WASHINGTON—Former Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus said Friday that he told Congress from the earliest days that there was "significant terrorist involvement" in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya—adding to the controversy over the administration's handling of the attack. 
 
 Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after acknowledging an extramarital affair, went to Congress on Friday to defend his old agency's role in the response to the Benghazi, Libya, attack. In his closed-door testimony, he said that, in secret briefings with lawmakers soon after the attack, he had apprised them of the likely involvement of a local militant group, Ansar al-Sharia, said Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), describing his comments. 
 
 Enlarge Image Close Bloomberg News Rep. Peter King disputed how strongly ex-CIA chief Petraeus tied the Benghazi cousulate attack to terrorism. 
 
 Those comments rekindled debate about the intelligence community's initial assessments that the attack was a terrorist strike, and whether the Obama administration resisted calling it a terrorist act for political reasons. 
 
 The controversy also was extended when some lawmakers said they had a different recollection of Mr. Petraeus's earlier comments. Rep. King, who described Mr. Petraeus's Friday testimony, said his recollection of his earlier conversations was different. 
 
 "He said today that, at the time, he was emphasizing the role of Ansar al-Sharia. But at the time, my recollection is that he was minimizing the role of Ansar al-Sharia,'' Mr. King told reporters, referring to a local militant group sympathetic to al Qaeda. 
 
 Key Facts in the Petraeus Scandal See a guide to the players and a timeline of the scandal that led Gen. David Petraeus to resign. View Graphics 
 
 Mr. Petraeus spoke behind closed doors Friday in long-awaited meetings with House and Senate intelligence committee members. The Libya attack claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. 
 
 Mr. Petraeus's Friday testimony, as outlined by lawmakers who were present, was generally consistent with how U.S. officials have described the shifting intelligence assessments of the consulate assault in interviews dating back to the days after it occurred. Still, his appearance and testimony this week by top U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement officials haven't blunted questions about the use of intelligence or about the administration's explanations. 
 
 Enlarge Image Close Agence France-Presse/Getty Images Former Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus, shown in 2011 at a retirement tribute, met with lawmakers Friday to offer his assessment of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. 
 
 For instance, Mr. King and House Democrats clashed over whether Mr. Petraeus said Friday that there had been changes in CIA "talking points" designed to play down the role of terrorists. 
 
 Republicans charge the Obama administration resisted conclusions that the assault was the product of a terrorist attack for more than a week so it could avoid explaining, during a heated presidential campaign, how militants with ties to al Qaeda struck a U.S. facility on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. CIA talking points used by the White House said the attack grew out of a protest against an anti-Islamic video. 
 
 Top economist Alice Rivlin says the image of the U.S. will take a hammering if it's unable to avoid the fiscal cliff. WSJ reporters bring the latest on how close Congress is to a deal and assess the fallout of the scandal engulfing David Petraeus. 
 
 A CIA analysis prepared the morning after the attack said that the attack appeared intentional and didn't appear to stem from a peaceful protest, according to a senior U.S. official. Analysis that day also mentioned the possibility of connections to an al Qaeda affiliate. 
 
 However, that information about specific groups involved came from classified sources the subject of debate among intelligence officials, so it was left out of unclassified talking points. 
 
 The CIA began receiving new information Sept. 15 that cast doubt about the protest, but the assessment wasn't immediately changed. On Sept. 16, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice in a series of television interviews cited the official assessment as outlined in talking points. The CIA maintained its assessment until Sept. 20, when intelligence officials told counterparts at the White House that it had changed, according to senior U.S. officials 
 
 The talking points used by Ms. Rice were developed by the CIA from the classified reports, in response to a request from Congress, U.S. officials have said. 
 
 While the early classified reports mentioned the possible involvement of Ansar al-Sharia, the talking points developed for public use didn't. 
 
 WSJ reporters in Washington discuss the week's two big stories: the negotiations to find a deficit deal to avoid the looming fiscal cliff and the David Petraeus scandal that has engulfed the American intelligence community. 
 
 Mr. King said Congress needed to do more probing to try to determine who specifically decided to alter the references to terrorists in the earlier draft. 
 
 However, a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points said the name of specific groups and their ties with al Qaeda were omitted in part because that information came from classified sources that needed to be protected. 
 
 The intelligence linking the militant groups also were "tenuous," the official said. 
 
 "The points were reviewed by CIA leadership and coordinated in the interagency at a senior level," the official said, referring to the process by which the government's various intelligence agencies coordinate their findings. "The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations or play down that this was an attack." 
 
 The official said the talking points contained the word "extremists," which was intended to convey the presence of militants or possible terrorists, and Ms. Rice used the term extremists in television appearances. Republicans have criticized the administration's refusal to refer to the specific involvement of terrorists, rather than extremists. 
 
 "The controversy this word choice caused came as a surprise," the official said. 
 
 Mr. Petraeus's appearance Friday took on its own cloak-and-dagger feel, as the former CIA director navigated his way to the hearings through underground tunnels to avoid being mobbed by reporters. He hasn't made a public appearance since resigning after acknowledging an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. 
 
 Democrats said the discussions with Mr. Petraeus made clear there had been no political interference with intelligence reports or talking points. 
 
 "He thoroughly debunked the idea that there was some White House tinting or shading to this," said Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), a member of the House intelligence panel. 
 
 Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said questions remained to be answered about the talking points used by Ms. Rice. He said he realized the Sept. 11 assault was an act of terrorism from the start. 
 
 "There was no question in the mind of anybody that this was an act of terrorism from the get-go," Sen. Chambliss said. 
 
 Many lawmakers praised Mr. Petraeus, a retired Army general who resigned in the wake of a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe that uncovered his extramarital affair. Lawmakers said Mr. Petraeus told them the probe hadn't influenced his statements or the inquiry into the consulate attack. 
 
 Write to Siobhan Gorman at siobhan.gorman@wsj.com and Devlin Barrett at devlin.barrett@wsj.com ||||| WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus , the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups. 
 
 Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said. 
 
 In his first public appearance since he resigned last week, Mr. Petraeus testified before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in back-to-back closed-door hearings as lawmakers from both parties continued to wrestle with questions about the Obama administration’s handling of the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and why its public portrayal conflicted with the intelligence agencies’ classified assessments. 
 
 “They knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation,” said Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. 
 
 During his testimony, Mr. Petraeus expressed regret for his affair. Lawmakers did not ask him about it. In addition to what the administration knew about assailants, they focused their questions on possible security lapses at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, particularly given a spate of attacks this year in Benghazi against the American Mission, the British ambassador’s convoy and the Red Cross. 
 
 State Department officials have said five diplomatic security officers were at the mission on Sept. 11, including two traveling with Mr. Stevens. They were initially up against more than 50 fighters, armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, who easily breached the compound and set fire to it. 
 
 Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said Mr. Petraeus’s testimony showed that “clearly the security measures were inadequate despite an overwhelming and growing amount of information that showed the area in Benghazi was dangerous, particularly on the night of Sept. 11.” 
 
 But many of the questions from lawmakers dealt with how the intelligence services and the administration over all responded to a request from the House committee for unclassified talking points about what happened, in advance of a closed briefing by Mr. Petraeus on Sept. 14, three days after the attack. 
 
 The issue took on added resonance after Republicans criticized the ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, for suggesting on Sunday talk shows five days after the assault that the siege in Benghazi was a spontaneous protest rather than an opportunistic terrorist attack. 
 
 Democrats leapt to Ms. Rice’s defense on Friday, saying she was simply following the unclassified talking points provided to her. “I really think Ambassador Rice is being treated unfairly,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who leads the Intelligence Committee. 
 
 The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties. 
 
 Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council. 
 
 At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.
– David Petraeus will indeed testify on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi attack, reports AP. The former CIA chief will appear before the House Intelligence committee on Friday, though the hearing will be closed to the public. Petraeus visited Libya secretly last month, and lawmakers are antsy to hear his own report about the trip. CNN, meanwhile, quotes one of the general's former aides as saying Petraeus is largely avoiding the media coverage of his affair and resignation, and instead focusing on his family. "He describes it as putting one foot in front of the other, and then repeating the process," says retired Col. Peter Mansoor. "So it's going to be a long, long road of healing for them. He understands that and he's focusing on it."