[nathanbedford]

Eva:

You have adduced not a single syllable of evidence of two propositions:

1) that I have conducted an "attack" on Petraeus;

2) that there is a false narrative concocted by the Obama insiders -I assume you are talking about Petraeus' indiscretions and not the entire video flimflam.

If you are talking about the video flimflam, the general's indiscretions which could include A) the military crime of adultery and B) the civil crime of lying before Congress are hardly distractions when he as head of the CIA resigns in mid battle over Benghazi. They are part of the picture and any serious observer must a deal with them, as well as a conservative observer Charles Krauthammer observed, they raise the possibility of blackmail by the administration, moreover, they raise the possibility, as I have, that the administration elevated Petraeus to the head of the CIA knowing they can dispose of him with the adultery charge if they needed to control him.

I am not attacking Petraeus, nor will I white wash him, let us deal with the facts and see where they take us, evidently a novel idea to those who are somehow better informed about what actually happened than the rest of the world.

[Eva]

No, and no. The false narrative is that the attack was a peaceful protest, sparked by the video.

I don’t care about the affair. Petraeus and his affair are a non-event, they are both over.

The story, blaming the video was concocted in the White House by Obama insiders on the night of 9/11. My guess is that Petraeus boss, Clapper was present in the situation room at the White House on 9/11 and was responsible for the story about the peaceful protest related to the video. So, it wasn’t a complete lie to say that the CIA reported that the attack was just a peaceful protest that turned violent.

But that wasn’t the CIA report from the CIA and Petraeus. That is what Petraeus meant when he said that other reports were coming in from top security officials - those top security officials were his boss and Panetta.