[FredZarguna]

Nothing divulged was classified, so it's unlikely there is any Congressional rule governing it.

As for the rebuttal; sorry, but I place a great deal more faith in a NAMED SOURCE -- even if a 'Rat, when the GOP has had two months to call him a liar and hasn't done so -- than I do an unnamed source, who can say anything without fear of contradiction or reprisal.

[FreeReign]

Nothing divulged was classified, so it's unlikely there is any Congressional rule governing it.

It was an intteligence briefing given by the head of the CIA. You don't think that was classified?

As for the rebuttal; sorry, but I place a great deal more faith in a NAMED SOURCE -- even if a 'Rat, when the GOP has had two months to call him a liar and hasn't done so -- than I do an unnamed source, who can say anything without fear of contradiction or reprisal.

Look at the 'Rat congressman's quote. He never really said that he was specifically speaking for Petraeus. The congressmen used the word "we". This is what ABC said that the congressman said...

"a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”... ...“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,”...“At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”

It's twisted nonsense.