Replies

I would be careful with that claim. The only source that I can find for it is one Democrat congressman, who may very well be the one lying.
-

Oh, please. Katherine Herridge of FOX reported Petraeus blamed the video during the hearing and the subsequent events simply “prove out” that he did.

To wit:

When (about two weeks after Petraeus testified) the video lie unraveled, the first tactic of the Administration was to claim that they had been given “bad intelligence” about Benghazi.

They could only even ATTEMPT to peddle this garbage by having laid a covering fire of appropriate lies that were nonetheless “classified”—including the hearing.

In fact, if you go back, for the two weeks following Petraeus’s testimony, it was taken as a given inside the Beltway and in Republican circles that a video caused a spontaneous riot—or that such could not really be challenged in any case.

Then came the pure physical evidence, the contradicting testimony of the Libyan president, and the willingness of FOX News to pursue the story , all of which undid the video lie. And then simple common sense undid the “bad intelligence” lie.

Obama’s hire of Petraeus was a contract among kindred spirits, both of them of the Arabist persuasion in Washington.

Petraeus’s usefulness (an an “idiot”) to Obama was that he had credibility in RINO circles. That worked for a week or two but the lie was just too flimsy in the face of physical evidence.

Petraeus is a member of the Obama Administration. Obama does not “reach across the aisle” for his hired help. Those two are on the same page when it comes to the Arabs.