The Washington Post<\/i> has a must read article describing just how the “talking points” over Benghazi evolved, and the bottom line is that, in a response to some basic information from Congress a few days after the killing of Ambassador Stevens.<\/p>\n
Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence wanted some clarification on what was known, and what they could talk about, and then-CIA director David Petraeus, always looking for an opportunity to polish his public image, created a report that largely, and incorrectly exonerated him and the agency<\/a>:<\/p>\n The controversy over the Obama administration\u2019s response to the Benghazi attack last year began at a meeting over coffee on Capitol Hill three days after the assault.<\/span>
<\/span> It was at this informal session with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the ranking Democrat asked David H. Petraeus, who was CIA director at the time, to ensure that committee members did not inadvertently disclose classified information when talking to the news media about the attack.<\/span>
<\/span> \u201cWe had some new members on the committee, and we knew the press would be very aggressive on this, so we didn\u2019t want any of them to make mistakes,\u201d Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.) said last week of his request in an account supported by Republican participants. \u201cWe didn\u2019t want to jeopardize sources and methods, and we didn\u2019t want to tip off the bad guys. That\u2019s all.\u201d<\/span>
<\/span> What Petraeus decided to do with that request is the pivotal moment in the controversy over the administration\u2019s Benghazi talking points. It was from his initial input that all else flowed, resulting in 48 hours of intensive editing that congressional Republicans cite as evidence of a White House coverup.<\/p>\n