General David Petraeus had to be a bit uncomfortable as he appeared before Congress this week. One of the most respected and decorated generals of our time, he walked onto Capitol Hill carrying the burden of a scandal.
But did General Petraeus step down, so that bullies in the Obama administration could not blackmail him, or prevent him from continuing to speak out against the lies of The White House?
Petraeus may be guilty of adultery, but NO ONE has ever dared accuse him of lacking courage. FROM FOX NEWS:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over
the Obama administration’s handling of the Libyan terror attack, testifying Friday that references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points — while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.
General Petraeus said he investigated the Benghazi, Libya attack HIMSELF. Within days he made a formal report stating that Al Qaeda was responsible for attacking our Libyan consulate on September 11th, an obvious effort to mark Al Qaeda’s historic attack on New York City. Petraeus’ report was apparently not flattering to other agencies in the administration. According to the Wall Street Journal, the general’s already contentious relationship at the CIA, became moreso as Petraeus refused to be quiet about the trail of lies about the Benghazi tragedy concocted by The White House. Apparently, after General Petraeus reported Al Qaeda was the culprit, that fact was erased from communications. A NEW sets of facts were generated, UN
Ambassador Susan Rice was the first to put them on the record. The appearance now is that lies, and coordinated lies, were carefully-crafted to keep up the image of the President in the final weeks of a tough campaign.
The Obama administration had prided itself in embracing an “Arab Spring.” Osama bin Laden was captured and the achievement was promoted as if Barack Obama deserved some of the credit. Most importantly, the bad press about President Obama missing a large share of his daily security
briefings would be especially damaging when coupled with a surprise attack on Americans, by Al Qaeda on 9-11.
Better that the whole ugly mess was the work of an evil video…attacking Islam.
This is the story line emerging in the growing coverage of Benghazi by the major media this week. It’s a tale that is too rich in scandal for even the friendly New York media to ignore. But the most important story may be that General Petraeus, exposed in an embarrassing affair, gave up his job rather than line up with Hillary Clinton, the President, the UN Ambassador and others sent out to pretend like Al Qaeda was never involved. A U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were murdered by Al Qaeda, and The White House
appears to have tried to cover it up.
Equally worrisome? The Obama administration clearly had a big “end game” for this election. Online, with substantial investments in the most cunning social networking strategies ever in the history of U.S. campaigns. The only thing that could have compromised their sure-fire win….was for a giant international scandal or an unforseen Al Qaeda attack exposing President Obama’s administration as weak and unprepared to protect Americans.
So was it just one lie? Or was it many? Read more here: