Skip to comments.Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus
Posted on 11/11/2012 4:36:54 PM PST by Will88
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Now, trying to fit this in with all that's happened with Petraeus resignation, and news of an affair, and that he won't testify next week, etc., the meaning of that news release is murkier than ever. Does anyone have ideas about how this fits in now?
Petraeus has his own bus or did he throw Obummer under Obummer’s bus?
Well.....allow me to put it this way.
Anyone who thinks his resignation has a THING to do with him schtupping his hot biographer......well, I have some swamp land in Florida I’m trying to unload. Give a call.
Blackmailed to not say what really DID happened, so instead he gave this esoteric statement in order to hint at it without actually saying it.
I remember this statement from Petraeus - I wonder how much this contributed to his outing.
Don’t forget Valarie Jarrett’s “Payback time” comment.
If has Betrayus does not realize he is the fall guy. He soon will.
And let me add ... its not inconceivable that Krystol actually heard from the General’s mouth what was intended by the statement ... the General was a hero of the Neocons and I think he was in contact with them.
The White House knew about his affair all along, from before he was CIA director.
When he refused to go along with their story, they looked for a weapon and used the one they had at hand.
I got a perfect bridge to span that swampland. bridge still a little wet from Sandy...
...we could make a great combined offer.
I remember this too.
I believe with my whole heart, there is a Fast & Furious ala Libya style that was going on. Petraeus has his hands dirty, so does O, so does Panetta, Hillary, Stevens, all of them. And that rat fink Jarrett too.
And we’ll probably never know the full story.
We will never know why Petraeus didn't blow the whistle on this earlier, but the history of Mata Hari comes to mind.
Is it possible Petraeus resigned so he could testify without the administration telling him what to say?
There’s certainly nothing to stop him from being subpoenaed.
BINGO!! He was Blackmailable....that’s why Hussein hired him.
Hes a DEMOCRAT...they LIE and Cheat...its what they do best except for selling out AMERICA!
Or, even better, so that his subordinate could testify honestly as he probably doesn’t have to fear blackmail.
Thanks for all the comments, and I’ll add: I recall nothing in the way of any follow-up comments in the same vein from any CIA spokesmen. The CIA just seemed to go silent and make no further comments as to who did what, or who did not do what.
Why is all the men, well many of them, get caught in these scandals whether it be with women or with other men? You just don’t hear of the political women, left or right, ugly or pretty, getting caught up in this krap. They tried it with Nicki Haley . . . but she is the only one that comes to mind on the national scene and then it just died down. Men are too easy to corrupt. Maybe we will be better off when we have a majority of Congress and the White House with a woman in charge. Just sayin’.
Wasnt it the Democrats that told us that “sex” and “infidelity” was not important and that someone’s personal life does not affect their ability to lead???
I'm hoping it'll be something like that. When I heard about his resignation Friday, one of my first thoughts was Petraeus was getting the blackmail threat out of the way so he can speak the truth.
But who knows now. Nothing much is clear at this point.
I think you need to talk with your mom and dad about the birds and the bees.
For what result? Petraeus will likely be subpoened to testify before Congress anyway...........
remember, 2 days after the Libya attack, Petraeus and Clinton briefed the Senate comm..he stuck with that ridiculous “video” story,...the Senators came out of the hearing pissed, “claiming they got more info from the NY Times. Also, Petraeus ommited parts of the intel that said it was a terrorist attack from people that were there.Then the CIA started leaking...then the above story and statement came from Petraeus, a clear signal that he was not on “board” anymore. Now, right before he testifies..and AFTER the election, this comes out. I say, the Obama people knew this affair stuff all along, were afraid of Petreaus’s testimonmy...and dropped this on him. If they did do this to him for political purposes, that is “abuse of power”...also,if Obama and Petraeus etc all knew of this affair BEFORE his confirmation hearings, then Petraues perjured himself..and the rest “suborned perjury” ...this could get ugly.
“The White House knew about his affair all along, from before he was CIA director”. How do we know those 4 & 6 year old chillin’ aren’t the Generals?
Needs to be restated, under oath.
Why? Name a few lady Senators, Reps, Gov’s that have been brought down by a sex scandal? State or national level.
When he refused to go along with their story, they looked for a weapon and used the one they had at hand.
I agree. This is typical gutter style politics as commonly practiced in Chicago and other dictatorships around the world.
Isn’t October 26th the same day that Petraeus’s girlfriend spoke out with the same story at University of Denver?
The thing that makes no sense to me is, if Petraeus had decided to tell the truth, then revealing the affair takes away that as a potential blackmail threat. So what did the Obama gang have to gain by making the affair known, or accepting a resignation?
If you blackmail someone with damaging information, you leave them alone, where they are, as long as they do not cause any problems for the blackmailer.
Now it would seem Petraeus is free of any blackmail threat, plus he gave up the CIA post so he can’t threatened with firing.
If he’s not free to testify truthfully, then there has to be some further threat, or he’s an unbelievable Obama/Democrat toadie. That’s not the reputation he’s had so far.
Yes, I think so, but I only glanced at that thread so I'm not too well versed on what she had to say, or how it might or might not fit into the overall mess.
When did Petraeus not go along with their story ?
I thought he testified that the YouTube video was the reason, etc.
But didn’t he go along with O’s initial lie about blaming the video when he briefed congress? He KNEW that was a lie at the time. Two of those men that were murdered were CIA, his men...disgraceful!
I believe he was blackmailed to tell that lie. This is why it is so important that he does testify, because he needs to explain why he lied in the first place.
I thought Petraeus probably planned to tell the truth also, but then came the news that he would not be testifying next week before any committees. That seemed strange, though he can be subpoened at a later date.
And as late as Petraeus came to his CIA job, any information damaging to Obama could long since have been buried in the depths of any government bureaucracy that might have had such information. If information is around, it’d probably be some of the old hands in some bureaucracy that would know about it.
Answer might be simple: his subordinate, who will testify next week, is going to tell the truth. Thus, the General doesn’t need to testify.
You're right, he did. I'm referring to the leaks (which admittedly he may not have had anything to do with), the public statement from CIA, and Broadwell's public statements.
It looks to me like someone decided he had to go, whether him or them. He revealed the affair to keep them from revealing it first.
I rather thought the opposite at the time; how did they get Petraeus to go along with such an obviously phony line as the whole "you tube" story? I don't remember, was he under oath for heaven's sake? I'm imagining his willingness to go along was starting to fray. I'm not sure I understand yet exactly how this all hangs together but that it is related I don't doubt for a moment.
I don't believe in a disinterested FBI investigation that just happened to topple the CIA Director. A government that is running guns to Mexican and Honduran mafias, and Al Qaeda all over the middle east, isn't going to be too concerned that their spymaster is sleeping with his biographer. Mainly when they knew it all along.
remember, when his resignation was made public, a statement said that there will be “no criminal charges brought “..i.e. perjury...this guy had to perjure himself at his confirmation hearing. Dont they also give a lie detector test for the C.I.A. conformation? Perhaps he failed that and he was confirmed anyway. As it stands now, they just want him to ride off into the sunset..the testimony from his replacement this week will tell alot..if the new guy sticks to this “video” story, that tells me Obama etc viewed Petraues as a threat.
This all so much like that old political novel by Alan Drury, Advise and Consent. The intrigue, the sex, the mystery, the players, they’re all there! There has to be a murder or suicide somewhere to complete the story, and maybe a gay bar or two, and some sort of Communist connection . . . oh, well, we already know where that is.
Now that could make sense, though it might be too much to hope for. But it's possible that he had already been blackmailed to go along with that ridiculous story, and eventually he decided that he'd be blackmailed no longer so he got the blackmail threat (the affair) out of the way, then resigned. So, now he can tell the truth.
It's plausible, and I sure hope it's true, but it's anyone's guess at this point.
And I also think the most damning information would concern who knew of the requests for assistance from the Americans in Benghazi, and who denied the requests for that assistance. That is far more damning than the lies about the reasons for the terror attack, and all that is still to be discovered if someone will step forward and tell the truth.
And it's more important that we learn about who denied the asssistance than anything about why Petraeus went along with the Obama lies about what caused the attack.
lol,,,no doubt. Im a Watergate junkie...this puts that to shame.
and . . . .crickets . . . never heard anything else
I'm not familiear with that, but it would be another piece of the puzzle, and something that weakens Petraeus as a possible truth teller if he had to cut a deal to get that included in an agreement to resign.
Then again, if the Obama people used that to pressure him to withhold relevant information about Benshazi, that is part of an illegal coverup to prevent the truth from being learned.
It's a damned tangled web and I wonder if it can be untangled.
It sure does put Watergate to shame, and I wonder if a Butterfield will ever stop forward (if I recall the right name).
And I still keep wondering about the other Americans who were at the Benghazi consulate and the CIA safe house. Not one word from any of them and several reports I read said around 30 Americans were saved from the attack.
to me, its actually unraveling kind of fast...mostly because the premise of what they are trying to sell about the attack is just ridiculous..not to mention the incompetance. In Watergate, that was very complex and it took awhile to unravel it all..then again, the media hated Nixons guts, and they really went after him.