WASHINGTON, D.C.: Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief David Petraeus called the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya a terrorist act but has done little to halt bi-partisan sparring over whether the administration misled the public on who was behind the attack.

Petraeus appeared on Friday (Saturday in Manila) before two congressional committees in his first public appearance since resigning last week over an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

But reporters drooling over the prospect of questioning him over the scandal came away empty hand-ed: the four-star general slipped in and out of the hearing rooms without being seen.

Petraeus told House and Senate lawmakers that he knew from the outset that the attack, which killed four Americans including US ambassador Chris Stevens, was the work of terrorists.

However, Petraeus said that the administration withheld this information so as not to let the attackers know that American intelligence agencies were tracking them, The New York Times and other news outlets said, quoting lawmakers.

In the days after the attack, which came right in the middle of the US presidential election campaign, the administration said that the hours-long assault erupted as part of a simultaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.

On September 14, Petraeus apparently told Congress that that was the CIA’s initial take on the events.

Since then, the administration’s position has evolved, and the attack is now seen as having been a pre-meditated assault by an al-Qaeda-linked militia.

Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, said that Petraeus has changed his take on the attack since September.

“General Petraeus’s testimony today was from the start he had told us this was a terrorist attack or terrorist-involved,” King said .

“I told him in my questions I had a different recollection of that and the clear impression given was that the overwhelming matter of evidence is that it . . . arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and was not a terrorist attack.”

King and other lawmakers said that they were grateful for Petraeus’s testimony, but they made it clear that they still had deep concerns.

King and others said that Pe-traeus only briefly addressed his affair, saying that he deeply regretted it and the circumstances around his resignation, and that they had no effect on his testimony.

The US mission in Benghazi included a large CIA operation, which Petraeus would have overseen before quitting as US spy chief.

Republicans have accused Washing-ton’s United Nations envoy Susan Rice of misleading the country by telling Sunday talk shows after the attack that it was part of a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam video.

State Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation probes into the attack are under way, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has agreed to testify before House and Senate hearings once her department finishes a review of events.

But some lawmakers said that there was more to the story that needed to be uncovered. Republicans are strongly hinting at a larger scandal and possible cover-up.

“We’ve still got to determine, number one, how did this group penetrate the facility that we had in Benghazi? And who were these folks? We have a pretty good idea now, we’re getting closer to determining that,” said Saxby Cham-bliss, Senate Intelligence Commit-tee’s top Republican.

Officials believe that the assault was carried out by al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militants.

Critics have seized on Rice’s remarks to argue that the White House misled or even lied to Americans during a heated election season.

But Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, emerged from the Pe-traeus hearing to insist that Rice used the same unclassified talking points provided to lawmakers.

Rice has been floated as a possible successor to Clinton, who is stepping down early next year, but some Republicans threaten to block her nomination.