The Washington Post 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.

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:

The controversy over the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack last year began at a meeting over coffee on Capitol Hill three days after the assault.

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.

“We had some new members on the committee, and we knew the press would be very aggressive on this, so we didn’t want any of them to make mistakes,” Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.) said last week of his request in an account supported by Republican participants. “We didn’t want to jeopardize sources and methods, and we didn’t want to tip off the bad guys. That’s all.”

What Petraeus decided to do with that request is the pivotal moment in the controversy over the administration’s 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.

A close reading of recently released government e-mails that were sent during the editing process, and interviews with senior officials from several government agencies, reveal Petraeus’s early role and ambitions in going well beyond the committee’s request, apparently to produce a set of talking points favorable to his image and his agency.

The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.

(emphasis mine)

What a surprise.  A tragedy occurs, and the narcissistic preening peacock that is David Petraeus decided to leave no stone unturned ……… In the cause of polishing his own image.

What we know now is that the Benghazi consulate was almost entirely a CIA operation, and the f%$#-up was almost entirely a CIA f%$#-up, and, true to his history, David Petraeus’ response was one focused managing the public response, and not in creating an honest assessment of the causes and solutions.