David Petraeus testimony fails to satisfy Republicans over Benghazi attack

Guardian (UK) ^ | Friday 16 November 2012 11.35 EST | Ewen MacAskill in Washington

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Congressman Peter King talks to reporters after David Petraeus's testimony. Photograph: Mladen Antonov/AFP/Getty ImagesSee link for image

**************************************

David Petraeus, the scandal-hit former CIA chief, faced a Congressional grilling on Friday over conflicting accounts of the attack in September on the US consulate in Benghazi.

Petraeus, in his first public outing since resigning from the CIA a week ago over an affair with his biographer, was smuggled into Congress for an early-morning hearing to avoid a media scrum.

Appearing before a closed-door hearing of the House intelligence committee, the affair surfaced only once when he was asked if it had had an impact on earlier testimony. He assured the committee it had not.

The rest of the 90-minute hearing was devoted to the various official accounts of the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on 11 September that left the ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans dead.

Republicans in Congress have been campaigning relentlessly over discrepancies between the initial explanation provided by the Obama administration that blamed the attack on a spontaneous demonstration over a US-produced anti-Muslim film, and a later explanation that blamed al-Qaida elements. They have targeted the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who gave the first explanation in a round of TV interviews a few days after the incident.

[Darksheare]

“was smuggled into Congress for an early-morning hearing to avoid a media scrum.”

I don’t think it was the media they were worried about.

[Jonah Hex]

“was smuggled into Congress for an early-morning hearing to avoid a media scrum.”

Not only that, but they added an extra "r" to "scum".

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LOL!

[Darksheare]

LOL!
Having met some reporters before, that’s the truth!

[TigersEye]

Good catch!

[Triple]

Right after Petraeus’ testimony:

Peter King (committee chair) would not comment on the aspect of who called for back-up and who denied cross-border support for the 41 Americans in Benghazi.

It seems to me that if Petraeus exonerated Obama, that King would come forward with that story, or the dems in the room would.

Now, if Petraeus said Obama left those Americans to die at the hands of terrorists, then that information would be handled in a very special way. It would not be leaked by the Dems, and the republicans would have to have several meetings on what to do with it.

THIS IS A CASE OF THE DOG (DEMS) NOT BARKING!

[TigersEye]

Peter King (committee chair) would not comment on the aspect of who called for back-up and who denied cross-border support for the 41 Americans in Benghazi.

No need to say it really. There is only one possibility.

Fact One:

1) Only the POTUS can authorize a CBA (cross border authority) command for a rescue mission in a foreign nation.

Plus Fact Two:

2) No rescue mission was attempted.

Equals Fact Three:

3) 0bama turned his back on 41 State Dept. and CIA employees refusing to issue a CBA command and went to bed so he could go to Las Vegas the next day. .

--------------------------------------------------------

Something to e-mail to every talking head, every Senator and every House rep.

[Triple]

I totally agree -

The possibility that Petraeus stepped up and gave some other “out” for Obama is gone.

The democrats would be singing that song all day long if that were the case.

The dog did not bark - Obama left 41 Americans to fend for themselves against an Al Qaeda attack.

(Thankfully, 2 former SEALS, already in Benghazi, broke orders and saved 39 Americans, that Obama left for dead.)

[MestaMachine]

Didn;t think it would, did you?

Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.

Benghazi Index

[TigersEye]

FWIW I don't know what 'out' anyone could have given him that would hold water. For the sake of argument let's say the attack was a riot gone out of control. Is that any excuse to leave 41 of your own people to die at their hands? Is that the 'official' 0bama policy excuse?

"We will only defend the lives of our diplomats and other assets if they are being attacked by a terrorist group with official terrorist credentials." - 0bama Zombie Policy

[Marine_Uncle]

Yeah.
From the UK rag: "Petraeus, in his first public outing since resigning from the CIA a week ago over an affair with his biographer, was smuggled into Congress for an early-morning hearing to avoid a media scrum."

Idiots on both sides of the big pond, prevail. :)

[Triple]

I agree with you...again

Perhaps the out might have been: Obama ordered/approved the special forces in from Sigonella, if necessary. Then General Ham or Leon Panetta said:
- Too much uncertainty, we can’t send the military into Benghazi.

This was Panetta’s story, that He and General Ham thought, because of the uncertainty, that the mission was too risky. I think Panetta implicated another General in that decision also.

But, being the Sec Def - the Generals take orders in that situation, not give them. So Panetta is either implicating himself, or he was operating under the president’s direction.

[Triple]

I agree with you...again

Perhaps the out might have been: Obama ordered/approved the special forces in from Sigonella, if necessary. Then General Ham or Leon Panetta said:
- Too much uncertainty, we can’t send the military into Benghazi.

This was Panetta’s story, that He and General Ham thought, because of the uncertainty, that the mission was too risky. I think Panetta implicated another General in that decision also.

But, being the Sec Def - the Generals take orders in that situation, not give them. So Panetta is either implicating himself, or he was operating under the president’s direction.

[TigersEye]

But, being the Sec Def - the Generals take orders in that situation, not give them. So Panetta is either implicating himself, or he was operating under the president’s direction.

Yep, the bottom line is that only the POTUS can give the order, we know he didn't, and if he didn't because he was advised not to he still bears full responsibility for leaving them all to die without lifting a finger. There is no way out of that for him. All of the spin, excuses and lies will wear themselves out and that will be what is left.

[Triple]

yes - Obama left 41 Americans to die in the face of an Al Qaeda attack.

[Triple]

If he wanted the Marines/Special forces there - they would have been there inside of 3 hours.

An FA 18 would have been flying over inside of 1 hour. Forces from the carrier group in the Med could possibly have been there sooner. Not funny that the Admiral in charge of that group has been relieved of command.

[TigersEye]

Absolutely! Every word of that is true. We had reports that teams were moved to Sigonella and other assets were there and ready to go. That’s what they’re for, that’s what they train for and they don’t wait for orders to get ready. Or rather the orders to get ready are automatic when an alert that a consulate or embassy is under attack. Panetta had nothing to do with calling them up. They were geared up and running through check lists by the time Panetta had a clue.