Im not sure if it was classified, but how Many Americans that were at locations actually save based on the training in each partys of the ca Security Force you always have seen, from what i have seen in the chair and i have traveled a lot of members of the committee all of the world and understand to the security is and what they do and what theyre trained for. I want to answer the question, does the cna feel abandoned by the u. S. Military in the situation . No, we did not. Explain what the security is, how many they are, and if its not classified, how Many Americans were saved because of their training and expertise . I dont think that i can go into specific numbers. While i will say is something the chairman said earlier. I have no doubt, there is no doubt in my mind that had the cia Security Officers from the benghazi base not responded to the state Department Facility that we would have lost many more state Department Officers there. There is no doubt in my mind. Theres also no doubt in my mind that have cia officers and u. S. Military officers responded from tripoli to benghazi. Which is oversees her miles. Which is over 600 miles. And then i responded that night and went to benghazi more americans would have died at the cia base. I believe there is actually a very large number of americans who are alive today thanks to the response of both the cia officers at the benghazi base and the cia and military officers from tripoli. All the evidence that i have heard in the hearings that i attended, not one time did anyone make a comment that they felt they were abandoned by the United States government or the United States military. I know of no stand down order from anybody in the military. I am aware of several requests by ca for military support that nine. Those requests were honored and delivered. I want to get one last question. We commend this committee, need to respond to the public. Yet we have the issue of, we cannot violate lot about giving of classified information. We need, especially members do not been on the committee as long as other members, we need guidance sometimes on the classified issue. What have we learned as far as asking for simple, direct talking points to help us deal with the issue and not give out classified information . You had to do over because everyone need to guidance. How would you handle this in the future . Help us deal with that issue of talking points. As the committee knows. He gets mad and says, not going to do it. One of the things that i did when i was acting director the second time was asked for a Lessons Learned paper. And that paper really had to conclusions. The first conclusion is that we should really not be in the business of writing and classified talking points for the American People. We do not do that for the sake of a branch, and we, in general, do not do that for congress. So this paper concluded that we should be reluctant to do that. We are very good at speaking to policymakers. We are not trained as speaking to the American Public. We see extremists and terrorists as the same thing. Obviously the American Public does not read my first idea on Lessons Learned would have been to push back and say, why doesnt the committee take a first ad that writing the talking points and then we will take a look at them. The second conclusion that the Lessons Learned paper came to was, if we do right unclassified talking points then the sensitive experts should be involved in the editorial process all the way through and not do what we did in this case, which was experts up front, a bunch of Congressional Affairs and Public Affairs people in the middle and then only bring experts at the end. You look at general colin powell who went to the United Nations and was relying information received from the community. Weapons of mass destruction. The same thing with susan rice, she relied of liberation given at the time. She went through a tough time when she was really responding to what informations she got. There are a lot of lessons to learn here. Yes, sir. Yield back. Mr. Don barry, thank mr. Mr. Chairman and mr. Morale, thank you for being here, your years of service. I want to try to understand better the deputies meeting in the 15th and your subsequent edits to the talking points. Were you all having daily deputies meetings at this time . Yes, sir. We were having twice daily. Serve twice a day on the 13th, the 14th, the 15th you would have these Video Conference meetings in which you participated as a deputy for the cia. Thats correct. And i presume there would be a deputy from state and defense as well as members of the White House NationalSecurity Council staff. Fbi, doj, in ctc. Yes, sir. Okay debut so as we review the emails of the night of the well, let me back up just a second. Im sorry. As best you remember, the deputies meetings, the two deputies meetings on the 14th, i presume benghazi had to be a major issue the you discussed. It was not, sir. It was not a major issue. We were not looking backwards at that point. We were looking for words. The focus of all of these deputies meetings, particularly the ones on saturday and sunday, susan rice was on the sundays shows. I was at a deputy meeting. The focus of those on keeping american safe in all the places in the world where they were continuing protests and demonstrations. We were not looking backwards of what happened in benghazi. Were looking for and how we keep american save. Which is interesting to me. Even on the 14th, the basic tenor of the meetings was, we get the americans out. Air not going to worry about libya. Not that we were we were still very worried about tripoli. We were not focused on benghazi because we were focused on keeping american safe Going Forward. And the two meetings on the 14th, do you remember talking points ever coming up there . On the 14th, no. I do not remember that. As i go and look it the emails, as of nine, 10 00 on the night of the 14th it looks like fbi has signed off. The talking points have been edited to reflect the state department concerns, although it does not say that the side of. So i am not clear why a new did you have conversations after 10 00 at night from the state department that said, we are still not happy . No, sir. So as of 10 00 at night there is email that says, okay, we made these changes. Fbi is a cake. There was a brief answer back and said no. What time was a deputy deputies meeting the next morning . I believe it was a. M. I believe it was a. M. Okay. Did you have conversations with state department folks or emails from state department folks that morning before the deputies meeting this said, we are still not happy with these talking points . No, sir. But as i said earlier, mike executive assistant to only of the state barbara was not happy with the talking points are to amend the 14th of the morning of the 15th . As i arrived at work on the 15th. I guess and you have already testified today that they never came up at the deputies meeting, the talking points didnt until you brought them up. Right. It was not part of the agenda, even though the National SecurityCouncil Staff have been the ones to suggest dream about but that deputies meeting. Correct. I guess what i am puzzled by, as you look at that the edit the made that were on that chart you take up most of the words basically that there in the talking points. And even though the fbi is okay with them you take out words because you are afraid they will damage the fbi investigation. You take everything that is even related to warnings and a bunch of other stuff, too. To me it seems like youre more interested in protecting the state department and the state department is and more interested in protecting the fbi and the fbi is. In director patraeus is concerned because he wanted more information so that doesnt make sense to me. Can you explain the motivation . As i said earlier, first of all, if you look at what i took out, the vast majority is in permission related to the warnings. As i said earlier, i thought it inappropriate for the cia to the say publicly that we warned of an attack coming. We also have been there that we had sent a warning cable to cairo, which i see absolutely no relevance of sending a warning gear will to carry out what happened in benghazi. Pound is just therefore rely on a blind on the state department. Did nothing that appropriate. But that there would be plenty of time to of a conversation about what was warned and who responded and have. Added not think of that discussion should start publicly. That was the judgment i made at the time. Love me ask you one other sentence. The white availability of weapons and experienced fighters almost certainly been treated to the validity of the tax. That is just a statement. I saw it as speculative, to respective. We did not know that the attackers had any specific training. We just did not know at that point. I saw in a speculative. I did not think that it was helpful. And im not saying a made all the right decisions in each one of these cases, but thats why i made the decision. Its just a drastic change from what had been toy out for todays your process. Thats why ive been puzzled by the changes you made that seemingly are more protective of other agencies that even those other agencies are. I think you for your response. Thank you very much for coming in to your many years of service. I want to align myself with what Ranking Member mr. Of the ruthless per said in expressing all of our heart felt sadness for those who were killed and our appreciation for those who are still alive, have served us so bravely. There are all heroes. And i think that we should be focusing on what we can do to make sure that the jazzy like this never happens again. We should be trying to apprehend the murderers who killed these brave americans. I think anything short of that is an incredible displacement of time and resources. The changes in the talking points, as you make any changes for political reasons . No, sir. Did you know whether or not there were protests when you ended the talking points . Sir, when i edited the talking points are believed that there were protests in beverly did because that is what my analysts thought. Some mention has been made about the chief of station comments or memo, the statement that this was not a protest. Yes, sir. Does one assessment from any chief of station regardless of qualified that person is trump all other assessment . No, sir. It does not. It is a datapoint, an important datapoint that the analysts take into account, but station chiefs do not determine the analytic line of the Central Intelligence agency. The analyst to. As i recall, meeting on february the 13th two days after this tragedy to place when general patraeus was in our committee for classified roundtable briefing you were not there. No, sir. But you were briefed on what happened of all was said. I was told much later in the date about the request for the talking point. That is the only feedback i got. I was out speaking specifically of the talking point. I was going to talk about a specific question that general patraeus was asked as a response for you laid out for us why he believed it was not only sparked by the protest but why it was spontaneous in his belief. Someone on our committee specifically as telling the world this could happen. The people destroy ever on the streets with this type of weaponry in the car . And he stated to well, yes, they do, and they look for opportunities. Was he making this stuff up, or is this, in your view was this assessment that he gave to us the best assessment given what he knew at that time . I think it was a mixture of the analysts and a mixture of his own view based on his military experience. This is a man who serve in combat, served in combat areas and had the vast amount of experience. Extensive experience. Thank you. I would like to go back. Believe that we should be looking at what we can do to make sure this never happens again and not mistakes on talking points. Major tragedy of this nature never happens again. We should be doubling down and doing Everything Possible to apprehend these murderers. Thank you. I yield back. Remind me again why this to depart was upset by the talking points. I was told that they did not want to warning language. And you went in july was going to ask another question, he talked about deleting from the talking points above the notifying the embassy in cairo of social media reports calling for demonstrations. Yes, sir. But you dont see any relevance to that and the cable going to cairo and the fact that this was all being blamed on a video, the protest was because of the video. En explanation a member of the committee asked for give us unless by talking points on what happened in benghazi the night of the 11th of the 12th. I did not see the Central Intelligence is he sending a warning cable to carry saying that there is a potential violent demonstration coming a as the embassy as relevant to what happened and and gauzy. Even though the demonstration that was coming was over the Youtube Video. Correct. Why was ambassador rice chosen to go on the sunday talk show . Do you have any idea . I have no idea. What was your reaction when you saw her explanation about what happened . I did not see her on the sunday shows. You never seen you never seen a did messier on the sunday shows. And it was probably days later that i read what she said of the shows. And what was your reaction when you finally did . My reaction was to fold, what was that what she said about the attacks involving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points that and it was exactly what the Intelligence Community analysts believed. This was something that the analysts have attributed. You said on september 13th and analysts said it was purchased based on and it was based on number of precedents are reports. In the u. S. In the example of how many, numerous reports iraq. Said iraq half and half, but im not sure. And when you finally ride ambassador rices summer morning talkshow transcripts were you found out finally about the did you complain to the white house that all about what she was saying all were you comfortable with what she said . I did not complain to anyone. A conflict with the seal was and the analysts. Once you notice that he immediately address it and in your, the way you dress a was appropriate. I addressed it Barry Berkeley i was the one who spotted what this dos said. It was in the bottom of an email. It was three or four sentences. I was the one responded and said , this is inconsistent with what the analysts think. We need to dig into this and figure this out and resolve this. I was the one to do that. That is inappropriate role for the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence agency. I would expect the Deputy Director to do that. And i asked the chief of station for more information. As you know i explained that. Provided with a target for hours. I think thats pretty quick. Would you consider a shift from a protest to a coordinated attack a large shift . Two thoughts, two thoughts. One is, yes, that is a significant change. The Second Thought is, as i said earlier, we never thought the protest and a terrorist attack were mutually exclusive. What the analysts believed really from 9 11 could it have been a terrorist act directed a protest . Sure. Absolutely. Well was that no attempt after ambassador rice went on five or six sunday morning talk shows whatever correct the record . In fact, it was more an attack and it was a protest. I dont follow you, sir. She went out and she said it was solely because of the Youtube Video. Later we learned that, no, it was more an attack and it was about the Youtube Video. There was never an attempt to correct the record. Sir, there is a divorce decree what it was, which was a terrorist attack, and what motivated it. Those are two completely different things. No doubt it was a terrorist attack. To this day we still dont know the motivations of the people who conducted the attack because we have not, many of them. The analysts have views about what motivated the attack. The analyst view is that it is one of two things, what happened in cairo as these guys in benghazi saw what happened in cairo and wanted to do the same thing. The other possibility of the analysts see it is the revenge for the death. Xbox we just heard from congressman schiff that the chief of station seized three possibilities, 9 11 anniversary, revenge, and the video. So the chief of station things that the video may have been motivation for the attack in benghazi. So a big difference which ran what happened, and attack, and motivation. Yield back. Thank you, mr. Moreau. I really appreciate your testimony. Given your three decades of service to our nation always working to protect our security and never in a partisan role our spirit, and i believe what you are telling us today in your account of what happened. I appreciate that the first point that you made was that he wanted to honor the heroes of lost their lives. We all have to keep that in mind. I fully supported the account accountability review board investigation, the conclusions and findings that they had and how we get done this more effectively. We, the intelligence committee, have held extensive hearings, a tremendous number of documents. I serve as the Ranking Member with chair and westmoreland on the subcommittee in the oversight. We have several hearings in interviews on this. And throw all of this i have not seen any evidence that anyone lied or intentionally misled the American People about the attack nor that anyone, including you, and appropriately ended