Posted on 05/10/2013 4:39:03 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
Someone risked a low presence in Benghazi. Was the risk honorable? The only reason I can think of to maintain a low profile to the point of endangering personnel, is to “play friends” with the locals under the notion we are all just citizens of the world like anyone else.
One should not undertake a risk like that without having the means at hand to intervene quickly and with force in the event matters get out of control. This whole thing is really bad news, even if one tries to put the best construction on it. With the people currently holding high office I find it very difficult to put the best construction on anything at all.
Subpoena Petreaus. His testimony could sink the 0’s ship.
Your statement should not be taken out of the rel-hm of possibilities. It is hard to believe at this point where the good general does not feel that he was betrayed.
“It is hard to believe at this point where the good general does not feel that he was betrayed.”
The 0 has already used one thing against him. He may, or may not have another bribe/extortion point. BUT at this time, would such an extortion threat be enough to keep Petreaus quiet? Prolly not.
He, no doubt, has enough info to sink the 0 lower than whale shit (and that’s at the bottom of the ocean!
“The liberal Democratic media will have to make a choice between Obama and Hillary. Maybe Rahm can broker a deal for them with the media and which form of propaganda to utilize. The Democratic Party cannot take the hit since it is the same as the Democratic Media.”
In either event, the MSM will be shown to be the scum bags they truly are.
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.