Skip to comments.***If Rep. Peter King Is Right, Then Maybe Petraeus..."
Posted on 11/16/2012 2:08:57 PM PST by The Wizard
If Rep. Peter King Is Right, that Petraeus said it was the video when he testified on the 14th, and said today that he didn't say that then and that he said it was a terrorist attack instead, maybe, just maybe this is what happened behind the scenes:
The bama white house black mailed the General with their affair information, probably gathered with the HELP of the alleged mistress, (working for the same bama crime family) so he went up and told the video story....
Truly being a man of values, the general realized the position he was in, came clean to his wife, resigned so it could no longer be held over him, and proceeded to tell the truth today withholding the black mailing of the bama crime family....
It seems to me that Rep. King has no reason to lie about what the General said on the 14th, because others can verify it, (as I am sure Rep. King has already done) and that really only leaves the above as an explanation for the two different testimonies and the resignation of there good General.
I offer this for your discussion
I think I’m pretty sure I agree with you.
Plain as the nose on your face that’s the gist of the story. I only wish he had not give false testimony in the earlier hearing. We’ll be hearing more about that flip flop in days to come. The General will have to admit to being blackmailed for that to go away.
Wasn’t the General dancing pretty close to the perjury line, with his conflicting testimony?
Obama is tying up every loose end in the Libya affair, and no one seems to care what kind of a stink it raises. Has half the country sold their souls to the devil or something? The media wants us to think it doesn’t matter, and everyone should just mind their own business, pretend nothing happened. It’s got to be that, or group think, brainwashing, something.
There was probably no overt threat or blackmail.
When a person has compromised themselves in their conduct, the loss of virtue produces a guilt and protective attitude and paranoia. The person becomes highly cooperative to those with authority and intiment knowledge of them.
The slightest wiff that “this is what is expected of him” places the person having lost their virtues in the protective mode and makes their compliance automatic.
By appointing him with these problems, Obama assured himself a compliant partner in his efforts and a fall guy when one was needed or in the event of non-compliance.
We are probably not going to hear that someone called him and said, General, you better say....______ or we will do X. Obama is not going to have a smoking gun here.
I see other requests during the investigation to be the answer as I have posted elsewhere:
I think it boils down to five requests to confirm the administrations assertion that they did everything they could to help the Americans involved.
1. Provide the directives for those at the Consulate who sent them and why.
2. Show what communications were sent requesting what actions by those that sent them as demonstrated by item 1.
3. Provide the Cross Border Authorization as signed by the President.
4. Have each recieving agency that could take action on #3 show their action orders or explain why they ignored the President.
5, Ask for the written corrective actions issued by the President to thoose parties who failed to act on his Cross Border Authorizations.
Short and Sweet they cant provide any of it they left them there to die.
I listened to King today and he made plain that Patreaus’ assertions that his testimony today was no different than that prior testimony were not true, that he, King, remembers it differently.
A polite way of calling Petraeus a fibber but I’m sure they tape these things. If your theory is correct than Petreaus is depending that those in today’s hearing won’t bring up lying under oath charges, if applicable, I dunno.
At the least the pubs (AND Dems-prolly the ones to fear) can echo a mantra about lying now or lying then.
I think you’re right but if you are, I want Petraeus to tell us more, to tell us just how the admin blackmailed him/inferred revelations of personal errors. I want Petraeus all the things he knows, everything he knows, cause I think he knows lots.
IF you are right we shouldn’t be able to shut the man up.
Think about it.
Well, duh! The disturbing thing to me is that as bad as the lying about whether it was a terrorist attack or not is, that’s nothing compared to the real crime: the stand down order that left a handful of brave Americans fighting off over 100 al Qaeda fighters for over eight hours with no backup, resulting in the loss of four lives. The initial failure to take precautions is the second worst part of it, and then the lying afterwards. Now, however, we’re either focused on a totally irrelevant factor — the affair — or the least damaging part of the scandal — the lying.
Odumbo just wants everyone to think like Geraldo Riveria that there is an illogical explanation for the changes made to the talking points memeo. Lets see is it group think no - it is propaganda - a lie told enough times it is supposed to believed as the truth. odumbo a trained liar (lawyer) does not view anything as the truth unless he has told it himself. Oddly enough Odumo is a fool without any knowledge of history and he is doomed to failureo keep lying and lying again about the lies thast he first told because he has knowledge of the lies he is telling.
The letter that he wrote to his people at CIA was very telling. Nobody ever admits to having an affair to their subordinates in that public manner.
well, he was against the terrorist attack meme before he was for it......
No perjury. I don’t believe he testified under oath.
I don’t think he was under oath the first time.
Obama is tying up every loose end in the Libya affair, and no one seems to care what kind of a stink it raises. Has half the country sold their souls to the devil or something? The media wants us to think it doesnt matter, and everyone should just mind their own business, pretend nothing happened. Its got to be that, or group think, brainwashing, something.
Waco/ Clinton come to mind.....
>> I think youre right but if you are, I want Petraeus to tell us more, to tell us just how <<
He will when his book comes out early next year...
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
That was my thought from the day he resigned. I believe Krauthammer thinks it likely too, though he’s been dancing all around it.
IMPEACH the communist filth. If Newt were still around, he’d go for the jugular. Boehner will just invite him to play golf.
I don’t know why they bother with such testimony when it isn’t under oath.
I think also this may be ubambo’s chance to discredit the military higherarchy in America as inferior untrustworthy war mongering white men and replace them with his own people who will not have a problem interacting with the UN forces during martial law. If anyone thinks this to be crazy, did you ever think we would be at this place and time? The next 4 years will be busy
On this, Newt would go through DC like a crazy man with a meat cleaver.... and I would love every minute of it.
We have seen with Bill Clinton that impeachment just gets Democrats voting on party lines to defend their boy. How about a criminal prosecution? Take the Democratic politicians out of the jury here.
Hoping yer right!
We NEED a Col Jessup on the scene RIGHT f’n NOW!!!!!!
(blemishes and all)
Are they interviewing the survivors?
Are they interviewing the survivors?
Truly being a man of Values?? BetrayUs???
The more of FR I read, the more flabbergasted I get.
Truly being a man of values, the general realized the position he was in, came clean to his wife,
I think the basic premise is probably correct but this line kills me. Men of values don’t have to come clean to their wives about adultery, especially a 4 year affair.
In September, Petraeus was asked about the attack in Benghazi. Instead of answering directly, he said something to this effect: "Do you want my honest answer, or the canned response the administration is giving?"
When he was told to give the latter, he said it was a spontaneous attack motivated by the video.
This is how Petraeus said two completely different thing to Congress in September and this week, and wasn't lying either time.
they tape these things...
Don’t they take minutes of their meetings???
"""""Do you want my honest answer, or the canned response the administration is giving.......""""".....
I'm sure he was using as much sarcasm as he could muster when he said that.
....."""When he was told to give the latter, he said it was a spontaneous attack motivated by the video.""""".....
Someone wanted the latter? the adminstrations version? He gave it and they call him a liar???????
By working for this administration perhaps Petraeus has learned the wisdom of the old saying: “lay down with dogs expect to get up with fleas.”
“It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains”
I have a different take and it has nothing to do with the values may or may not attribute to Petraeus.
The military pundits have said he is an honorable man and will do the right thing. Were they talking to him instead of about him? "Do the right thing and we will stand behind you."
The opinion of his peers in the military matters much more than the opinion of the Admin, Congress or the general public.
The media loves these conflicting variations of what happened when; says it’s all politics, and ignores the story.
What I really want to know from the Petraeus testimony is what was done, if anything, to rescue the four Americans that died in Benghazi ? The media cannot ignore the fact that men were purposely left to die if that is the case. I was amazed this was not mentioned by Rush today.
If it comes to light that the Marxist called off a rescue mission or just went to bed without acting, then that will damage and tarnish his presidency a hell a lot more than lying to the nation which his voters don’t seem to mind anyway.
I cannot believe that Petraeus was not asked about a rescue mission. We are entitled to know about that vital part of his testimony.