This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Via AP, General Petraeus, sworn under oath, in public hearings today "disputed Republican suggestions that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence in the midst of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign" according to Rep. Adam Schiff.

Rep Schiff adds


"There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process," Schiff said after the hearing. "They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.

"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," Schiff said. "He completely debunked that idea."

For Republicans politicizing Benghazi this is a serious, insulting blow. Their greatest hero takes Obama's side on this issue under oath.  

Update: Media Matters reports that FOX news "cover[ed] up acknowledgement that Petraeus was OK with Benghazi talking points"

Ah, life, why do you not fail to provide us with sweet, sweet irony? I think MM is being a bit tongue in cheek, since this isn't anything new for FOX News. But it turns the tables of talking points on them a bit, doesn't it?

Edit: Rachel Maddow posted on her blog that CIA approved the change of the word from "terrorists" to "extremists" in order not to tip off the bad guys.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

However, there seems to be a potential dishonest talking point for the Republicans as Petraeus

testified that the CIA's talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers it was removed by other federal agencies who made changes to the CIA's draft.
Remember, that he is not pointing fingers at The White House but other intelligence gathering agencies. Any suggestion by the Republicans to the contrary must be met with serious pushback.

Via majcmb1 in comments, Rep Peter King is already starting to use this false talking point. Gen. Petraeus blamed OTHER federal agencies for the change of talking points NOT the White House. Be very clear.

At worst, this part of his testimony shows that there is a lot of bureaucracy in the intelligence gathering process, but we knew that already. If any Republican ever again says that Obama "lied" about Benghazi or tried to "cover it up", we can always respond with "General Petraeus disagrees with that assessment, and we always listen to our Generals". That will definitely shut them up. Or who knows, maybe they'll say Obama blackmailed Petraeus.

Good point in the comments: Obama's acceptance of Petraeus's resignation actually weakens the Blackmail conspiracy- Petraeus is now a private citizen siding with his former boss. He is a free man. I mean I can't believe I am thinking of serious rebuttals to that line of attack, but I think its important to hit back against any popular argument by conservatives and not ignore them.

Via Kossack D88, an interviewof Peter King buckling like a fool. Can anyone help me about imbedding the video? Thanks.

Great comment by Capsfan1978:

The righties have jumped on DP's statement that he believed immediately that it AQ and terrorism.  And somehow it didn't make it into the talking points after other agencies looked at it and added input.  So they claim that the WH somehow was involved.

Here's the thing.  DP doesn't say he has evidence or a source or anything substantial to link it to AQ immediately.  He has a belief.  

Guess what?  Intel estimates are not written based on belief, faith, gut feeling, or an inkling.  There needs to be some evidence, some fact, something concrete on which to base conclusions and analysis.

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.