It takes a disgraced General to show what a disgrace our President is.

.

Madame's Nightshirt

Mrs. Peperium

 

 

 

 

This morning General Patraeus went behind closed doors before Congress to tell them what the CIA knew about Benghazi. Hint, it's a bombshell and the doors have been blown off Congress, not that the media will report it that way:

 

"As I said before, she [Rice] made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me." -- President Obama, November 14


The General's testimony has only opened more lines of questions for people to go after Obama with. To wit, literally, via Paul Mirgenloff/Power Line:

 

As I wrote last night, yesterday’s testimony to Congress by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell left plenty of work for General Petraeus, who is testifying today. For example, neither Clapper nor Morell could shed any real light on why the official line of the intelligence community apparently moved away from the initial (and correct) view that the Benghazi attack was terrorism.

Now, CNN reports (via the Weekly Standard) that Petraeus may not be able to shed much light on this question either. But by not shedding it, he may well deepen the scandal.

According to CNN, Petraeus will say he knew almost immediately after the September 11 attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya, was responsible for the attacks. Petraeus will also say that he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice, and that Rice’s came from somewhere else in the administration. CNN says that its reporting is based on information from a source close to Petraeus.

In other words, as I suggested last night, the administration fixed the intelligence, presumably because it wanted to hide the fact that al Qaeda, supposedly in its death throes due to President Obama, killed Americans on Sept. 11. That, at least, is the conclusion that will emerge if Petraeus testifies as CNN’s source says he will.

 

A theory has bounced around Washington as well as the blogoshpere and even here since the General's resignation; Obama was holding the knowledge of the affair over the General's head in return for favorable testimony. So far this theory appears not to be the truth. The truth seems to be so much, much simpler : as a soldier the General was merely doing what he did his entire military career; following the chain of command. If the chain of command decided they didn't want to say Benghazi was an act of terrorism, it wasn't his place to stop them.

So the General didn't stop them -- until Joe Biden blamed the intelligence community in on October 12, in his VP debate (via WS/Bill Kristol):

 

 "...Biden blamed the intelligence community for the administration’s confusing public explanations of the 9/11 anniversary attack in Benghazi, Libya. Moderator Martha Raddatz asked Biden directly why administration spokesman 'were talking about protests' in Benghazi. 'When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on?'

"'Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community,' Biden said. 'The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.'

 

October 26th Patraeus threw the Administration under the bus (Via WS/Bill Kristol):

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” 

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it?

.

The rationale for Obama's decision to not send in military assets was given 5 days before at the DNC by VP Biden :

.

.

 

 

The General is not out of the woods yet as Representative King indicated serious concern with discrepencies between his testimony today and his September 14 comments to Congress where he blamed the video. That testimony was not under oath. Time and Congress (with a much-needed single Congressional committee) shall root out the truth there. But until then, recall Bill Kristol on November 1:

Final point, though, he [Patraeus] may have been under pressure, as Charles says, to go along with the administration line on September 14th about the video, which he knew was not true. Someone else told me that General Petraeus, on the Hill that day, Director Petraeus I should say, said privately to one of the members of Congress, said, “This is what happened in Benghazi,” he said, “Do you want the official line or do you want the real truth?”

 But the truth is -FOR NOW- if Obama wasn't holding the information of the Broadwell affair over the General's head in return for favorable to Obama testimony on Benghazi, then Obama wasn't even a decent community organizer. Nor was he ever a faithful representative of the Chicago Way.

No wonder Jesse Jackson Jr. went insane....

 

WHO CAME UP WITH IDEA TO BLAME A VIDEO?

 

.

 

 

We.

 

Comments

[George Pal]

"No wonder Jesse Jackson Jr. went insane...."

Damn funny that. This is what passes as black on black crime in Chicago.