Peter King admitted today on CNN that David Petraeus, in his Hill briefing, the one John McCain couldn't be bothered to attend because he was holding a press conference denouncing the administration for withholding information, gave Susan Rice the green light to say what she said on those TV appearances on that fateful day.

This is sort of hard to follow because King isn't speaking that clearly, but here's how it went, according to Think Progress:

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?

KING: He didn’t know.

Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know?

KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report –

KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

In other words, the agency approved Rice’s talking points. So she wasn’t lying or spinning. So says Peter King, no ideological or partisan doormat on these matters, I think you would agree.

Buzzfeed meanwhile reports that other Republicans are softening the Rice rhetoric. Marco Rubio and Saxby Chambliss want answers about consular security measures. I did a double-take as I read their comments, because they’re actually asking fairly reasonable, non-Fox-bullshit kinds of questions. Someone must have put some kind of serum in their cereal bowls this morning.

What the hard-shell righties want to know is not about the boring issue of consular security. They want to know: Did Obama lie to the people, days before an election? Now that is a bullshit-Fox question, but it’s great for ratings and keeping alive the glimmer of impeachment, so I’d be rather surprised if Rubio and Chambliss get to the lead the way on this one.

Finally, here’s a funny for you. McCain wants this “Watergate-style” Benghazi committee, right? Ryan Grim of HuffPo cleverly notices here that McCain is term-limited off the Armed Services Committee, meaning that under internal Senate GOP rules he has to yield his position as ranking member on that powerful, high-platform committee to the person below him. What will he get instead? Indian Affairs. Which is much lower wattage, and which he’s done anyway, with that whole Abramoff bit.

In other words he’s looking at being pretty irrelevant. What better to fix that than membership on a Watergate-style Benghazi committee? What an arrogant and petulant man.

In any case, Rice maybe should or should not be secretary of state, but she sure shouldn't be disqualified on the basis of these flimsy and silly allegations, and King's admission helps clear her plate.

And I have no idea why some of this post is in roman and the rest in bold.