Petraeus told the committee (on September 14th) that the Benghazi attack arose out of spontaneous protests over the “Innocence of Muslims” video. His prestige gave great weight to the administration's story in those key days after the attack. That testimony, Krauthammer says, is "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?...Krauthammer's theory contains the assumption that the administration didn't need Petraeus anymore after Election Day. Yet the very statement of the theory hurts the administration, and that injury only occurs because they did drop the sword on Petraeus. The administration still needs to get through its Benghazi problem. This presents a puzzle. What's the advantage in exposing Petraeus now? Perhaps the idea is for him to embody the misbegotten "Innocence of Muslims" story, which is now rejected. Others who passed that story along — notably Susan Rice, who may be the Secretary of State — can be restored to health after the surgical removal of the Petraeus cancer. Rice's conspicuous Sunday show appearances took place on the 16th. She said:
Of course it was being held over Petraeus’s head, and the sword was lowered on Election Day. You don’t have to be a cynic to see that as the ultimate in cynicism. As long as they needed him to give the administration line... everybody was silent. And as soon as the election’s over, as soon as he can be dispensed with, the sword drops and he’s destroyed....
Based on the best information we have to date ... it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.Based on the best information... Make that Petraeus... and now he's gone. Except he's not gone. He's the most conspicuous man in the world right now. The cancer on the Presidency is lying exposed — grisly and repulsive — on the surgical tray that is the media.
Posts
101 comments:
I don't have much faith in the media being honest brokers of fact in this regretful charade.
I don't see the importance of Benghazi, which seems like just an ordinary Obama fuckup.
It doesn't get to the actual problem, which is Obama's unfitness for office, in every field.
What's the advantage in exposing Petraeus now? Perhaps the idea is for him to embody the misbegotten "Innocence of Muslims" story, which is now rejected.
Petraeus leaked that the CIA did not order the local attack response to stand dawn, which increases criticism of the White House and State Dept. They're getting rid of the guy who won't protect the shield.
Very little this adminstration does makes sense to me. It's either totally brilliant politcing or total incompetence.
Either way the media's passivity in these matters is criminal.
Yet the very statement of the theory hurts the administration, and that injury only occurs because they did drop the sword on Petraeus.
Maybe Obama just wanted to contain the story until after the election. The cynical belief is that he will never be impeached. "After the election I will have more flexibility." Thus, in Obama's view, our ability to fire him is gone now. So it doesn't really matter how much "damage" is inflicted on Obama.
Also, Obama is so egotistical he doesn't think it will hurt him at all. And he knows his sycophant media will protect him.
I don't trust the media or the Obama administration.
After Susan Rice and Jay Carney lied for 4+ weeks about "the video" - these people have lost all credibility.
Ann: That's a concise and lucid telling of the essentials to an important story that is getting lost in the weeds of sex scandal.
Thanks.
You keep reporting details about this in a way that leads me to believe you think there is some kind of a "tipping point" at which the MSM will open it's eyes and treat this Democratic president they same as they've treated every Republican president.
I just don't believe it's possible for the media to return to objectivity under this administration. They're "all in" for Obama.
I don't think they intended to expose Petraeus. He did that himself, possibly just because he knew about the fuss within the FBI and realized it could not be contained, and he probably thought that the most nearly "honorable" thing for him to do was to wait until after the election. Not so unreasonable, since if he had resigned before, it most certainly would have been trumpeted as part of a dastardly Republican plot to embarrass Obama.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive," etc. and so forth.
"Maybe Obama just wanted to contain the story until after the election." Seems to me that's it. What else matters?
Petraeus knows the truth (and was perhaps lying for Obama/ the CIA - but that lie wasn't going to hold forever), and the false reality only mattered up until Obama was dragged across the finish line.
Petraeus will reveal nothing new if he testifies again IMO with the other sword of prosecution still dangling.
This presents a puzzle. What's the advantage in exposing Petraeus now?
Are we sure who, exactly, "exposed" him.
Did Petreaus expose himself? When he tendered his resignation after the election, did he know for certain that the sex scandal would necessarily come out?
If he gave the administration what it wanted, testimony that fit their narrative and silence through the election, maybe he thought he might be spared the scandal.
But without the scandal, the administration would have to answer for the resignation, which without the scandal would have pointed solely to Benghazi.
Now the administration gets to work the gray area in between with a heretofore compliant media.
Why would Petraeus expose himself?
People die, sometimes by accident in unexpected ways. He has a soldiers instinct for survival, it doesn't matter a threat was real or imagined
It's a two-fer:
1) The Press has a salacious sex scanadal (involving a suspected Republican) to excuse their continued lack of coverage of Benghazi.
2) The administration has a now-discredited fall guy. "Petraeus told us..." And when he denies it, he's the lying liar who had the affair and resigned in disgrace. Who's going to believe him?
So, a general appointed by Bush gets caught up in a private sex scandal. This hurts President Obama, how?
Though I am enjoying watching you Althouse Hillbillies frothing at the mouth, seething over being totally rejected.
Yee-Haa!
on the surgical tray that is the media.
You mean, 'under the carpet' that is the media, for this gang of thugs.
There seems to be a common thread in the responses so far, Media Malfeasance....
I believe Obama is going to have his first press conference since forever today, we'll see what kind of questions are asked, and the indignance with which Obama responds.
Again...that is assuming the media cares that Obama or his people lied.
They don't.
Jay,
Bush appointed Petraeus as CIA Director?
I'm not interested in all this mental masturbation, but it continues to amaze me how many people will sacrifice every principle for Obama, man who has lied to them repeatedly and come up short on every bit of promise. He's gonna need to perform a few miracles, be crucified, and rise from the dead to deserve it. How many journalist, pundits, and regular folks have fallen far and hard. People, who confronted with their hypocrisy and lack of discernment, now just shrug, and willing accept what would have been repugnant just a few years ago. I have lost respect for so many . I hope Petraeus does not turn out to be a disciple as well. We could use a clear-headed Judas about now.
It's Bush's fault!!!
Taranto speculated that the Administration had knowledge that Benghazi was being used as a detention facility. Thus the video-inspired uprising story was to hide the fact that the CIA operated such prisons in violation of Obama's executive order 13491 banning them. In that context, as head of the CIA, Patraeus would have many reasons to peddle the false story, but wouldn't the national security and CIA secrecy considerations be enough? Once the story was shown to be obviously false and Patraeus was already damaged goods, it makes perfect political sense for the administration to scapegoat him. Such a plan merely depends on the media's willingness to go along.
And Please don't put "froth" in my mouth.
I believe Obama is going to have his first press conference since forever today, we'll see what kind of questions are asked
"Mr. President, what is more exciting about your re-election: The fact that millions of people still love you after all those nasty things the Republicans said, or the fact that you crushed that evil capitalist Romney..."
This is just one of those "scandals" that makes people eyes glaze over.
"I was embedded with Gen. Petraeus in Afghanistan, and it was a little confusing to some of the folks there because I am also a military reservist with a top secret FBI clearance and then some,"
Memeory Hole:
Paula Broadwell University of Denver Speech Video Pulled Down from YouTube
Now, I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted."
"Ho-hum"
Just ignore the facts. SEX!
Petraeus won't tell the truth; the administration will threaten quietly to prosecute him and take away his pensions if he doesn't go lying quietly into the not very good night.
I guess West Point doesn't make 'em like they used to. I think it was the class after his that had the huge cheating scandal, but I'll bet there were issues in his class as well.
I don't think this administration cares any more what anyone thinks. I think they fell they are accountable to no one. The press will certainly continue to carry their water. As Obama said, after the election he'll have much more leeway.
Just ignore the facts. TITS!
The CIA did not operate a "black prison" in Benghazi. It was the United Federation of Planets.
You keep reporting details about this in a way that leads me to believe you think there is some kind of a "tipping point" at which the MSM will open its eyes
I think you will see this. You will see divides in the MSM. For instance, compare this party line NYT story, with this more damning NYT story.
Here is Business Insider repeating the Newsmax story.
And I'm not sure Newsmax is a credible source, by the way. They've done a lot of shoddy journalism. But it's kind of like the National Inquirer breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
And here is Time magazine openly questioning why Obama did not know. Like a lot of people, they are finding it hard to believe.
"what Charles Krauthammer thinks."
Krauthammer also "thought" Obama would lose ...
Charles Krauthammer: It Will Be Very Close But Mitt Romney Will Win the Presidency
btw, does Krauthammer actually get paid to think ?!? Rhetorical.
And please don't put a frothy "glaze" in my eyes.
An NPR program I listen to (on the media) did a story last Sunday night about how "open" the Obama administration is. Conclusion? More closed, less open, and more invasive than the Bush administration. This from NPR, But their commentator didn't seem too bothered by it. Because "now he has a chance to make good on those unfulfilled campaign promises from his first term"
"…on the surgical tray that is the media."
No problem, then. The administration will skate right through this.
Actually, the two NYT stories just represent different branches of the government. The first is an utterly uncritical regurgitation of Obama talking points. "Obama didn't know."
The second story isn't "more damning," but it reflects the consternation within the Senate Intelligence committee, including Senator Feinstein.
I actually think the NYT will cover up for Obama regardless of what he does.
But the Time magazine is a good example of how the MSM might fracture and abandon the party line.
So froth away Althouse Hillbillies. I am out the door to enjoy another sunny, Obama-is-still-president, glorious day!
" I am enjoying watching you Althouse Hillbillies frothing at the mouth, seething over being totally rejected.".
+ 2% "totally"
I will never be ashamed of supporting the Romney campaign. It was serious, adult, and respectful, and he was a candidate with a long record of success and qualifications.
You won, but I'm proud of my choice, and could not be if I was you. We'll see how much more you are willing to swallow. There aren't a lot of Chicago Black Sox fans, but then baseball is serious business.
Apologies to Hillbillies!
This is simple. The timing was determined by the election, everything else was not that important. Once Obama got through the election, he needed a Benghazi fall guy. The logical choice for fall guy was either Petraeus or Hillary. Since Hillary is a possible dem prez nominee in 2016, that left Petraeus as the fall guy. He is ousted from the CIA now to make it muuuch more difficult for him to defend himself because he no longer has the resources of the CIA at his disposal. Since he lied to Congress about Benghazi, many will be skeptical about any further testimony from him.
Obama has no fear now, even if the House impeaches him, the senate will never convict Obama.
The people who voted for Obama don't care about this for a variety of reasons.
Examining evidence = "frothing"
"the surgical tray that is the media"
That was a joke, right?
I had hoped that Benghazi would be a big enough deal to actually have an impact on Barry and his administration. But that hope was pinned on enough good people on both the left and the right to pay attention and demand answers and, if needed, justice.
That hope disappeared on election day. Now it's obvious that those who voted for Obama (garage, shiloh, Inga) don't give a rat's ass if he is crooked and incompetent and probably got those Americans killed, and those of us who do care are sadly powerless to do anything about it.
This isn't even interesting reading anymore.
Compromised generals and Obama’s coming,
We're finally on our own.
This fall I could barely hear the drumming,
Four dead in Benghazi.
Gotta get down to it
Terrorists are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew them
And found them dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
"Krauthammer also "thought" Obama would lose ..."
And Obama though Unemployment would be a 5% by now and the deficit cut in half by now. I can live with Krauthammer calling a close election wrong. Winning the election was not something he promised me to get his vote. Sucker.
Petraeus now reportedly actively seeking to testify before Congress re: Benghazi.
It just remains to be seen if it's an attempt to protect himself from further attack by repeating the Administration line or to finally open up.
Speaking of critical/rational thought, Althouse was also quite delusional ... twice! :-P
My observation of the entire scene tells me Romney will have a decisive win.
And no, not a big deal, 'cause most folk don't care what Althouse thinks, except it makes her fit in nicely w/the rest of her erroneous/daydreaming flock.
"Hillbillies" = Racist dog whistle on white southerners. When my parents moved from the South up to Detroit to find work after WWII, my father had a hard time finding a place to rent. The reason? Many places had signs that said "No N***rs and No Hillbillies". Seriously. I normally do not respond to trolls, but STFU. There, I feel better now.
Hey goofballs-
Don't kid yourselves. Your only interest in this is that you think it hurts President Obama. You know it is a tenuous thin reed to use to attack the President-but that is all you have.
Suck. On. It.
It just remains to be seen if it's an attempt to protect himself from further attack
He's toast. He might as well go down swinging.
Now to a real post. Obama doesn't have a thing to worry about with the press conference. He will be asked questions like, "You must be very upset over having trusted a Bush appointee, ...".
"I can live with Krauthammer"
But can you live w/yourself bagoh20? As you were a complete idiot re: your laughable presidential prediction!
Hey goofballs-
Don't kid yourselves. Your only interest in this is that you think it hurts President Obama. You know it is a tenuous thin reed to use to attack the President-but that is all you have.
Suck. On. It.
Why lie about the impetus for the attack at all?
He was re-elected. That's all that matters. To the extent anything doesn't make sense now it was clear from the moment the incident happened on through Nov 6, that keeping the lid on with the great help of most of the media was paramount.
Mission accomplished. Now its just about sex and boob jobs
Except they don't need him. With the press sweeping this under the rug (see politico's 'hard' questions), and a Democrat controlled senate that won't vote to impeach even if the hosue successfully brought impeachment charges, there is no chance that this actually. Everyone seems to be operating under the assumption that America is still as it was in 1972. that America is long gone. this administration has straight up lied time and again, boldly, and it's followers (especially the media) have listened and said, "yup, sounds good to me", even with the most implausible of assertions.
Two very dishonorable narcissists.
We deserve them!
OT: Kevin Clash accuser recants.
Four men are dead after calling for help. The President claims he ordered that we send help. He went to bed without ensuring his orders were carried out. His orders were not carried out.
We don't know why, as yet. All we know are four good men are dead.
And your response is "Suck. On. It."
Good to know. I'm sure their families will be satisfied with that.
Weasel.
Aren't the Obama sycophants here repeatedly making the point that the only important consideration is that Obama won the election? And they predicted it.
Why would we expect those inside the administration look at the situation any differently?
"But can you live w/yourself bagoh20?"
Absolutely. I made the correct, wise, and responsible choice. You violated your own principles, and swallowed lies and broken promises like dog treats. I suspect you will also have no problem swallowing that Obama had secret prison camps and possibly even tortured prisoners. You have proven you will swallow anything, and then open wide for more.
Yes, I can live with myself proudly. I didn't vote for exactly what I said I loathe just a few short years ago. I only predicted an election wrong. You compromised on everything meaningful. I can see why you would want to pretend that winning is the same as being right. It's all you have left.
There's a theory much of this "scandal" has been concocted to discredit Petraeus.
He spouted the Administration line, but undoubtedly has stuff on Choomie, and they were hoping the resignation alone would obviate the need for his testimony.
That didn't work, so they have to discredit his word.
shiloh said...
what Charles Krauthammer thinks.
Krauthammer also "thought" Obama would lose ...
Charles Krauthammer: It Will Be Very Close But Mitt Romney Will Win the Presidency
Maybe that's because OH has 300,000 votes to count that could still hand the state to Romney.
Hmmmm, wonder how many more states there are like that?
And, while we're wondering, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Riffling through Broadwell's wallet?
PS Kraut is a JD and a MD psychiatrist. Doubtless, he is smarter than the little weasel and Ned Silver combined.
But, like everyone else, he was expecting an honest count.
There's a theory much of this "scandal" has been concocted to discredit Petraeus.
He spouted the Administration line, but undoubtedly has stuff on Choomie, and they were hoping the resignation alone would obviate the need for his testimony.
That didn't work, so they have to discredit his word.
shiloh said...
what Charles Krauthammer thinks.
Krauthammer also "thought" Obama would lose ...
Charles Krauthammer: It Will Be Very Close But Mitt Romney Will Win the Presidency
Maybe that's because OH has 300,000 votes to count that could still hand the state to Romney.
Hmmmm, wonder how many more states there are like that?
And, while we're wondering, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Riffling through Broadwell's wallet?
PS Kraut is a JD and a MD psychiatrist. Doubtless, he is smarter than the little weasel and Ned Silver combined.
But, like everyone else, he was expecting an honest count.
Jay - Shouldn't you get back to masturbating in front of your full size Obama cardboard?
Especially since you are not interested in reality or facts. Go on – have some fun. That's all that matters.
bagoh20, you could have just said yes, I can live w/myself and spared us your inane rationalizations ...
If about 200k voters in 4 states had voted Romney instead of Obama (making a delta of about 400k votes), Romney would have won the election. 200k out of a total of about 120 million votes cast is a tiny fraction, 1/6 of one percent.
200k votes is probably way under the number of illegal votes the dems perpetrated. It is awesome that Philly alone had many voting districts with 100% turnout and 100% dem votes.
"Aren't the Obama sycophants here repeatedly making the point that the only important consideration is that Obama won the election? And they predicted it."
They weren't arguing well before the election, and now somehow they think winning the election has validated everything they ever said. What is really sad is that they seem to be saying that everything Obama did wrong, even by their own standards, is now right. Clearly winning is paramount and resets all your principles to: "whatever Obama does is cool with me. I'm a winner. yahoo!" They're spouting it like they are proud of it.
I'm proud to not be in that club, and don't want anyone to think I was. I did not vote for Obama! I'd get a bumper sticker if I didn't value my paint job.
It's estimated at least - and I say at least in the expectation that the story of 10% of Romney votes flipped to Choom on those voting machines to be the tip of a very large iceberg - a half million were stolen.
shiloh said...
bagoh20, you could have just said yes, I can live w/myself and spared us your inane rationalizations ...
Of course, the little weasel can live with himself. So could Lavrenti Beria.
So, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Walking naked in Mom's basement listening to old Hopenchange speeches?
"bagoh20, you could have just said yes, I can live w/myself and spared us your inane rationalizations ..."
I'm trying to give you an opportunity to say something more substantial and less embarrassingly childish than just "We won."
You got anything?
old Hopenchange
Have you ever popped open a can of Old Hopenchange?
It tastes like failure.
"Four men are dead after calling for help. The President claims he ordered that we send help. He went to bed without ensuring his orders were carried out. His orders were not carried out."
People who voted for Obama don't care about that for a variety of reasons.
Obama'll keep lying; the media will lose interest in the Obama angle (especially when there are large breasted Tampa girls involved) and we'll be on to the next shiny object.
Holder was told this summer. Even if he told Obama, we'll never know. It WAS strange that Holder publicly flirted with quitting. Wonder what Obama promised him?
"People who voted for Obama don't care about that for a variety of reasons."
Tosaguy, they already told you "We won." What more is there to talk about.
You can't insult them, because they can always fall back on "Obama thinks I'm cool." That's enough for them.
bagoh, politics come down to winners and losers.
The why's and whertefore's re: Romney losing I'll let you chew on the next (4) years! Most pundits, even delusional cons like yourself, have already figured it out.
" The cancer on the Presidency is lying exposed — grisly and repulsive — on the surgical tray that is the media. "
Under more blankets and lead shields than two big hospitals would have.
I read somewhere that Eli Lake said, in the Daily Beast, that there is an exception to rule 13491 that says prisoners can be detained for a couple days by the CIA.
Since Broadwell leaked the prisoner details after being questioned, she was probably putting it out there so she wouldn't be found dead in Marcy Park. More than one source said she seemed jubilant, jazzed, or some such.
But can you live w/yourself bagoh20? As you were a complete idiot re: your laughable presidential prediction!
stupid bagoh and krauthammer and romney. they thought the parasite class was 47% instead of 51% you stupid hosts aren't long for this world.
So Shiloh, you really don't have anything else. Thanks for election update. We can hardly wait for your next installment.
"We can hardly wait for your next installment."
Indeed, you and Althouse #1 doting, trained seal and a few others lol.
Again, there are many Althouse con idiots I zip right over as it's a real time saver!
"politics come down to winners and losers."
Shiloh, You're not a politician, you're their prey. After they crap you out, you stand and proudly proclaim which rectum you are from. To help you out here, the way you can do more than that is to tell us why what Obama is doing is right. A clue: "He won" isn't it.
Actually polls, and don't we all love frickin' polls, indicate America still tilts slightly conservative, even though moderates lead cons by 44 to 34% roughly. So, one can rationally determine Obama won because of the power of incumbency, his superior GOTV, changing demos and last but not least ...
Most folk weren't buying what shyster/charlatan, flip/flopping extraordinaire, Romney, was selling.
And the ever changing demos don't look good going forward for Reps. And no, Marco Rubio won't lead cons to the promised land as it's about policy, not personality.
If/when Hillary runs in 2012 it should be quite interesting as she's "white and female" and extremely popular w/minorities just like Obama.
Be afraid, be very afraid!
shiloh said...
Again, there are many Althouse con idiots I zip right over as it's a real time saver!
Which is why he always answers our retorts to his inane drivel.
But, while we're talking drivel, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Begging Althouse for a date?
Or just mercy?
It is quite plausible to me that in the end it was Petraeus who forced the resignation. I think he was conscious that his September 14th testimony was dishonest and dishonorable. He faced the prospect of being manipulated by the administration for the remainder of his career, and basically told Obama he wasn't going to play ball any longer.
Again, this presidential election was not a close call, just ask Nate Silver!
In addition to we "we won" we now get the insightful "And we will will keep winnning."
Still nothing, absolutely nothing. Ok, I'll leave with that. You won. Bless your heart.
Someone give bagoh20 a hug!
Just remember when you blame Bush for stuff, that he "won" too. So nothing he did has to be defended. It was all right by your own standard.
Rice's Sunday-show performance was a tour de force of mendacity. While she will try, as Ann observes, to hide behind Petraeus for the "it's all about the video" lies, she also repeatedly claimed that the deaths of the two ex-SEALs -- whom she characterized as security contractors -- "proved" that the State Department had made adequate provisions for security. We now know what she knew at the time of those lies: Ambassador Stephens repeatedly warned about inadequate security and the State Department did nothing; the SEALs were not part of the State Department security team; the SEALs instead worked for the CIA and were directed by their chain of command to "stand down" and not assist the consulate; it was their disobeyance of that order that led them to rescue a score of other US personnel at the consulate and bring them to the CIA Annex, although by then Ambassador Stephens and another State Dep't employee had already been murdered; and the SEALs were killed defending the Annex, not the consulate.
Susan Rice disgraced herself. In a just world, there would be consequences for that.
"Ok, I'll leave with that."
"Just remember ..."
Apparently, bagoh20 finds it hard to leave!
If Petraeus contradicts his previous testimony we'll be told we don't need to listen to him, because he's just a "bitter former staffer".
These professional journalists already know that Obama has lied to them. The people here who insist that it was all about some video know they've been lied to. They voted for him anyway. What's one more lie?
Four men are dead after calling for help. The President claims he ordered that we send help. He went to bed without ensuring his orders were carried out. His orders were not carried out.
Is this true? Is Obama claiming he ordered one of his commanders to send help to Benghazi and his order was disobeyed? If that's the case wouldn't the general or admiral who disobeyed his order be under arrest by now? Or is Obama claiming that he gave an order but didn't repeat the order so everyone, himself included, is off the hook?!
Lie to Congress? Perish the thougth! Petraeus simply followed orders from his Leader. Good Nazis did that to. Good Communist did that to.
Petraeus needs to become a John Dean and rat it all out for the offer of immunity.
Jason said...
Four men are dead after calling for help. The President claims he ordered that we send help. He went to bed without ensuring his orders were carried out. His orders were not carried out.
We don't know why, as yet. All we know are four good men are dead.
==================
As others have pointed out, GOOD LUCK with rallying the American public to bring down a President over 4 DEAD HERO MARTYRS!!! and lies at the highest level!!
When it can pointed out that the same righties screaming about Benghazi helped keep Bush in office and no investigations save the Plame idiocy of the Left - when lies and terrible Neocon ideology cost us:
1. Two lost wars lasting longer than Vietnam.
2. Two trillion pissed down defense contractor, Base fobbits, and "friendly Muslim" ratholes.
3. 45,000 dead, maimed, or injured Hero Soldiers.
4. And cost us enormous respect abroad.
Compared to that, 4 DEAD HEROES of Benghazi!!! - is some small shit in the scale of things.
And keep in mind that Benghazi:
1. Did not happen in isolation. Sept 11th was a massive security challenge with all but Benghazi triggered by Islamists using the video to whip up crowds. Sept 11th also had 8 large volatile demonstrations and 3 major attacks launched on embassies. 2 that were overrun by Islamists with destruction and pillage of US property, and 1 in Yemen that became a serious attack - that was repulsed with many dead and injured demonstrators.
2. Benghazi itself was a caution that in war, the 1st Amendment has to be drawn back (as it was in other US wars) - to avoid giving the enemy propaganda ammunition. Reports of people that have gone and contacted members of Ansar al-Sharia learned that each fighter was prepped for combat with info on US atrocities on Muslims, and the Blasphemy was presented to the "Benghazi troops" asked to risk life and limb as the last straw.
(Marines getting ready to storm Japanese-held islands were prepped to kill the same way by US propagandists using ammunition the Japs had stupidly gifted us with. Always enough truth mixed in with lies like mass rapes of captured white women to make it credible.)
I want to know: what does Petraeus have left to lose now?
Can he be criminally charged with anything?
Can they take his generous pension and benefits?
Would these things matter if he wants to go down in a blaze of glory and then French kiss the blue steel?
I'll give bagoh20 a hug. I find him cuddly. Even when he's prickly.
Belmont Club seems to be onto the right questions (read to the end).
All the troublesome brass are being removed.
rhhardin.
Thanks for the link.
According the a recent release by the CIA none of you are right and I suspect after tomorrow this will be another FAUX tempest in a tea pot.
Post a Comment