his interview with CBS the day following the attack.
On Univision on the David Letterman show and most troubling before the United Nations did not call it a terrorist attack.
Republican senator Kelly -- and here in democratic congressman representative Adam chef.
He's a member of the intelligence -- -- house -- said to anyone who was listening it was clear from General Petraeus and other intelligence officials who testified last week.
That the talking points were amended to protect classified sources of information.
-- are not subject to any political spent by the White House or ambassador to the UN.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has now confirmed is once again saying that there were no substantive changes -- the talking points after they left the intelligence committee.
We're back now with our panel and I'll start with -- you think that the circle is tightening of ground to actually made the substantive changes now well.
I think that the DNI director clapper is gonna have to explain.
He now says he made them or the intelligence community made that means that I have to explain why he made them and why he said earlier that they haven't made them.
But I think that this will be explained the decision because senator I got neglected him to mention that in that CBS interview later a clip.
Came out of Clinton saying that it might very well end up being terrorists that was so he does so even -- CBS aired the part of the interview that seemed.
That he was the seeming to talk about the video he definitely mentioned that it could have been terrorism to -- so I don't think that's a full flights were hopeful that description of his interview.
But yes clapper is now gonna have to come up with an explanation of why.
The intelligence community has seems to have changed its story about the talking -- because -- Whether folks who were heard from him behind closed doors and chief among them -- prisoner Rogers -- -- said.
He gave us a different story -- and we heard from him behind closed doors in congress.
So what does that suggest you -- was he lying then was he lying now was their number ally is it is it semantics.
Well I think you know -- this -- semantics but of course it's we're in the midst of a political fray here over.
The entire episode and there's people on the Republican side who see this is tremendously damaging to present -- Obama administration into their claim of foreign policy in mastering the the terrorists and al-Qaeda.
But let's just look at the semantics and you point that -- -- because the semantics are very important here.
But the difference is that in the document that's Susan Rice was basing her remarks on she used the term extremist.
Instead up al-Qaeda extremists so.
Extremists could include.
A range of people including al-Qaeda but of course we know that ants are -- -- Korea which was in Libya.
Have some ties to al-Qaeda it's not clear that they were taking directions -- Qaeda but again.
It's a difference between saying -- specifically we know this was an al-Qaeda attack.
Or extremist the second thing is they did say they did not say we know it's al-Qaeda they -- there -- indications that it might be al-Qaeda.
So again that's the difference that's semantics but to some people it is now the point of -- After that we're talking about changing a word al-Qaeda vs extremist that kind of thing what about the video.
Where is cool that you know included acts that's essentially now.
One word changed and al-Qaeda became extremists that would almost be irrelevant it's got the story she told it was a -- -- narrative.
It was about a a mob inspired by a video.
And we know Catherine Herridge reported the FBI knew two days earlier.
By asking the ones who had been in Bolivia and receive the ones that we evacuated I mean in the bad guys and -- we evacuated and they were on the scene.
They saw what happened they told the FBI there was no demonstration at all it's a fiction.
So the whole story she told a demonstration got out of control extremists -- kind of who cares other -- -- it is false.
That's what we're asking about how do you go from the intelligence community telling people on the Friday before.
That this was a terrorist attack.
To a completely.
False story on the Sunday two days later that it was a video.
That's the question who changed it and clapper saying he changed a word that means nothing.
First of -- said last week he didn't nobody had any idea who changed anything.
-- and now he's changed his story and Senator McCain has said exactly that there was a change in story -- -- but even if it's only if if if if he can explain that.
There's the bigger question the whole narrative change.
That is -- you know more than just a word change but there because you mentioned Senator McCain let me just read what she said.
He says -- participated in hours of hearings in the senate select committee on intelligence last week regarding the events -- Ben Ghazi.
We're senior intelligence officials were asked this very question and all of them including the Director of National Intelligence himself.
Told us that they did not know who made the changes -- where does that leave us.
Well I think it leaves -- -- -- for the administration having misled the country for two weeks pretty purposefully I think.
Would this ludicrous never -- about a video and spontaneous demonstration which is just false.
Now okay that -- we now know pretty much the truth which is that some pretty well organized terrorist attack which unfortunately succeed if I did it would be -- want to get back to debating.
What the strength of the terrorist groups is -- guys see what we should be doing about it whether this is a consequence of a light footprint foreign policy in -- -- in that and Libya.
And so forth I needed at some point we're you know we can go to clapper we can go to the White House how much or how what whether we'll ever find out exactly.
Who told ambassador rice to say what -- said -- who made the -- determination within the administration that let go of that video narrative.
It was obviously politically convenient to them it was to a support election.
I would put -- into this together and say this is a politically convenient narrative.
I think --
Filter by section