The preposterousness of this scenario is obvious. And the convenience of the timing for Barack Obama cannot be overlooked. Now Petraeus will not be testifying at the House hearings, and so, barring a subpoena, the primary witness to who ordered the CIA to stand down in Benghazi has been removed. And why on earth wouldn't Petreaus testify? if anything Petreaus will be even easier to get to testify since he has absolutely no reason to say anything to protect his job. What an idiotic article.
Because democrats don't want him to answer sensitive questions. Why do you think his testimony has already been postponed indefinitely? That remains to be seen. His job isn't his only concern. Is it? The FBI, and by extension Eric Holder, new about the affair for months. And now that Petreus is scheduled to testify the news is released and Petreus is taken "off line"?
I won't matter either way because this is a delay tactic that allows plausible deniability to be liberally spread around the highest levels of this administration. This gal Paula better watch her back. She said that Petraeus told her that we were holding Lybian prisoners at the Benghazi compound which could have been the reason for the attack on 9/11/2012.
Repeat after me: "I will not drink the liberal koolaid.....I will not drink the liberal koolaid......I will not drink the liberal koolaid."
If that's the case.....WOW! Which means he was the Director of the CIA and couldn't keep a secret? Pillow talk has happened. If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny......
The preposterousness of this scenario is obvious. And the convenience of the timing for Barack Obama cannot be overlooked. Now Petraeus will not be testifying at the House hearings, and so, barring a subpoena, the primary witness to who ordered the CIA to stand down in Benghazi has been removed. Can I just point out that: a) I was entirely correct when I pointed out the idiocy of this claim and b) all of the far right claiming that Petraeus was resigning and would therefore not be testifying are proven completely and embarressingly wrong.
In fact, Petraeus will speak to the House Intelligence Committee tomorrow. So much for the theory that the timing was orchestrated to force him to resign so that he couldn't testify.
He is NOW. After trial balloon reports from all media sources that he would not be, they must have felt the backlash and decided they cannot proceed without him and appear in any way credible.
This was my reply at the time: And why on earth wouldn't Petreaus testify? if anything Petreaus will be even easier to get to testify since he has absolutely no reason to say anything to protect his job. What an idiotic article. And I was proven absolutely correct. Who is 'they' that you are imagining? There was never any question to thinking people that Congress could have Petreaus testify- regardless of whether he resigned or not.
Those who might look bad, or as if they were lying if his testimony veered off their path. Maybe the same people who still went around talking about videos for weeks, after claiming they called it terrorism the day after it happened. Put any names on it you wish.
So you don't even know who the 'they' is that you referred to? Who the 'they' is that is "worried" about a backlash? LOL.....there was never any doubt that Petreaus would testify if Congress wanted him to testify.
Well sure I do, the current Administration is who I was hinting at. They've been on both sides of this one already, and Petraeus may or may not line up with the current version of the story they want to be on. probably seemed pretty easy to move him out of the picture, by finally releasing the months old affair they had been sitting on...err investigating. It was a video backlash...then Obama said he called it terrorism from the rose garden on the 12th when Mitt called him out...yet then they still went to the UN, and to the family members of the deceased and talked of videos. In any event, it appears that he will be testifying afterall, and I read earlier that hillary will as well...later. I just hope it isn't one of those "laters" that never materializes. People deserve to know wtf really happened here.
Aye, but without his job and honor, he may well be ready to tell the truth, I hope he does, and (*)(*)(*)(*)s this pitiful administration to the hell they deserve...
NEVER believe anything by Robert Spencer.. He's a complete fraud. Meanwhile, it appears that Petreus clashed with agency chiefs. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep...al-in-libya-in-final-days-before-resignation/
So they forced him to retire- so that they won't have any control over him at all- in order to prevent him from testifying? Even though it was obvious to everyone that Congress could ask or compell him to testify anytime they wanted to? It didn't make sense when the OP made the claim in the first place- and it doesn't make sense now- since Petreaus is going to testify exactly as we all predicted he would.
It might turn out to be a nothing more than conspiracy fears Jeff, as you imply. Perhaps I'm wrong, wouldnt be the first time...hell wouldnt be the first time today...but the timing, and details on the whole thing stinks. Combine that with an Australian Hillary trip that could have been done anytime...and well I hope you can see the reason for some skepticism.
This conspiracy involves very little thought other than blaming Obama and absolving patreus of wrong doing
Oh please, the media shamed him, that's just another leash, a public one, we will see what happens, to be sure, but it if he is half the person I think him to be, it won't go as you may think...
