Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) pondered on "OutFront" Wednesday night why, if then-CIA Director David Petraeus thought the Benghazi attack was orchestrated by terrorists, the erroneous talking points calling the assault a spontaneous demonstration would have been released that way, particularly since the White House said they were the CIA's responsibility:
KING: I think this raises questions about the CIA, and also you have Mike Morell making these changes apparently over the objections of David Petraeus, who's the director. So how does Morell, the No. 2 guy, get to make the changes when the director thinks these changes should not be made?
ERIN BURNETT: There does seem to be some discrepancy there. But it also seems, to ask you the question, are we ever going to find out who put those words, 'spontaneously inspired by protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.' Because of course, by this trail it appears that's what the CIA has done and handed over for conversation. It appears to back up the White House's assertion that that came from the CIA.
KING: I agree. That's the way it's there. But again, if you go back to what General Petraeus said after he left the CIA, he thought it was terrorists from the start.
BURNETT: It doesn't match.
KING: If he thought it was terrorists from the start, and this is a question that I've asked, if he thought it was terrorists from Day One, why did his initial talking points refer to it being a spontaneous demonstration? Was there White House interference from the start? Again, the two just don't jive, especially when we hear testimony of those who are on the ground, which the CIA had to have access to.
Full interview: