Report: Intel agencies changed Benghazi talking points
New light shed on aftermath of attack
- Duration 4:03
- Date Jan 1, 2013
New light shed on aftermath of attack
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
A senate report just out shedding some new light on the aftermath of the deadly terror attack on our consulate in Libya in September.
The report -- intelligence agencies for not focusing closely enough.
On Libyan extremists.
And stating it was the FBI the CIA and other Intel sources that changed official talking points about the attack.
And not the White House.
Ambassador Susan Rice had been under fire for weeks for comments that she made right after the attack leading some lawmakers.
To question whether the presidential staff -- re written the talking points.
For political reasons ahead of the election in November -- -- and is a former senior advisor at the State Department he is principal at.
DC international advisory happy new year good to see -- Christian thanks for being here.
Terry great to be here what do you make of the senate report.
Well unfortunately I think it doesn't shed that much light.
On the issue you know there are.
-- the talking points can still be manipulated without.
And the White House staff actually sitting down with the red pen and changing them this report says that the changes were made out at the -- -- well it's you know perfectly.
Easy a reasonable for White House staff to pick up -- phone and say you know.
It would really be better if this emphasize the possibility of -- movie causing these protests rather.
Then the real cause which was -- -- -- -- al-Qaeda affiliate who planned and executed the attack so I think there's that that's that key issues still remains there's still a lot of questions about these talking points that -- the White House has said that it only changed one word.
And this report from this senate committee.
Also says that as far as their investigators were able to uncover it -- -- -- a lot of of actual changes that word that were put in place by.
White House staffers to what makes you so short and obviously yes I guess.
Politically ahead of an election where and a president's running for reelection on the idea that he's got al-Qaeda on the run I -- he's securing America and Americans all over wouldn't want this kind of thing.
To happen but what other evidence is they're concrete evidence that in fact the White House was more involved in what has been stated.
There's a lack of concrete evidence because the administration hasn't made any senior principals who have.
Direct knowledge of the political.
A chain of events that took place the White House we've learned a lot more about what happened.
Minute by minute in Ben -- but not in the White House and the fact that Susan Rice.
And Hillary Clinton had not been up to testify yet.
Is is one of the problems there's also another issue that makes me quite certain that a senior principals in government for the president -- the US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice if you're Hillary Clinton.
You get a treasure trove of intelligence each day and throughout the day would important events break it's all those principles including Susan Rice including Jay Carney who went out on TV.
Days later and said that this was just a reaction to movie would have seen lots of intelligence from real time overhead imagery.
During the attack from radio communications that came in real time from the attack all of that -- said terrorist attacks and come -- days later and say it wasn't.
You know I think we've lost sight of the bigger intelligence picture here which said terrorist attack.
I'm sure you saw or heard what the president said on Meet the Press.
This past Sunday when he was asked about big guys he called it sloppiness.
That it was unintentional.
I'm wondering if you think there will ever come a time when we know if in fact that's what it was or if there was something more to it.
I think what would have to happen here is that -- -- real congressional investigation so far this was one report by one committee.
In the senate which is democratic controlled.
I think the house will have to hold hearings I think the only way the administration is going to give up real witnesses -- provide information.
You know that didn't executive branch is always had a history of over classifying information stuff that really does not need to be concealed from the American people from the public so.
To get real witnesses and a real information.
The house is gonna have to threaten the state department's budget and then you'll have the bureaucrats throwing the political under the table which is the opposite of what's happening now where the political to trying to throw the bureaucrats on the table Christian -- -- with DC international good to see thanks very much for coming.