their best intelligence assessment at the time and they were given that late in the day on saturday, late in the afternoon, and he said, yes. these are this was the best assessment they could do without disclosing classified information. whoa, whoa, stop right there. he also said according to what i heard in the testimony today that he always believed there was a terrorist attack. yes, he did. how can that be both true? if he gach her the honest testimony to give to the television programs that sunday after the attack, which was a terrorist attack, then she never got told that. he knew it and didn t tell her. well, no, you know, i think what the general was saying that when he first briefed the congress he felt and i think many of us did, you shoot mortars and rpgsed a an american diplomatic post, that s an act of diplomatic terror. the question was who committed the acts and how do we find them and bring them to justice. what the intelligence community got wrong and the ge
the bad gives with rpgs and heavily harmed from the minute he heard her say that and learned it was not the case, why didn t he correct the record. at the time he heard her say that, that is what he thought took place. he did begin whaen was he disabud of that. when did he learn the full story? i think we when did he learn it? i think he learned the full story in the most gask way when we got the video evidence and that was not until well after she appeared on those sunday talk shows. now, the legitimate questions about why didn t we get that evidence sooner why didn t he give it to us? why didn t the general give it to us? he knew the country was misled perhaps by accident, i ll take that, by the secretary ambassador to the u.n. we were misled. we were all believing what she said. we all thought this hold on a second, hold on a second here. when you say misled, that is a politicized term. there was nothing deliberate about this. unless you bloo believe that
intelligence community were trying to mislead anyone. they are professional. they were trying to do their job and we can fault them for getting the initial assessment wrong, but i don t think we can ascribe any kind of malice or intent to deceive. when your pants are on fire, someone should tell you your pants are on fire. you shunt have to ask are my pants on fire. that s my view. i m going to try to get more information. congressman adam schiff from your california, thank you for your straight story. jonathan allen is covering it story from politico. do you see what i m trying to get at. we want to know why it took so long to get the straight story. the picture developed like a polaroid film in the old day. it was really always a terrorist attack in the sense the terrorists organized the event. didn t take advantage of it, didn t hijack it, it was their event. by definition these guys attack a u.s. embassy, they re terrorists. this is not rocket science and these are nice glass h