Benghazi Index
Posted on 11/14/2012 12:41:10 PM PST by mojito
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on Tuesday said the White House used David Petraeus’s affair to get the CIA director to give testimony about the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that was in line with the administration’s position on the matter....
KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.
And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
I wait for the answer to the same question.
Even with this out in the open, I still think it’s impossible to predict what Petraeus will say under oath. He *could* tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may, and that would be the right and honest thing to do, what we would expect from a person of his stature and training.
But we know he’s already willfully violated the UCMJ and that he seems very comfortable rubbing elbows with the elitists of the Ruling Class. Now that his military/CIA career has gone down the $#itter (”Plan A”), he may well be willing to perjure himself in return for a comfortable retirement gig and some creature comforts (although not I suspect those provided by the buxom Ms. Broadwall) for the rest of his life.
Knowing how elitists are, I know which way I’d vote, but I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong.
The ironic thing is that no matter what he blackmailed Petraeus with; it came out enyway.
No kidding! Get Patreus off to a secret location and record everything, and send copies to every corner of the earth. The man is essentially a dead man walking. He should do the right thing and get everything on the table
NOW!!!!!!
My thoughts exactly. But, we wouldn’t be so lucky. I can’t think of a single democrat who would speak out. If they did, they would be punished next. I am sure there is a folder on EVERYONE ala KGB.
Please, folks. The very LAST thing I want is a Biden Presidency. :)
**If** he were subject to blackmail from “our” (USA) side (by testifying as he did about Benghazi), Then the FBI is correct in pursuing his infidelity as a grave national security concern (since he is susceptible to pressure over the transgression).
If this were the case, then Pres. Obama would have had to be informed. (Since the transgression is provably capable of influencing his actions.)
So, if the WH pressured him in his testimony, then we have a grave national security lapse that the WH had to know about (and did, if the premise still holds).
Peanuts and beer (or smoked salmon and champagne)!
>> Wonder what he has on Hillary?
He’s had dirt on her and Bill since the 2008 campaign. I’m betting it’s audio or video of them using racial epithets. Hillary was known to use anti-Semitic slurs, it’s not too much of a stretch to think they used black slurs too.
Would black mailing a government employee to lie under oath be grounds for IMPEACHMENT ? ? ?
Yes, because that person would have engaged in an illegal act. As such should be removed from public office. Get ready for President Joe...
The Chicago Way is too right!
In 2008, two Hillary super-delegates are found dead. She withdraws her name from nomination.
In 2012, Roberts chucks out all rational and Constitutional precedent and declares Obamacare legal.
Now, Petraeus has been given his script for whatever committee he must appear before.
All it would take is a plain brown envelope with an 8x10 of family members, to deliver the message: “We know where you live, get it?”
That’s the Chicago Way,
Conveniently, after the election.
All too true.
In the wild and wacky world of Marxist,socialist,liberal,progressive politics everybody seeks to get ‘something’ on everybody else. Its the way they do business. Its also known by another name, “The Chicago Way”.
He retired from the Army, so he is a civilian.
He is not subject to the UCMJ. He is however subject to civil law.
Does anyone really think the affair didn’t start before he left? And she is still in the Reserves.
Impeachment merely requires a majority of the House of Representatives; it is the subsequent Senate trial that requires 2/3 of Senators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.