Your second point has the context fixing portion garbled. I won't accuse you of doing that deliberately. But I will say that what you've quoted in the context setting IS NOT what he said. Specifically, this is the context: Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”
He directly attributes what comes next to Petraeus. The GOP could have just as clearly said, "No P4 did not say that." The GOP has not done that. Furthermore, Petraeus himself had numerous opportunities to deny these remarks, as well as to deny WH claims that the "spontaneous demonstration" legend originated with the CIA. He did not do so. He did not contradict the WH on any point of significance until the Friday before the election, at which point he claimed that stories that the CIA denied assistance to the Ambassador and his team were false. That is 100% of his push-back to date.
Sorry, but as much as I didn't want to believe this originally, all the evidence (and silent agreement) we have points to one conclusion: David Petraeus was complicit in the cover-up of the murders of the American Ambassador and three other Americans on 9/11/2012.
I would think that Intel briefings are classified and that direct quotes made by Petraeus during an Intel briefing is also classified.
Your second point has the context fixing portion garbled. I won't accuse you of doing that deliberately. But I will say that what you've quoted in the context setting IS NOT what he said. Specifically, this is the context: Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”
I didn't garble anything. I gave you all the direct quotes minus the ABC News garble. They are the ones who twisted things by pulling half sentences out of context and adding their own words. Read the quoted words again.
He directly attributes what comes next to Petraeus.
The direct quotes end and then start again. ABC is playing with the context of what the congressman said in between the different quotes. They do this all the time.
The GOP could have just as clearly said, "No P4 did not say that." The GOP has not done that.
It was a classified CIA intel briefing. Confirming or denying comments in the press about such briefings is simply not done.
Furthermore, Petraeus himself had numerous opportunities to deny these remarks, as well as to deny WH claims that the "spontaneous demonstration" legend originated with the CIA. He did not do so.
It's standard practice that people with security clearances and especially CIA directors don't confirm or deny press stories about classified information.
He did not contradict the WH on any point of significance until the Friday before the election, at which point he claimed that stories that the CIA denied assistance to the Ambassador and his team were false. That is 100% of his push-back to date.
Yes, Petraues saw that they were making him the fall guy. That's when he pushed back in the press and that's when his fate was sealed as CIA director.
Sorry, but as much as I didn't want to believe this originally, all the evidence (and silent agreement) we have points to one conclusion: David Petraeus was complicit in the cover-up of the murders of the American Ambassador and three other Americans on 9/11/2012.
You're entitled to your opinion. There is no way I can come to the same conclusion at this point.