Breaking now on Fox News: Petraeus will testify voluntarily before both House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
Related, from Charles Krauthammer:
And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?
But don’t go getting excited, because remember – when the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.
Actually, I am not excited. Something will prevent him from testifying. I believe he is under threat. He may declare the 5th Ammendment or something on key questions. Or — gee, I wonder how his health is these days?
I have to say Kate, this Benghazi/Petraeus freak show is really starting the hack me off. Its a pantomime version of the whole Afghan/Iraq war, where the high officials pretend to win for the TV while sabotaging -everything- behind the scenes.
Color me skeptical.
Obama told the entire world 6 times,
standing in front of the UN snake pit,
that the 300 views VIDEO caused spontaneous riots against our embassy.
But if try to charge Obama with lying,
where the hell do they start?
POS has been lying to us for 5 ftrucking years.
If he is an honorable man, he will tell the truth.
I pray he does and opens up this whole viper’s nest of deceit that the Obama administration has created.
Americans are a forgiving people but one thing they will not tolerate is the sacrifice of their military for cheap partisan political reasons. There’s still many in Congress that served in the military and recognize the importance of doing the honorable thing.
Linda L- invoking the 5th will not serve him well.
If he balks it will be because of “national security”.
The same chant is already up in leftist circles. “It’s just sex.” When an elected official has secret dealings (sexual or not) that they would not want public it opens them up to undue influence and/or outright blackmail. Call me crazy but mix that in with the Charlie Foxtrot that is Benghazi and it looks pretty damning.
I thought the whole idea of the Magna Carta was to ensure that the King was not above the Law. Looks like Obama has thrown that English idea/tradition out on its heels.
Wow, a Presser. amBam will smile, act cool and the White House Press Gallery will lob a few softball questions of him to volley.
The cover up will continue, the deficits will get bigger, America will get weaker and weaker, the corruption will grow larger.
The train wreck moves a few more miles down the track towards the washed out bridge over Dead Man’s Gulch.
BamBam smiles.
So, Petraeus will testify. I wonder what that means?
The Dems have gamed this thing to the last nano-measurement. ‘No wiggle room. At every turn, there’s another Catch-22 for those trying to investigate what the Hell’s going on. With this scandal, the Dems have stirred up a sex-sandstorm to conceal what happened in Benghazi.
As Leonard Cohen sang in The Future (1993):
Things are going to slide, slide in all directions,
Won’t be nothing,
Nothing you can measure anymore.
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed threshold
and it has overturned the order of the soul. …
I have no confidence that Petraeus’s testimony is going to get us any closer to what really happened. OTOH, I hope I’m wrong. I hope that now that his reputation’s in ruins, he takes the high road and blows the whistle on the thug-Obama administration.
favill, the aim of Marxism is throw everything the Magna Carta stood for out the window.
Wrong, Obama will take two questions and filibuster both.
“I thought the whole idea of the Magna Carta was to ensure that the King was not above the Law. Looks like Obama has thrown that English idea/tradition out on its heels.”
My guess is that the whole idea of the Magna Carta was shipped back to England with Churchill’s bust.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
This is known, but a deeper analysis of the Security Breech at Camp Bastien than I was aware of. The issue has been given very little profile, but my guess is that Obama will certainly give a nod to Allen — what a great soldier he is. “I have the utmost faith — blah, blah.” Meanwhile, a few families of dead soldiers do not think so: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/15464
My hope is that they overplay their hand.
My problem with this scenario is that it’s plausible up to the point Petraeus was outed and fired/resigns. Now he is free to disclose the duplicity of the administration and, while yes they did win the election, do great damage to the administration, particularly Hilary Clinton, who is likely finished as a politician anyway.
Or, the Alinsky White House has a Plan B in mind. When/if Petraeus testifies and if his revelations are adverse to the fantasy White House position, he will simply be branded as not credible because he is not an honourable man who screws around on his wife/family.
Perhaps Bill Clinton could offer that anyone who has an extramarital sexual affair while holding high office cannot be trusted and therefore believed. Sorry, I couldn’t resist that one.
The bottom line is any Petraeus testimony will be undermined/discredited and therefore, in the true Alinsky tradition (make the other guy play by the rules when you don’t) will be rendered non-existent.
After all the entire presidential election was based on fiction, and as more backroom deals and outright lies come forward, they too will be rendered as non-events. Besides the Petraeus blacklisting, watch for:
– large middle class tax increases – the ones Obama argued Romney would make (of course, Bush forced their hand don’t you know)
– cozying up and making deals with Russia, China and Iran v.v Syria, Iranian nukes and a host of other appeasement actions designed to make Obama some kind of foreign policy legend. The only legend he will be in real history is as the president who forced Israel to go to war with Iran.
– further the throwing Israel under the bus, Jerusalem will be recognized by the US and the capital of Palestine and Palestine only.
– a large AQ type attack, probably in the US, which will destroy the illusion of Obama’s appeasement success. But then again he can play commander in chief.
– the net result will be an Obama approval rating south of Clifford Olsen within 2 years, but it won’t matter because Obama is unconcerned with re-election.
No, there is zero chance of removing Obama with impeachment – the Senate is controlled by the Dems. He will have to be caught doing something seriously illegal and be forced to resign or perhaps get convicted of a felony, something like that. IMHO, there is also zero chance of that happening given the Dem control of the media and many other governmental insitituions, including the judiciary.
We can all look forward to four very rocky years ahead for the US, and by extension Canada and the rest of the world.
Jake Tapper (ABC) has been the only member of the Press corp to show any backbone. Let’s hope he is at the presser, and that he has body guards.
This is Obama’s Watergate – the only thing left to question is if the GOP will pursue or ignore impeachment. Can you say president Biden? Brrrrrrhhrrrr.
“Wrong, Obama will take two questions and filibuster both.”
Sorry, Kate. The Dems are going to axe the filibuster along with any other pesky items that hinder their “majority” rule. After all they have a “mandate.” Well some of them actually do have a “man-date” but that’s irrelevant!
Occam, impeachment is a dead letter. The Senate is firmly in Democratic hands and will never vote to remove Obama from office.
No, the American people had their chance to throw Obama out of office and they pissed it away. All of what will happen in the next four years is squarely on them.
Zero will answer a coupla soft ball set up questions and that’s it. An unitentional slip up would be fatal-too much at risk.
What does boinking some bull shouldered tart have to do with this? Hell Ike hammered his red headed Brit driver for the duration of WW 11. Nobody suggested he should be removed from theatre.
LBJ was a serial philanderer while in the White House. He called his dick jumbo and everyone in the WH knew it.
This is the chicago team at work. Petraeus will probably take this like the good soldier he is. Protect the president. There is no level these people will not resort to.
The only thing that they can’t control are blogs. If something starts to leak???
Generals being lead by their privates?
What was it that Churchill said about appeasement — something about feeding everybody else to the alligator in the hope that it eats you last. Or, maybe, “we have sown the wind; we shall reap the whirlwind”?
If Kraut is right, Petraeus sought to appease his political masters: in that case, the problem for Petraeus in voluntarily testifying is that he’s already perjured himself — so he has a choice between admitting it in the first instance and perjuring himself a second time.
Either way, the US military gets it in the frontal lobe with a hollow point.
Why doesn’t Petraeus just do the honourable thing by the men and women who served with him, pull a Steve Harper and STFU?
My wife asked me this morning, “Do you think this is a victory for Obama?” A: “What do you think?”
She then asked, “Do you think the President knew about this?” A: “What do you think? The investigation’s been going on since July. The first thing the FBI would have done, given the enormity of the potential implications, is seek approval to proceed from the Attorney General. And the first thing the Attorney General would have done is call the President. And the first thing the President would have done is call David Axelrod.”
babt’s theory on gaming the whole thing seems bang on, leading to…most of Shamrock’s predictions (although I cannot believe at this stage that Obama’s approval rating would drop anywhere near the projected level, given that half of Americans just don’t care anymore — it’s all about dividing the right now, which the right did a great job of doing to themselves at election time!)
Hey I asked for cheese on the Benghazi nothinburger and I got a sex scandal instead. What gives?
Hey I asked for cheese on the Benghazi nothinburger and I got a sex scandal instead. What gives!?
It must be some kind of conspiracy.
It would be nice if the Dems imploded like the Canadian Federal Liberals. Obambi’s handling of Benghazi and this side show of sex and intrigue on top of it seems like a recipe for disaster.
He’ll testify unless he ‘commits suicide’ in the mean-time-that shame and all drove him to it.
“If he is an honorable man, he will tell the truth.”
Honor is an outmoded concept,quaint and Victorian,and the liberal left understand that very well. The oft-mentioned Saul Alinsky didn’t recognize the concept of honor,or right and wrong,only what works.
Why should Petraeus tell the truth? He’s already out on his ass,and if he plays things the White Hiuse way, can be quietly rewarded with a nice “consultant” contract through a dummy company a couple of years down the road,when the complicit MSM are again blinded by adoration of Obama.
Impeach the first African-American President? It is to laugh uproariously!
Petraeus should just tell the truth and invoke no privilege or confident1ality and watch the government lawyers falling all over themselves to shut him up. There’s no way a general is going to jail for telling the truth.
I used to admire the U.S., the last few Republican presidents and the members of the U.S. military. I no longer admire any of them. They are, indeed, like every other country and every other politician.
I lost my idealism. There is no “shining city on a hill” south of the border — I wonder now if there ever was.
“Honour is an outmoded concept.” Yes it is.
You’ll love this video Kate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NpNqFrSZqbE#!
“There’s no way a general is going to jail for telling the truth.”
You’re right, Scar; he might just have a car accident.
My view is that:
With regard to the sex scandals – the Petraeus affair was long over and if anyone believes that, in the bubble that is Washington, these are not the norm rather than the unusual – they are naive. I’ll include 75% of past presidents and other key figures in government. Even the emails from Allen (another Afghan general), were, it seems, about family and friends. None of this is worthy of such intense FBI and WH interest.
I consider that Benghazi is the ‘flickering flame’ of a deep conflict between Obama and his BlackShirts, the FBI, against the Military and the CIA. Benghazi was a massacre that was both enabled and not prevented by Obama, who, just before his re-election, would not permit his narrative that ‘Islamic terrorism no longer exists because I killed Bin Laden’ to be harmed by Reality.
The CIA knows very well that Al Qaeda not merely exists but is getting stronger. Obama was the one who both refused to increase pre-attack security and who also, duringn the attack, authorized No Help when the Benghazi CIA asked for help.
And then, had his minions go out and, as usual, blame the US for ‘insulting Muslims’ (that video). Petraeus at first, obliged Obama by going along with this false story, but, when Obama tried to throw the whole thing into the CIA lap, by claiming that it wasn’t the WH that refused help (I think it was!)…well, Petraeus stood by the CIA and issued his own report that the CIA DID NOT refuse to help. That is, Petraeus threw the whole responsibility back to Obama. That finished him. No-one stands up to Obama and lives for another day.
Obama moved very quickly, building his surface case of sex-and-scandal, waiting until after the election and than – bam. He took out Petraeus, and has gone after Allen in Afghanistan. And other military generals (Ham, and others).
My view, paranoid as it is, is that the Military loathes Obama. And Obama can’t handle anyone who is not a sycophant. His agenda is to destroy them.
To me – that’s what it’s about. Obama is using the FBI as his gang to take out the military.
The question now is, what will Petraeus do? Will he attempt to save the CIA and tell the truth? The truth that the whole setup and massacre was due to and only to, Obama? He has, now, nothing to lose. What will the WH Gang do against him to either prevent or discredit his testimony?
If Petraeus instead, supports Obama, then, he supports a dictator and destroys both the CIA and the military. Some choice.
David Southam, heh, yes, the first thing would have been to call David Axelrod. Oh, and Valerie Jarrett.
As for Shamrock’s predictions, hmm, I’m not sure. The foreign relations ones seem, to me, weak. Certainly, foreign leaders recognize that Obama is pathological and a narcissist, and the key to getting his goodwill, is a show of adulation. I suspect what they’ll want from Obama is: ‘do nothing anywhere. Leave the world to us – to Russia, China, Iran. ‘ And that’s what Obama will do: nothing.
As for the internal economy, my hope is that the GOP will show some spine, refuse the tax increases, let him do it by executive fiat, and let the economy implode. He’ll blame Bush, as he did even today, but, blame becomes empty when the economy implodes.
I think the key is whether Petraeus will tell the truth or not.
With regard to the infidelities – the Petraeus affair was long over and if anyone believes that, in the bubble that is Washington, these are not the norm rather than the unusual – they are naive. I’ll include 75% of past presidents and other key figures in government. Even the emails from Allen (another Afghan general), were, it seems, about family and friends. None of this is worthy of such intense FBI and WH interest.
I consider that Benghazi is the ‘flickering flame’ of a deep conflict between Obama and his BlackShirts, the FBI, against the Military and the CIA. Benghazi was a massacre – that was both enabled and not prevented by Obama, who, just before his re-election, would not permit his narrative that ‘Islamic terrorism no longer exists because I killed Bin Laden’ to be harmed by Reality.
The CIA knows very well that Al Qaeda not merely exists but is getting stronger. Obama was the one who authorized No Help when the Benghazi CIA asked for help. And then, had his minions go out and, as usual, blame the US (that video). Petraeus at first, obliged Obama by going along with this false story, but, when Obama tried to throw the whole thing into the CIA lap, by claiming that it wasn’t the WH that refused help (I think it was!)…well, Petraeus stood by the CIA and issued his own report that the CIA DID NOT refuse to help. Petraeus threw it back to Obama. That finished him. No-one stands up to Obama and lives for another day.
Obama moved very quickly, building his surface case of sex-and-scandal, waiting until after the election and than – bam. He took out Petraeus, and has gone after Allen in Afghanistan. And others.
My view, paranoid as it is, is that the Military loathes Obama. And Obama can’t handle anyone who is not a sycophant. His agenda is to destroy them.
To me – that’s what it’s about. Obama is using the FBI as his gang.
As for Shamrock’s predictions, I think that the foreign leaders know very well that Obama, a pathological narcissist, requires basic adulation. They’ll do that and ask him to have the US do nothing in the world. Leave the MENA to Russia, Iran etc; the US should stay out. And that’s what Obama will do. Nothing.
Internally, I think the economy will implode. I hope the GOP have the strength to refuse to act as sidekicks of Obama and will refuse his tax increases etc. If the economy implodes, then, they’ll have to do something besides spend and spend and create a nation of dependents.
I’ve tried twice to post this.
With regard to the affairs, the Petraeus affair was long over and if anyone believes that, in the bubble that is Washington, these are not the norm rather than the unusual, they are naive. I’ll include two thirds of past presidents and other key figures in government. Even the emails from Allen (another Afghan general), were, it seems, about family and friends. None of this is worthy of such intense FBI and WH interest.
I consider that Benghazi is the ‘flickering flame’ of a deep conflict between Obama and the FBI, against the Military and the CIA. Benghazi was a massacre that was both enabled and not prevented by Obama, who, just before his re-election, would not permit his narrative that ‘Islamic terrorism no longer exists because I killed Bin Laden’ to be harmed by Reality.
The CIA knows very well that Al Qaeda not merely exists but is getting stronger. Obama was the one who authorized No Help when the Benghazi CIA asked for help. And then, had his minions go out and, as usual, blame the US (that video).
Petraeus at first, obliged Obama by going along with this false story, but, when Obama tried to throw the whole thing into the CIA lap, by claiming that it wasn’t the WH that refused help (I think it was!)…well, Petraeus stood by the CIA and issued his own report that the CIA DID NOT refuse to help. Petraeus threw it back to Obama. That finished him. No-one stands up to Obama and lives for another day.
Obama moved very quickly, building his surface case of sex-and-scandal, waiting until after the election and than – bam. He took out Petraeus, and has gone after Allen in Afghanistan. And others in the military.
My view, paranoid as it is, is that the Military loathes Obama. And Obama can’t handle anyone who is not a sycophant. His agenda is to destroy them.
To me – that’s what it’s about. Obama is using the FBI as his gang.
Will Petraeus tell the truth, and thus, support the CIA. Or will he lie and support Obama? What good would the latter do? Prevent a security implosion?
I’ve tried three times to post. All zipped of to spam. Could you let one of them through?!
whew- it’s not my day. I’ve tried four times to post and have been shuttled off every time. Could at least one of them get through?
With regard to the infidelities – the Petraeus affair was long over and if anyone believes that, in the bubble that is Washington, these are not the norm rather than the unusual – they are naive. I’ll include 75% of past presidents and other key figures in government. Even the emails from Allen (another Afghan general), were, it seems, about family and friends. None of this is worthy of such intense FBI and WH interest.
I consider that Benghazi is the ‘flickering flame’ of a deep conflict between Obama and his BlackShirts, the FBI, against the Military and the CIA. Benghazi was a massacre – that was both enabled and not prevented by Obama, who, just before his re-election, would not permit his narrative that ‘Islamic terrorism no longer exists because I killed Bin Laden’ to be harmed by Reality.
The CIA knows very well that Al Qaeda not merely exists but is getting stronger. Obama was the one who authorized No Help when the Benghazi CIA asked for help. And then, had his minions go out and, as usual, blame the US (that video).
Petraeus at first, obliged Obama by going along with this false story, but, when Obama tried to throw the whole thing into the CIA lap, by claiming that it wasn’t the WH that refused help (I think it was!)…well, Petraeus stood by the CIA and issued his own report that the CIA DID NOT refuse to help. Petraeus threw it back to Obama. That finished him. No-one stands up to Obama and lives for another day.
Obama moved very quickly, building his surface case of sex-and-scandal, waiting until after the election and than – bam. He took out Petraeus, and has gone after Allen in Afghanistan. And others.
My view, paranoid as it is, is that the Military loathes Obama. And Obama can’t handle anyone who is not a sycophant. His agenda is to destroy them.
To me – that’s what it’s about. Obama is using the FBI as his gang.
The question now is, will Petraeus support the CIA or Obama? It can’t be both. And what will the penalties be, whichever side he chooses?
Someone, please let ET out of jail!
I would note once more that EVERY “Law Enforcement” officer in the United States is sworn to the Constitution, and that their oath of office is their ONLY source of authority. Just exactly WHERE are any of the so-called “good cops?”
“Just exactly WHERE are any of the so-called “good cops?”
That’s what we’d all like to know,Mark.
So…I missed the presser.
How did Obama answer this question:
“Was the real reason for General Petraus being canned/resigned due to his falling out of step and contradicting the White House lies?”
Ha.
This is the Modern equivalent of a General falling on their sword. Kate id right , obama will just ramble on about nothings while trying to sound meaningful. The MSM will just keep covering for him since not only the political views of this Administration are theirs as well. But they perceive Journalism’s survival is wedded to Obama. Besides they have lied for this Guy for 5 years. To be exposed as political partisans destroys the illusion of objectivity. Which of course the press is losing anyway. You cant hide the lies they have without someone noticing.
In fact the glee shown on election night revealed them all to well.
So does the stone walling on Benghazi. The sex affair is their only shot of covering this up. The only problem with this is the murdered families won’t shut up about it. Nor Bloggers or the new Media.
Soon they will be calling to make any News outlets official by regulation. Making bloggers illegal or anyone not with government sanctioned credentials. Just as in the Soviet Union or China today. Than call it a free press.
I’ll try yet again, to post on this topic.
I consider that Benghazi is the ‘flickering flame’ of a deep conflict between Obama and his guys, the FBI, against the Military and the CIA. Benghazi was a massacre that was both enabled and not prevented by Obama despite months of requests by the CIA and State department for increased security, and despite requests by the CIA during the battle, for help. But Obama, just before his re-election, would not permit his narrative that ‘Islamic terrorism no longer exists because I killed Bin Laden’ to be harmed by Reality.
The CIA knows very well that Al Qaeda not merely exists but is getting stronger. Obama was the one who authorized No Help when the Benghazi CIA asked for help. And then, had his minions go out and, as usual, blame the US (that video).
Petraeus at first, obliged Obama by going along with this false story, but, when Obama tried to throw the whole thing into the CIA lap, by claiming that it wasn’t the WH that refused help (I think it was!)…well, Petraeus stood by the CIA and issued his own report that the CIA DID NOT refuse to help. That is, Petraeus threw it back to Obama. That finished him. No-one stands up to Obama and lives for another day.
Obama moved very quickly, building his surface case of a sex scandal, waiting until after the election and than, He took out Petraeus, and has gone after Allen in Afghanistan. And others.
My view is that the Military loathes Obama. And Obama can’t handle anyone who is not a sycophant. His agenda is to destroy them.
To me – that’s what it’s about.
Thanks for releasing my posts from jail, but since they were all essentially the same, I do apologize for the repeats.
But I agree with all of them.
I think it is evident to all except those who are Obama sycophants that the US is bug&ered.
Even Denis Miller, when on the O’Reilly show this evening, was not his usual self and appeared defeated.
Petraeus affair = Dog bites man. Media: 24/7 coverage.
Benghazi affair = Man bites dog. Media: crickets.
Or it could just turn out that Fox News is full of it again and the whole thing is a nothingburger.