Posted on 11/15/2012 4:29:22 PM PST by hole_n_one
Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew "almost immediately" that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Good question, unless he’s trying to say these “particular” talking points weren’t exactly what the CIA had given the White House....that obama et al had massaged those talking points into something different than the CIA had intended.
Frankly, after reading the article, I can’t see what all the excitement is all about. All the source in this article is saying, is that Petraeus claims to have known it was terrorism, but proposed the video scenario because of the 20 intelligence reports. Eventually, the video as the cause was disproven. The source isn’t saying Petraeus is changing his testimony....just that he wasn’t quite that stupid or something like that.
Whoohoo! No, but the possibilities are delicious!
What are the rules about divulging testimony in a closed session?
And as I've pointed out in another post, an unnamed source supposedly has contradicted what the Democrat congressman said.
Along those lines...anybody consider that this is a “sting” aimed at the administration?
Yes I have. Been thinking that for awhile now.
I look at it as a game of chess.
Well, not using those words but this is what Rush said how his testimony would be spun.
This may be the beginning of real fireworks.
.
.
.
PS: Hope you're staying out of trouble.
I think I’m looking at it like that...the game of chess and a John Grisham novel. Then again I probably have too much hope of justice left in my soul, even after this election.
It they don't have such evidence they are violating the rule that if you take a shot at the king, you better hit him! They are taking multiple shots...and (gasp!) even risking being called racist, the most dangerous thing in DC.
The Grand Jury is still mulling indictments, but, on the bright side, the ankle monitor is supposed to come off next month!
It's all good!
I’m hoping and praying that Petraeus was not covering but instead was gathering evidence. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part. Hard to know at this point. But if I were in charge and had to weigh the arrest of a filmmaker on one side and the treason of the President on the other side, I’d let the innocent man go to jail for a few months.
Besides, the filmmaker isn’t exactly a model citizen himself, though that doesn’t excuse his treatment. I think he is the victim of a witch hunt and cover story for 0bama. But I would think of it as being involuntarily drafted to serve his country for a few months by going to jail. Safer than a war zone.
Another thing that is interesting to me is that Petraeus announced his infidelity when he resigned. Who does that? Why? My guess is that it would be someone who is being blackmailed for it and wants to neutralize blackmail as a weapon against him. Otherwise he would not have given any reason or would have said he wanted to “spend more time with my family.” Now he is free from that information hanging over his head. Possibly a gutsy and patriotic move.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I agree...everyone keeps going on about his wife’s “big” job and his pension. If he spills the beans on Barry & Co., he would become a national hero.
i didnt think of that. he will be the new american hero. (although not for 47 percent).
The incompetence of Carter crossed with the creepiness of Nixon.
Thing is she got thee “big job” last year. Not due to recent developments in Libya/the apparent affair, etc.
:-(
As for the rebuttal; sorry, but I place a great deal more faith in a NAMED SOURCE -- even if a 'Rat, when the GOP has had two months to call him a liar and hasn't done so -- than I do an unnamed source, who can say anything without fear of contradiction or reprisal.
Haven’t read thru all the responses so this will probably be redundant. This sounds like a plant type of release, put out the worst case scenario to the BO loving media ... especially CNN ... then tomorrow Petraeus comes out with his watered down version of Benghazi and BO is inoculated by to-days release. This is a political chess game ... minimize the damage. At this point I should remind FReepers Bronco bama characterized the death of four US patriots, one of them the Ambassador to Libya, as a ˜bump in the road”.
“wowsers - things gonna get mighty hot at the WH now.”
Is it? If the testimony is behind closed doors than how are we going to find out about it?
Put me on the ping list, please...
President Biden
the sad fricking part about that, even though i hate that man for laughing like a hyenia at paul ryan, sadly, i’ll be the first to say, congratulations president biden.
I believe the ONLY source claiming that Petraeus blamed the video is a single Democrat.
That is the source you are believing over a 4-star general.
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.