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 ...
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.