Heh
Posted on 11/14/2012 6:13:29 AM PST by pabianice
Breaking on Fox.
I would like to remind everyone of James Jesus Angleton.
And Pajamas Media.
Blackmailed into remaining in office and towing the line
http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2012/11/10/the-petraeus-espionage-file/
Thanks Maggief
This is good news, I would normaly be worried on the Senate side but Feinstein has a beef with the O. She wants to bury him over some stuff that happened in CA during the 08 election.
It looks unwise of him to have gotten himself involved with females inclined to cat fight, even if the nominal reason for the cat fight wasn’t even the General himself. I know Rush Limbaugh asked, given today’s mores, why the huge hypocrisy by the left over this, but even hypocrisy is vice’s tribute to virtue. The General was unwise to think with the wrong head even if he did much good in the past. It’s a bit like a King David story.
And he not only knows what happened stateside, he went to Libya to investigate the Benghazi incident.
The news of his testifying on Friday will blindside Obama in his news conference today and his (Obama's) nervousness (however cloaked behind his usual reptilian demeanor) will be detectable by close observation.
Look for Obama to give his familiar middle finger salute when he mentions Petraeus by name.;-)
“So, now that Petraeus has completed his fact finding tour, can he change his testimony about the spontaneous eruption of violence without being charged with perjury?”
Eva: Yes. This will be the first time he is under oath (assuming he will be under oath Friday)-—so if he tells the truth, technically, he has not perjured himself.
RooserRedux: Can you give us a link for this?
ALL!!!: Don’t miss RoosterRedux post #49
Here’s something interesting from a comment on this story at Hot Air...
Friend of mine who works in the pentagon has told me lastnight that petraeus was told to shut up about bhegazi and if he didnt, the white house was going to release the info about his girlfriend. I was told that it was petraues who leaked the affair to preempt the white house and tell the truth about libya.
The white house is trying to get him back in the ranks so they can threaten him with a demotion and take away his pension. My buddy told me who is a guard at the tomb of the unknown soldier told me the general is going to sing like a bird
Conservative4ev on November 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM
Hm, I should wonder why Feinstein has not been such a prominent voice lately. She sure didn’t spare her breath during Bush’s tenure. But the audible cheerleading in the Senate has mostly been Dirty Harry Reid. Hardly a peep from her.
Hmm. The intrigue thickens (a little).
That said, sometimes such comments are worth considering.
Do the right thing Patraeus—out the Chicago thug liars.
&&&
And if he does so, it will accomplish nothing except to make us feel a little better. “PravdaUSA” will not report the truth, and we will all just continue to sink deeper into our Marxist mud pit.
Remember our hopes the evening of Tuesday, November 6.....a day that will live in infamy.
Leni
I agree we shouldn’t get our hopes up on Petraeus and he shouldn’t be treated with kid gloves. The fact is that he is the head of the CIA and had his own personnel under attack in one of the most hot button areas of the world, on a day that has special significance for both America and his enemies. These questions are fundamental:
When did P find out about the attack?
If he was not advised during the attack, why not? What is the CIA’s protocol for advising the Director of critical situations involving Americans in foreign countries generally, and CIA personnel specifically?
How was he advised and by whom?
Who did he speak with in the Military, White House, and other government departments after the attack? What was discussed?
What did he do to obtain additional information about the attacks? Did he watch the audio and video feeds coming from Benghazi? Did you request access to the Situation Room and, if yes, were you given access? If you did not access these sources of real time information, why not?
What options did he consider in providing assistance to the CIA staff and other Americans in danger? Who did he discuss these options with in the White House, Military and other departments?
If he did not communicate with the President about an ongoing attack against CIA staff and other Americans, why not? Why is an attack against Americans on sovereign US soil not considered of sufficient urgency to involve the President?
Were any specific options discussed with State, the Military and /or the President? What were those options and what was the response of State, the Military and President?
Did you request any specific action or form or assistance from State, the Military, the President or any other department. Was that request fulfilled and if no, what explanation were you given?
What specific intelligence did you have access to that supported your contention that the Benghazi attacks had anything to do with the video? What meetings and/or discussions did you have with State, the Military, the President, other White House officials or any other department, about the video prior to making that statement?
When did you come to the conclusion that the Benghazi attacks had nothing to do with the video? Why didn’t you correct the record when you came to that conclusion?
Get the answers to these questions and you will be well on your way to unravelling the mystery of what happened.
There’s no need for that to happen, and being saved is no ironclad guarantee against spectacular acts of misbehavior. I am very chary about pronouncing that any particular person this side of the grave will end up in hell.
It’s not too late to be a hero and restore trust.
***
Trust in what? Are there only about 4 of us here on FR that realize that it’s all gone, as of November 6 2012?
We misunderestimated how our beloved Big Ears would have the polls packed for him (if even grosser cheating did not dominate the vote). How does one pack this kind of thing? How does Acorn and Son Of Acorn get leverage on the General?
Given how many times we have waited for someone of solid character to come forward and expose the real truth about what is going on in the inner circles of government (can no longer say “our government”) only to be disappointed I can only shrug.
Is it possible, all of us who truly believe in the brilliance and courage of the Founders are 100% wrong and the lying liberals are right?
In a country stinking to high heaven with an overabundance of lawyers, is there not at least a handful who can create more uproar in the USSC like the ACLU but instead in defense of the Constitution? I guess not because if our only legal protection comes from the likes of Judicial Watch then once again I question if what I believe in is right.
Given our spineless congress, even if Petraeus comes forward, it would appear the the MaxistMuslim in Chief will simply issue some EO to bury this guy and congress will do nothing.
Heh
Not sure if this is related, but this just posted on NRO — a one word post: “Conspiracy?”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333358/conspiracy-charles-c-w-cooke
Hmm. The intrigue thickens (a little
She blames the O for a pretty tragic incident back in 08 after the Denver event. I don’t know if it’s true but you can find it if you Google. I hope she is clean because they will go after here and her husband I guarantee it.
"Unwise" is a kind way to put it.
I'm curious what Broadwell's motive was for anonymously advising Kelley to "back off" (and I'd also like to read what the anonymous e-mailer wrote, to know what Kelley was supposed to back off from). Not that any of that changes the inquiry into Benghazi and the answers offered by the administration in light of the sucessful raid by terrorists.
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.