Sounds logical to me, and even the NYT agrees.
Posted on 11/18/2012 6:23:08 AM PST by AAABEST
They had some lofty goal of not wanting to "tip off" the terrorists - but nobody can say whose idea it was or who changed the language?
Also, why is the discussion being framed around who "omitted" the terrorist language? Omitting language is not what's at issue. A blatant lie about some "video" was created out of whole cloth and promulgated repeatedly over an extended period of time by the highest levels of the executive branch.
We know that he's already perjured himself at least once on the matter. Nevermind the adultery - it now appears he's morphed into a criminal trying to save his own ass rather than doing what's right for his country.
Agreed. “Omitting” is not the same as “concocting.”
What?
Sounds logical to me, and even the NYT agrees.
There could be a potent counter argument here and the real criminals are far above him, trying to save their own asses, and particularly over the phony issue of terrorism being put to bed by the successfully led Obama America (sic), the only inconvenience being the attack on the Benghazi outlets by terrorist groups right smack in the middle of the reelection campaign which laid a big pile of doo doo right on their narrative about how they succeeded in the “War on Terror”. He could turning evil, or he could still be a good man but is being excoriated by those larger fish above him who are about to go scott-free via the old Potomac Two Step Blame Game.
We know that he's already perjured himself at least once on the matter. Nevermind the adultery - it now appears he's morphed into a...
HOW DID HE PERJURE HIMSELF? Shows us where/when he was under oath!
You are worse than the MSM that has turned on America. But that's nothing new about you.
It comes down to the one question Greg Gutfeld, on THE FIVE, has been asking for 8 weeks...”Who pushed the video?? “
He already turned when he supported gays in the military.
He testified in Congress shortly after the incident, and claimed that it was the stupid video. Now there’s reports that he just testified in Congress that it was a terrorist attack and he knew it all along. Two different stories. Both under oath. That’s disturbing to me.
The ambassador and his men were left hanging out to dry, lest ‘the narrative’ (”Obama’s Dead, GM’s alive”) be contradicted. Petraeus thought that the same people who made that decision would somehow not do it to him. The moment that Ohio went for Obama—the moment when Petraeus’ obeisance was no longer important—was the moment that he, too, was left hanging out to dry. The only surprise was that Petraeus was surprised.
Just sayin'.
He’s now protecting his wife’s new position and salary.
One thing that strikes me as rather strange is that today’s general wears a ton of ‘fruit salad’ on his coat. It’s gone even beyond merit badges for scouts.
Betrayus, for example, has one for combing his hair and tying his necktie correctly. It would be an interesting afternoon for him to explain exactly what each Dentine Chewing Gum wrapper represents.
A far cry from the days of DDE who wore no decorations on his jacket.
Apparently its a generational thing. “I, I, I, I, I!”
pitifully stupid premise
http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/11/14/benghazi-petraeus-thought-he-could-keep-his-job/
He was not under oath on 9/14/12 in front of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
well if you are saying legally prosecutable perjury then yes he would have had to be under oath.
Doesn’t change the fact the dude is a liar, why are you defending him, is he your brother or something? The dude is a reptile
Ok so now it is fine to lie as long as someone doesn't place you under oath? That doesn't work for the Military my friend. If you accept that in your world I wish you the best. Read my tag line.
DECLARATIONS
Updated November 16, 2012, 6:18 p.m. ET 
David Petraeus and Dwight Eisenhower
The I's Have It
By PEGGY NOONAN
An epidemic of egomania strikes America's civilian and military leadership.
We are becoming a conceited nitwit society, pushy and self-aggrandizing. No one is ashamed to brag now. And show off. They think it heightens them. They think it's good for business.
It used to be that if you were big, you'd never tell people how big you were because that would be kind of classless, and small. In fact it would be a proof of smallness.
So don't be showy. The big are modest.
Ha.
There is the issue—small but indicative of something larger—of how members of the U.S. military present themselves, and the awe they consciously encourage in the public and among the political class. The other day on his Daily Beast blog, Andrew Sullivan posted a letter from a reader noting the way officers are now given and relentlessly wear on their dress uniforms ribbons, markers and awards for pretty much everything they do—what used to be called fruit salad. Mr. Sullivan posted two pictures we echo here, one of Gen. David Petraeus and one of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. This is the Eisenhower of D-Day, of the long slog through Europe in World War II. He didn't seem to see the need to dress himself up and tell you what he'd done. Maybe he thought you knew. He didn't wear all the honors to which he was entitled, though he could have used them to dazzle the masses if that had been what he was interested in.
Top brass sure is brassier than it used to be. And you have to wonder what that's about. Where did the old culture of modesty go? Ulysses S. Grant wore four stars on his shoulder and nothing else on his uniform. And that was a fellow who'd earned a few medals...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324556304578121424215017436.html
What other kind is there? The 'I don't remember' kind?
Where do you see me defending him? You seem to have a problem with me saying he did NOT commit perjury.
Great photo comparison. Their demeanors are as different as their uniforms, too.
I don’t think the blatant lie is as much an issue as the lack of intervention during the attack, which is not as much an issue as the lack of security leading up to the attack, which is not as much of an issue as the secret gun-running to terrorists.
Do you really believe that Petraeus testified that the Obama people changed the CIA report to hide the Al Qaeda connection to avoid tipping off the terrorists? I am certain that if Petraeus said anything like that, he said that is what he was told, not that it was true.
Petraeus had zero imput as far as the administration cover story was concerned. He never spoke to Obama. Obama never called him and asked his advice or his opinion. He didn’t need it because Obama was in the situation room on 9/11, watching the events unfold in real time. He knew that it was not a peaceful protest that went bad.
How can that be when the group responsible claimed credibility just hours after it began?
credibility = crdit
didn’t you say a different poster was a liar?
don’t people sometimes say “perjury” to id a lie? How many perjury trials have you actually ever seen or heard about
Committed perjury? When? Where? You better look up the definition of perjury. Petraeus was never sworn in when he briefed Congress. Petraeus was sworn in when he testified on Friday before House and Senate committees. Where is the perjury committed by Petraeus on Friday?
No oath, no perjury.
Yes Ike was a real Army General unlike many U.S. military Generals today that appear to have gone to the local Army surplus store and bought all of the medals off of the racks.
November 16, 2012
A Phony Hero for a Phony War
By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV
FASTIDIOUSNESS is never a good sign in a general officer. Though strutting military peacocks go back to Alexander’s time, our first was MacArthur, who seemed at times to care more about how much gold braid decorated the brim of his cap than he did about how many bodies he left on beachheads across the Pacific. Next came Westmoreland, with his starched fatigues in Vietnam. In our time, Gen. David H. Petraeus has set the bar high. Never has so much beribboned finery decorated a general’s uniform since Al Haig passed through the sally ports of West Point on his way to the White House.
“What’s wrong with a general looking good?” you may wonder. I would propose that every moment a general spends on his uniform jacket is a moment he’s not doing his job, which is supposed to be leading soldiers in combat and winning wars — something we, and our generals, stopped doing about the time that MacArthur gold-braided his way around the stalemated Korean War.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/a-phony-hero-for-a-phony-war.html?_r=1&;
I’d prefer to let more of the facts become clear before making final judgement. This guy may be being set up and blackmailed by the Obama Chicago Thug Machine.
Thank you for the distinction.
Yes he has NOT been placed under oath thus far. My apologies if I left the impression that he has.
It seems to me that it is the country who is turning on Patraeus. And our entire military.
Oops. Make that narrative “Osama’s dead, GM’s alive.”
Whatever the case may be, the reason we know of his affair and the reason the media is coverning so urgently is becuase this is the result of blackmail from the white house.
You don’t play ball, we ruin your life and career.
That’s it.
Personally, I think the video, or at least the dubbed audio of it, was made by our government specifically for the purpose of blaming it as opposed ot them in case something went wrong, which it did.
These are evil, vile, people. They are the most stupid masterminds of all time, yet they think they are Gods. All they know is the lie.
Lying to Congress while under oath is perjury.
Lying to Congress while not under oath, nevertheless, might well be a crime:
18 U.S.C. § 1001 : US Code - Section 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years
or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as
defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or
both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services,
personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.
Looks like the General was blackmailed by the president to me. Why did his sex partner under the desk visit the White House three times for breakfast? Why was the timing of his resignation so perfect? The Chicago Machine of Barry has orchestrated many events and it looks like their fingerprints all over this one.
When are U.S. citizens going to realize that Obama was bought by Arabs? He was bought and paid for when Arabs paid his living expenses and tuition during college. That is why he bowed to them on his world tour. That is why he is covering up the slaughter in Benghazi. They own him. Obama is a mixed-race slave. Folks, it’s time to wake up and face facts.
Oh, yeah, let’s go after Petraeus. I’m sure he’s the bad guy in this Benghazi fiasco. I mean it has to be Petraeus fault because after all he was dumb enough to have an extramarital affair and that makes him 100 times worse that Obama and his cohorts in the situation room. Right?
“”However, the switch is still disturbing.””
I agree. What he apparently said in the Friday hearing was a new one to me. It was reported that he “thought” he’d made it clear on 9/14/12 that it was a terrorist attack. I’ve never heard anyone connected to the political machine in DC explain things in that manner. They stick to their guns and deny, deny, deny they ever said such and such.
Tokyo had Rose
Baghdad had Bob
How shall we brand the American version?
“Osama’s dead, GM’s alive.”
I would prefer that it tell the truth:
Osama is dead and so are four Americans......
This is all wag the dog stuff. The definition of “is” is stuff NO ONE is talking or asking who gave the order to stand down and just let these guys die.
On the other hand, I see a great deal of problems if a commander of troops is bringing court-martials against those troops for fraternizing or for frequenting prostitutes or for committing adultery. Even if the commander is having an affair while the wives of his subordinates are kept out of theater, you have a morale problem. It is all more complicated today because there are now women in the military in combat theaters and today the commander has to impose rules on subordinates concerning fraternization between male and female in the ranks.
General Petraeus, assuming he committed adultery while in uniform, knew how perilous for morale his lapse could be.
Having said all that, I am not unaware of the duplicity of the Obama regime and the potential for them to have set up Petraeus. If he committed adultery while in uniform and the fact was known to the administration when they elevated him to CIA, one is compelled to ask, did they do so knowing they had a knife pointed at his back? Did they shove it in ? Worse, did they threaten to use it and so corrupt his testimony (not under oath) before Congress?
We simply do not know.
Pointing out facts and law is not to advocate one position or the other. It is simply to have respect for intellectual honesty.
I would point out one difference. Thru WWII, the American people automatically respected our military, it was largely THEM. Then, along came Vietnam, and anyone seen wearing a uniform in public was in jeopardy.
Over the following decades, with an all volunteer military, respect was reestablished (from afar, since few families any longer had anyone in the military). Perhaps the increase of ‘salad’ over those years was part of the program to regain their stature in the public’s eye.
We all know that lies are involved and lies are generally designed to preserve one’s status/power/life/freedom. Most of us believe that the Truth should come out, no matter the personal consequences. Most of us neglect to state, with no hedging, that we would gladly sacrifice ourselves for the Truth in the way we want others to do. The sorry state of “Human-ness” always throws a wrench into the mix and most of us ignore it when making our statements/charges because most of us have never been in the same “moccasins” as others and when we were in some sort of similar situation, most of us have lied to save our skins.
IIRC Barry charged Romney FIRMLY saying: “On September 12, in the Rose Garden, I said it was a terror attack”, hmmm???
Then in weeks later they rolled out the stupid video trailer. Even spent $70,000 on a commercial in Pakistan on the same subject: “We have absolutely NOTHING to do with this despicable video”!!!
Your attack on Petraeus is a distraction from the real issues that we are trying to deal with, a planned distraction that is all part of the false narrative that was concocted by the Obama insiders.
And Wife Holly landed a $186,000 job!!!
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.
