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.
Ping.
>>I have a bad feeling about this. A lot of things don’t make sense.
I have a feeling that Obama Term II is going to be way worse than Nixon Term II
bttt
“Maybe Petraeus is being threatened with a Courts Martial if he doesn’t go along.”
I think this may be the “black mail” part of the scandal. Fox just reported that the FBI is investigating whether the affair with Broadwell was going on while the General was in Afghanistan. Also, they are trying to determine if any foreign country was involved.
When the leak came out that the FBI Investigation was over, it apparently wasn’t true or it was decided to move it up a notch.
Holder is probably staying on to see that this has an optimal outcome for Obama.
Black mail.....
I don’t know what his testimony would be. I do know Hillbilly will lie and the more she knows about about any other testimony the more she will craft her lies to fit it.
This reminds me of Stalins purging of his Generals, but instead of killing them they are just destroying thier lives.
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
/S?
I’m curious as to how Petraeus could be court martialed since this affair allegedly took place after he retired from the military.
“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.”
This is vintage Obama. He used a sex scandal against his opponent Ryan by getting his sealed divorce records opened to smear Ryan with. That’s how Obama won his Illinois Senate seat. Obama also eliminated other Dem opponents in the primary by getting them thrown off the ballot for an assortment of reasons. Obama loves to wallow in other people’s dirt to use to his advantage. Hence Petraeus, and now Allen. Obama is scum.
“Kinda sounds like he wants to slam Obama.”
That’s what I’m thinking, too.
RE: Maybe Petraeus is being threatened with a Courts Martial if he doesn’t go along
Petraeus has been a CIVILIAN for over a year now. How the heck can he be court martialed?
RE: I have a feeling that Obama Term II is going to be way worse than Nixon Term II
One huge difference — THE MSM has Obama’s back. The MSM was TARGETTING Nixon’s back then.
Was this hoochy mama just the tip of the ice burg? Either he's really a good guy who had a major slip and went over there to get the straight story or... he's a bottom feeder like the rest in this administration who knows too much. Remember who appointed him to head the CIA. Of course, Jarrett has the goods on everyone before they're appointed so why was he appointed in the first place? Was he willing to go along or was he (with his already known damaged goods) put in to appease the GOP until the usurper was able to proceed with the destruction of the US with more flexibility?
I have never understood why Petraeus agreed to head the CIA under the low-class Obama administration to begin with. It has never made any sense.
The fix is in. Obama does NOT want Petraeus to testify.
He must.
I don’t get the implication that it wasn’t done with government funds or off government time. It certainly sounds like an official trip, though not a standard procedure. Some executives are just more hands on than others.
In the article, Dianne said he went on a personal trip. She didn't say an investigative trip or an authorized trip. She could have left at as "he went Benghzai" but added "personal" to the statement. To me that means he went on his and outside of the government.
with this admin nothing makes sense and yet they keep lying and the media keeps covering for them.
The election results don;t add up
Libya doens;t add up
fast and furious doesn;t add up
the list is endless but the media covers for this corrupt admin and obama and those on the fringe left still keep using their NAZI thuggery and tactics to silence people
They met in 2006; the when is being investigated.
I’m just taking Patraeus at his word.that he was the shy, silent type who took 6 years to act on his impulse.
Breedwell was patient, if anything, as she waited to ensare him.
said exactly the same to another freeper, he wants to use this to get rid of the Generals wwho might oppose his homo cross dressing his social justice agenda for the miltiary and replace them with PC homosexual minority officers.
That way he can keep control either by the courts or his civilian security force and if that does not work then he has the military.
We have a NAZI election, results not making sense, judges being put on a bench who are radical and he already has his LA Raza, ACORN, he just needs to increase immigration to make the numbers up for his”civilian security force”
Look at the guy who made the video , that guy is still in jail.
Don;t think the radcial left will just stop now and it can;t happen here, it already is.
Personal tells me he went himself, at his own discretion, but using his authority as head of the CIA and using government transportation, security, etc.
“Personal” does not imply to me that this was done on his dime, as a private citizen. It would make no sense to do so, and I doubt the Director of the CIA even would be permitted to do such a thing to a place like Libya.
We are parsing vague descriptions, but I don’t see any reason to take the limited words so far available beyond what is plausible.
Agree, but let's have the House subpoena Hillary and get her testimony first, so that her lies will sink her and obama.
Well, the FBI ran an operation against Cheney, but all they got was his chief of staff, and not for the supposed reasons of the investigation, but because his testimony differed from a liberal reporter, who coincidentally had a friend on the jury.
Obama’s the only one who had the ability to stop both the CIA AND the military from acting.
Petreaus would assume the Intel committee and President knew all along.
The failure to supply requested security - even pulling the security they had- is definitely Hillary’s responsibility unless she kicked it up to a higher authority, of which tere is only Obama, and yes, it is why she ran for the border.
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.