Posted on 11/13/2012 12:11:01 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Yesterday, Dianne Feinstein threatened to subpoena the CIA over a trip report from David Petraeus that he allegedly wrote after a personal trip to Benghazi after the terrorist attack that killed four Americans. Today, ABC News reports that Petraeus' visit to Libya was no mere observational tour. The then-Director of Central Intelligence conducted his own interviews with personnel on the ground in Libya in preparation for testimony that has now been cancelled:
In late October, Petraeus traveled to Libya to conduct his own review of the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
While in Tripoli, he personally questioned the CIA station chief and other CIA personnel who were in Benghazi on Sept. 11 when the attack occurred.
The Libya stop was part of a six nation trip to the region. Petraeus intended the review as a way to prepare for his upcoming testimony before Congress on Benghazi.
"He was looking forward to testifying," a Petraeus friend told ABC News. “He wanted to be fully prepared.”
This makes the decision to withdraw Petraeus from the hearing even more curious. According to their source, Petraeus thinks that acting DCI Michael Morrell can testify to Petraeus’ findings and add more of his own, plus Petraeus wants to avoid a “media circus” after the revelation of his affair.
However, while that may be understandable, those reasons aren’t enough to deprive the committees of his personal perspectives. Petraeus has years of hands-on experience dealing with terrorist networks as a military commander. Morell has over 30 years’ experience in the CIA and can obviously give a good accounting of the intelligence, but doesn’t have Petraeus’ insight. Plus, after having personally conducted the reviews in Libya, Congress needs Petraeus to expand past whatever made it into his trip report — the very document that the CIA is now reluctant to share with Feinstein and other Congressional investigators.
IOW, this was a personal trip he paid for with his own money and not on government time? Well, well, well, Diane just let the cat out of the bag.
You think Petraeus is pulling this crap so that someone will subpoena his a$$ faster? Kinda sounds like he wants to slam Obama.
RE: You think Petraeus is pulling this crap so that someone will subpoena his a$$ faster?
By “crap” what are you referring to? His affair, or this investigation?
His own investigation was done in OCTOBER. That was BEFORE the elections.
The House absolutely must subpoena Petreus so they can get his report. After all, he has nothing to lose now, so he can tell the truth. The American people have a right to know what was going on in Benghazi and why the murders of the ambassador and the security personnel by terrorists was covered up for over a month by Obama and Hillary.
if the General was conducting a real investigation of the murders of our people in Libya, it is no wonder why he got sent up the river
no wonder at all
I'm sure the acting DCI is being coached on what to say. Problem is that Petraeus being out of that chain of command can be used as a rebuttal witness. Maybe Petraeus is being threatened with a Courts Martial if he doesn't go along.
It almost seems like the FBI was running an operation against Petraeus, or is it just me?
-— You think Petraeus is pulling this crap so that someone will subpoena his a$$ faster? Kinda sounds like he wants to slam Obama. -—
I have a bad feeling about this. A lot of things don’t make sense.
It seems to me that the FBI is Obama's tool of choice to use against several people who are in a position to threaten his "leadership" these days.
Sounds like 0bama snuffed out Patreus’ report as fast as he snuffed Ambassador Stevens.
“This makes the decision to withdraw Petraeus from the hearing even more curious.”
Curious? How about scandalous?
Timing is everything and it might not be a completely bad thing if Petraeus doesn’t testify this week. I’m thinking that whether he’s a saint or a scum, he has some important information about Benghazi and Libya and the Middle East. His testimony might have been overshadowed this week by all the sex talk.
A US consulate is under attack. The CIA annex is requesting permission to go to the assistance of the Ambassador and is apparently denied that permission. The attack on the consulate and CIA Annex are immediately reported to Washington. As the Director of the CIA, does anyone believe that Petraeus wasn’t immediately advised of the situation on the ground? Does anyone believe that a leader of Petraeus’ background wouldn’t have immediately tapped into whatever real time information was coming in about the attacks and the requests for assistance? Does anyone believe that a former military leader would have voluntarily left his people in harm’s way without exploring options to render assistance?
Unless Petraeus has become a total scumbag since he was in charge in Iraq, it is hard to believe that he is the one responsible for calling the shots in Benghazi. If you assume that Petraeus was attempting to do something to assist his people on the ground, then who pulled his plug? Given the structure of the government, it appears to me that either (a) the military refused to come to the aid of those in Benghazi because the CIA did not have the resources or (b) that Petraeus was ordered to stand down by Obama. Obama is the only one who could have ordered Petraeus to stop operations that were under his control.
This ‘sex scandal’ was a honey trap used as a trigger 0bama could pull at any time. I’ll bet every single member of Team 0bama has dirt on them that 0bama can pull the trigger on when it’s politically advantageous. It must be hell working for the devil. The Petraeus thing is a smoke grenade, used as cover for 0’s COVER-UP IN BENGHAZI. Also, we’re seeing the beginnings of 0’s coup on our military to signify the beginning of four more years of absolute hell unleashed upon America.
But Hillbilly should testify first so she can't tailor her lies to Petraeus' testimony.
He went to bury all the shovels. Cleaner?
What makes you think Petraeus' testimony would be any different than what Obama or Clinton have already said publicly? Petraeus was going to testify until word got out the Republicans knew about the affair and the FBI investigation. Then Petraeus quit.
Wow, what if, I repeat, WHAT IF Petraeus went over there and pressured people to tow the administration’s line on Benghazi? Could this be why it is so hard to get hold of his report?
-— If any elected Pol actually loses their job...I will be very, very surprised. -—
You and me both. Hope we’re wrong. But it feels like the fix is in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.