No, and no. The false narrative is that the attack was a peaceful protest, sparked by the video.
I don’t care about the affair. Petraeus and his affair are a non-event, they are both over.
The story, blaming the video was concocted in the White House by Obama insiders on the night of 9/11. My guess is that Petraeus boss, Clapper was present in the situation room at the White House on 9/11 and was responsible for the story about the peaceful protest related to the video. So, it wasn’t a complete lie to say that the CIA reported that the attack was just a peaceful protest that turned violent.
But that wasn’t the CIA report from the CIA and Petraeus. That is what Petraeus meant when he said that other reports were coming in from top security officials - those top security officials were his boss and Panetta.
However to say that the Petraeus affair is a non event is simply not to operate within the realities of our culture. The affair damages his reputation, and the value of his testimony. It calls into question his entire military legacy of dealing with terrorism in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Was he right, does his policy actually achieve the results as advertised? These policies along with the career of Petraeus will be reassessed as a result of the affair.
So will Petraeus' participation in the Benghazi fiasco. What Petraeus has to say about the talking points, about his understanding of what happened in Benghazi, why Benghazi was left unprotected, what the administration and the CIA were really up to in Benghazi, will all be affected by Petraeus' loss of credibility.
The real story is the question, what was the administration up to in Benghazi and what does that reveal about our policy of traveling with terrorists? The administration has behaved so irrationally in this affair that there must be something going on beneath the surface. I do not advance this as fact, I advance it as suspicion. If we do not know facts, let us not parade them as such, let us fairly described them as suspicions, questions, allegations.
Above all, let us not attack fellow conservatives for merely citing statutory law.
You make some good points about Clapper and you might add the same thoughts about Donnelly. I have long believed that Secretary of Defense Pineda is a dangerous leftist put in the CIA and the Defense Department to cause them great damage. These men should get the same scrutiny as Petraeus has brought upon himself but they will not in today's media culture if there is no sex appeal to their stories because they are on the left side of the political equation.
We simply do not know where we are going yet. These thoughts are just that, suppositions. There are some facts that we can talk about, the history of the CIA leaking against George Bush; The history of the Obama administration leaking national security secrets about the assassination of Osama bin Laden and on other occasions when it advanced their electoral position; the dubious role of the Attorney General in Fast and Furious and its parallels in this matter. There are many facts that we can adduce that suggest that the administration was playing a double game, perhaps against the interests of the American people. Did the administration fear the people's backlash if the real story of Benghazi were known? Obviously, Obama feared the People's backlash on November 6 it his true policy toward Russia were known.
There is much to mine here. Unfortunately, the Petraeus affair is part of the story and cannot be taken out-the media simply will not let you take it out.
I do not think I need to say I told you these attacks would be forthcoming, they will certainly go on. This one takes on directly general Petraeu's military achievement in Iraq and Afghanistan. It serves several purposes, one of which is to discredit the military in the eyes of the public which is one of the few institutions in America that the left has not been able to undermine. It further serves the interest of The New York Times in its opposition to the Iraq war. They can say in effect, the surge did not work, the war was lost from the beginning, it was not redeemed by the surge, we were right all along.
Fortunately, the style and content of the polemic is over the top, factually erroneous in many places, and therefore not credible to anyone except leftists who read the New York Times. Nevertheless, it is instructive to learn what they are thinking. It is not helpful to our cause to decline to inform oneself about what they are thinking.