correct decision. what we saw here, greg, is basically the complete abandonment of that hard work for the purposes of some information which became politicized. again, this was not an intelligence failure because as you know, katherine herrage on fox broke information two weeks ago about the fact that in august, we knew that al-qaeda was raising its head again effectively. so this was not intelligence failure. this is a policy failure and again, this is where we have to drive the investigation. why was the policy so flawed that allowed factual intelligence over a period of time to be ignored and most importantly, resulting in the deaths of four individuals on 9-11. greg: yeah. to me, it s politics over people and it s politics over patriots. did it have anything to do with an upcoming election? i can t help to think it didn t. had it to have something to do with what was going on at that point in time. let me be very clear on this, again, my comments here are my own. not my think t
understood that he was the focus of this f.b.i. investigation and whether this in any way, just raising this question, whether it in any way affected his personal and professional performance at that time. eric: we need to point out that he will be testifying, david petraeus, under oath, right? yes, that s correct. brian: katherine, just real quick, do you know any law maker that was in that meeting when david petraeus mom emphasized the video? yes. a handful. brian: are you allowed to say who they are? they spoke to me on background. gretchen: can you confirm the big crystal comment that petraeus said do you want to know the real story or should i tell you the videotape story? i actually don t have that, but again, this goes to what appeared to be significant discrepancies in what lawmakers were told in that critical first week after the attack. the f.b.i. briefed, and what the
today, then who told him to say it was the video? someone had to lean on him and for what reason. brian: he says, according to katherine herrage, he does not know who briefed ambassador rice. eric: who briefed him? brian: he was able to get real time information from people on the scene, i imagine. he says he has no idea who provided information to rice or who was the author of the information that she read. he had no idea who was going to talk on the shows til the white house release on friday and saturday who was on the sunday talk shows. eric: a four star general who had access, who allegedly had access to video, via drone and/or security who went and briefed i believe senate and house intelligence committee saying it was a response to a video. it may have been under oath or not, did you gretchen: we ve learned that whether or not he was under oath that there is a requirement obviously that you tell the truth. eric: correct.
within 24 hours it was terrorism. katherine herrage, does that move this story further? what does that mean to you now that that s out? well, good morning. i think it does start to move the story along. a source close to the general told fox news that in fact, the expectation is that the former c.i.a. director will tell the house and senate intelligence committees that he, too, believed it was terrorism within the first 24 hours and that it was a terrorist attack linked to al-qaeda and this group, al-shariah, that wants to establish an islamic state in eastern libya. fox news is also told he will bring with him today the original talking points prepared by the c.i.a. about the attack. these talking points then had input from other members of the intelligence community, as well as the office of the director of national intelligence, and that petraeus apparently did not provide them to susan rice, does not know who the author of the final version was, nor did he understand that these t
simply underlines the importance of congress getting to the bottom of this. gregg: katherine herrage obtained a classified cable from the u.s. mission in benghazi less than a month before the attack. it told washington consulate cannot be defended and islamist militants and al-qaeda are everywhere. is this, in your mind, pretty clear and convincing evidence that the obama administration was warned that an attack could happen, yet did nothing? absolutely. i ve had a chance to read that cable. i tell you, it is the smoking gun in this investigation, at least so far. the idea, for example, that the c.i.a. station in benghazi offered to bring the consulate personnel into their compound a month before the september 11 attack shows just how worried everybody in benghazi was about precisely what happened just a few weeks later. so i mean, this is a devastating