. >> abc news acquired 12 different drafts of talking ciats and it discloses the scrubbing references to an al and petraeus requested that things be delayed to not tipoff and the group's. >> what bothers me is coming in the e-mail to the white house, the state department took issue with information, including the terrorist threats, saying this could be abused by members of congress to be that the state department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that? >> that is political. that has nothing to do with the sensitivity of documents. >> exactly the point. the cover story is that it was an intelligence request, a way to to protect power source. -- protect our source. the then-security adviser said that the talking points had to reflect the equities of all the agencies, not reflect the interests of state, cia, and the white house. they were drafted and redacted, where the truth was removed, the truth that it was a terror attack and there had been warnings. there was a way to protect the state department ane white house and it produced a falsehood. this is a