Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

Weekly Standard ^ | 6:05 PM, OCT 26, 2012 | WILLIAM KRISTOL

[Snuph]

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

[FredZarguna]

Has Kristol ever considered that Petraeus is telling the truth, and not, “throwing anyone under the bus?”

The FIRST RULE of CIA Club is you don't talk about CIA Club.

The CIA has a standing policy that it does not publicly confirm, nor publicly deny any kind of speculation. Petraeus's statement, made where ordinarily nothing would be forthcoming, is indeed throwing someone VERY HIGH in the military chain of command "under the bus."

[cuban leaf]

And I’m not seeing a damn thing about it on the network news.

---

The internet and fox will force their hand.

[livius]

Thank you for some clear facts in this very murky story.

[huldah1776]

At least Allen made the guys carry loaded weapons on base because of the traitor afghans. But we still lost two more this week, same diarrhea green on blue murder.

[maggief]

Thanks, GF!

MSM operatives, yeah OPERATIVES, are resisting big time.

[uncbob]

look Patreaus came out and said it was the VIDEO!!! He had EVERY CHANCE to come clean THEN but he's been AWOL for WEEKS and just now came out cause his PERFUMED ASS is on the line!!! HE took a job under OBAMA......ALL I NEED TO KNOW THAT HE":S A SKANK!!

Another career butt kisser like Powell

[huldah1776]

Does the ex-General believe that not leaving a man behind only applies after he has been KIA?

[AmericanInTokyo]

Best post in a LONG time!!

[uncbob]

Then come out and say it, in plain english EXACTLY what happened. A pissed off nation isn’t slightly interested in his BS political dance that “implies” this, and “hints” at that.

Poed Freepers but I don't know about the nation at this point the MSM is still covering for Obama and friends

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Fred. Here is the quote I believe you were referencing.

Yet a congressional source told Fox News that CIA Director David Petraeus, during a briefing with members of the House Intelligence Committee three days after the attack, espoused the view that Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was "shocking" to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.

Am I the only guy that gets a bit touchy when we're trying to attribute comments to Patraeus based on an un-named Congressional Source, and the level of the charge is one that is targeted to destroy his credibility? Did anyone have a reason to destroy his credibility here? Well yes, some Democrats so instructed could have a very good reason if he was going to be involved in a he said/he said situation.

You'll have to forgive me if I am a bit skeptical here. And I'm not saying you're in the wrong. It just looks somewhat iffy to me. You may even agree.

Go back and check that article out. Look at all the sources. The whole article is one unnamed source after another.

U.S. intelligence officials knew...
sources told Fox News...
Intelligence sources said...
The sources said...
Further, an official said, "No one ... believed...
Yet a congressional source told Fox News...
According to the source...
...some members who were present...
In addition, sources confirm...

The claims that officials initially classified the attack as terrorism is sure to raise serious questions among lawmakers who from the beginning have challenged the narrative the administration put out in the week following the strike. A few Republican lawmakers have gone so far as to suggest the administration withheld key facts about the assault for political reasons.

One intelligence official clarified...
...though officials had an idea of the suspects.
...the official said.
...administration officials...

[Girlene]

Petraeus, COIN, ROE ——— spot on.

[uncbob]

Those guys did it —they thought they were risking a Blackhawk Down incident b4 a Presidential election, and so they forbade anyone to help.

That makes more sense than some of the other conspiracy theories

Even Panneta admitted it saying they couldn't risk resources

[randita]

The Seals were EX Seals, not active military.

Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were in Benghazi as part of a security contractor force.

They would not be subject to military orders to stand down.

Those two men are not who Jennifer Griffin was referring to in the three orders to stand down. She was referring to ACTIVE military units aware of the events and on the ready to intervene.

[DoughtyOne]

Kristol is so one dimensional I’m surprised he’s ever heard of Petraeus.

[FredZarguna]

Yes, we're out in the woods at Miller's Crossing and nothing is at it seems. We don't know if the "sources" are good guys or bad guys. I agree with that. Petraeus could have denied that rumor, also, of course ... but typically no DCI would do that, even if it was a lie (and again, our "sources" would count on that fact.) This is what makes tonight's statement so remarkable. He's clearly reached a point where -- lied before or did not lie before but let it stand -- he's had enough.

[jacquej]

I posted this on another thread, regarding Petraeus.

“I am holding out hope for Petraeus. My son served under him, and respected him.

Petraeus’s big mistake? Assuming that the den of vipers in D.C. had the best interests of US at heart, thinking that he could help.

I could be wrong, of course. I have been before.”

Perhaps the core principles of our best Generals blind them to the possibility that the “elected” ones may not have our nation’s interests at heart. It might be the farthest thing they could imagine, even though there is certainly politics and self-serving idiots in our Army (several come to mind, like Wesley).

This whole mess should be allowed to play out, but we shouldn’t be so stupid as to condemn everyone, until we get the full story.

And, we are entitled to that full story! So, get on the horn and demand it. We will not survive as a nation if we fail to demand total transparency, complete detail, from those who have been elected or appointed to SERVE US!

And, let’s demand that that they no longer let muslims into our country, and repatriate anyone refusing to convert from that autocracy called Islam.

According to my understanding, muslims cannot take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America without lying about their true allegiance to the false prophet, Allah, who intended to rule the world.

So, send anyone home who refuses to leave a belief system that places “Allah” above the Constitution of the USA, and that means leaving the Islamic autocracy, improperly called a “faith”, instead of a system of government.

[DoughtyOne]

Wish I knew what to do to stop that, other than turn the nation over to the enemy and go home.

[DoughtyOne]

Perhaps we should have guards with weapons in their hands and raised so that they could take a threat out in moments.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree that he’s had enough.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with your comments. I would also like to see the influx of Islamic followers to be curtailed.