petraeus or any of the other 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 shouldn t have to ask are my pants on fire? he is only now getting us the straight skinny. that s my view. i m going to try to get more information. congressman adam schiff from california, thank you for your straight story. jonathan allen is covering the story from politico. do you see what i m trying to get at? we want to know why it took so long what now looks to be the straight story. the picture developed like a polaroid film in the old days. it finally developed. 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 defi
oh, no, i think she s clean. my problem is with petraeus. from the day he saw the news reports and what she said on the sunday shows, including meet the press from our network, from the day he saw how she categorized it as beginning as a protest and somehow being hijacked by the bad guys with rpgs and heavily armed and all that, 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. hedy think it began as a protest. when was he disabused 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 graphic way when we got the video evidence, and that was not until well after she appeared on those sunday talk shows. now, there are legitimate questions about, you know, 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 co
i asked general petraeus, were the talking points we were given their best intelligence assessment at the time and we 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. stop right there. yes. he also said according to what i ve heard in the testimony today, that he always believed it was a terrorist attack. yes, he did. how can that be both true? if he gave 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 rpgs at an american diplomatic post, that s an act of terror. the question was not whether he described it as terrorism. the qu
hijacked by the bad guys with rpgs and heavily armed and all that, 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. hedy think it began as a protest. when was he disabused 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 graphic way when we got the video evidence, and that was not until well after she appeared on those sunday talk shows. now, there are legitimate questions about, you know, 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
go back to joy on this. this is sheer human nature. i thought and i like to think i m fair about this, i thought romney walked off the stage election night as a noble figure in politics. however the campaign had gone in some very bad directions, i believe he ended it in the right direction with nobility and class. he came out there alone. didn t cry on anybody s shoulders. didn t surround himself with family. took the loss, said he had a good running mate, great campaign team and praying for the president. maybe that was shock. he was still, you know, but a week or so out there later he s saying not terrible, we re buying votes and selling votes but making himself look like a jester. sneering at the public that refused to take the opportunity to make them their president. i think you re right, chris, a lot of times politicians show who they really are and show their character in loss.