General David Petraeus to Testify Before House Intelligence Committee on Benghazi

[QuietDan]

This is VERY good news.

This is the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Chaired by Congressman Mike Rogers, Republican, from the Eighth District of Michigan.

This is where the Truth will come out on Benghazi. It is a Classified Brief, therefore it's Closed to the public and the media. You can be sure that Congressman Rogers will make some sort of public statement shortly after the meeting adjourns.

For what it's worth, Michele Bachmann, Republican, Sixth District of Minnesota, is also a member of the Committee.

Sorry I don't have a link to this press release, it should be posted soon here:

[url="http://intelligence.house.gov/"]http://intelligence.house.gov/[/url]


******************************************************************************************************************

[center][b]General David Petraeus to Testify Before [/b][/center]
[center][b]House Intelligence Committee on Benghazi [/b][/center]



WASHINGTON, D.C. – General David Petraeus will testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Benghzai on Friday, November 16, 2012, at 7:30am. The hearing will be closed to the public.



[b]What: House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence CLOSED Hearing[/b]
[b]Topic: Benghazi[/b]
[b]When: Friday, November 16, 2011[/b]
[indent=1][b]7:30am[/b][/indent]
[b]Where: HVC-304 (the hearing is CLOSED to the public[/b][b] and the media)[/b]



The witness:[list]
[*]General David Petraeus
[/list] Edited November 15, 2012 by QuietDan

[Wingshooter]

Let's hope the truth is revealed and changes are made to protect Americans in the future.

[Guest ThePunisher]

[quote name='Batman' timestamp='1352942006' post='845822']
Let's hope the truth is revealed and changes are made to protect Americans in the future.
[/quote]

The first step to protect Americans would be to install an honest and non-corrupt voting system in America. Electing corrupt politicians is the biggest danger to all Americans and our country's form of government. Trust in our government means having trust in our nation's security.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not going to hold my breath about this. I wisjh someone had the balls to let it out to the public, Petraeus
included. There is a limit somewhere to this "classified" crap. We already know enough in the public domain
that should be enough to impeach Mr. Alinsky. The only thing I think Petraeus could be saying would be what
he had direct knowledge to and how far he had control of the information. He could directly refute the president's
so-called public statement about giving the order to do what needs to be done, which I seriously doubt he said,
except to his dog on the White House lawn.

If Petraeus did come out publicly and refute the president, Hell, he would be a national hero. He wouldn't have to
live in fear of a bullet in his ear, either.

Sometimes, the cloak of national security is a bit abused.

Unless there is something he needs to negotiate away to salvage some of his record.

I like Petraeus, but I think he could go public on this. Edited November 15, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[QuietDan]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1352943613' post='845835']
I'm not going to hold my breath about this. I wisjh someone had the balls to let it out to the public, Petraeus
included. There is a limit somewhere to this "classified" crap. We already know enough in the public domain
that should be enough to impeach Mr. Alinsky. The only thing I think Petraeus could be saying would be what
he had direct knowledge to and how far he had control of the information. He could directly refute the president's
so-called public statement about giving the order to do what needs to be done, which I seriously doubt he said,
except to his dog on the White House lawn.

If Petraeus did come out publicly and refute the president, Hell, he would be a national hero. He wouldn't have to
live in fear of a bullet in his ear, either.

Sometimes, the cloak of national security is a bit abused.

Unless there is something he needs to negotiate away to salvage some of his record.

I like Petraeus, but I think he could go public on this.
[/quote]

Petraeus is not free to speak publicly about classified stuff, but Congressman Rogers, the Chairman of the Committee, could come out and pretty much say whatever the hell he wanted to, damn the secrecy, and there wouldn't be much they could do to him other than tut-tut him. You can't arrest a Congressman in session. Whether or not they'd screw with a Congressman or censure him is another matter, but they can't put a hand over his mouth and shut him up without triggering some really bad ####.

These House Intell Committee folks are some pretty savvy characters too, they knew that the Democrat run Senate Intell Committee was talking to Petraeus on Friday, and these House folks went and snatched up Petraeus at 7:30 in the a.m. That means they get him first and they get to say first what Petraeus said to them. And stuff like that matters. I hope he freakin' sings like a songbird perched on the peak of the roof. Edited November 15, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I hope he does, too, Dan. I just don't see that much stuff that should be classified in this. The president's decision?
Nope. But I'm not talking about spook stuff, more on the line of the decision making process. I think every bit of this
fiasco should be outed.
When the president lets down people who go, for the service of their country, to perform service overseas, he needs
to be held to the same standards he expects of them. I can't imagine anyone serving their country in any capacity,
trusting that SOB ever again.
Watergate was petty theft, and it cost Nixon(he deserved it) his job. Fast and Furious got people killed and now
Benghazi cost four more lives. How much does it take?

You would think if resources were available in a situation like this, and they were, the decision would
be automatic coming from just about any other president. Hell, even Carter tried a rescue during the
Iran hostage problem. Edited November 15, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[frankmako]

he will not say much. he will dance around the question and nothing new will come out. they got to much on him. this little bit that has come out is nothing to what they got. so it want change much. it is going to be some hard time coming, for a long time.

[Guest dfsixstring]

I suspect this whole affair was known before he ever became the CIA director. This was an "ace in the hole" for the administration. Who knows what else they have on him. I suspect he's still very much a puppet of Obama and will tow the party line. I remember when he was chosen by Obama, I was very surprised at the selection - now it makes sense.


Dfsixstring
SR9c
LCP
RST4S

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Huh? I thought the affair was while he was CIA Director?

[Guest HvyMtl]

It was while he was in Afghanistan, before he became director.

I think he will say the rule set was followed. A flawed rule set probably in force since the 60's or 70's, and not looked at, as it should have been.

Beaurocracy has its own time line, and it is hardly ever fast. I think things have not changed as fast as they should have here.

His volunteering, or at least agreeing, to testify shows the affair scandal may not be related at all.

AS a friend of mine put it, " Gee, isn't he supposed to be in charge of the best spy agency in the world, and he could not cover this up? Should he have been in charge then?"

Certainly a different way of looking at it. I also wonder about the intent of the woman in question.

Petraeus was an excellent General. The nation owes him plenty. It is a shame extramerital affairs have to be this important in politics. Sometimes, France has better views than we on such.

Alhough, him being open to an affair when in an important position, may create a security risk... Can the U.S. afford having such a risk for the head of the CIA? Edited November 15, 2012 by HvyMtl

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1353005256' post='846124']
It was while he was in Afghanistan, before he became director....
[/quote]

That seems to be debatable. Some reports suggest it only ended late summer/early fall, and only lasted a couple of months.

Still lots of smoke, almost as bad as "the fog of war" excuses for Benghazi facts themselves.

- OS Edited November 15, 2012 by OhShoot

[QuietDan]

Petraeus knew the lady in Afghanistan.

Petraeus' affair did not begin until he was CIA Director, and after he had retired from the Army, it lasted about two months, and has been over for a few months after that.

It's already on the record. Edited November 15, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's what I thought. We're already seeing revision of history around here.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The House and Senate hearings are closed hearings and, if that's the case, he can speak freely, can't he?
I heard this morning that he was probably going to throw Obama under the bus in the hearings. I hope so,
so the impeachment process can be started. Even without removal by the Senate, it will hurt him, politically,
and expose him for what he is.

[gregintenn]

Somebody tell me Why Patraeus lost his job and Bill Clinton did not?

[gjohnsoniv]

[quote name='gregintenn' timestamp='1353104789' post='846846']
Somebody tell me Why Patraeus lost his job and Bill Clinton did not?
[/quote]Because he wasn't el presidente.

[Mike.357]

apparently the general has changed his stance on what happened.

[QuietDan]

[quote name='Mike.357' timestamp='1353108566' post='846876']
apparently the general has changed his stance on what happened.
[/quote]

Actually, the General is now free to speak the truth, having outed Himself from the blackmail attempt. He's not stuck parroting the party line of the bastards in the White House. The bits of the testimony we're getting from the closed door session strongly suggests that the "presidential campaign" people modified and dummied-up the Benghazi talking points. That means Axelrod or Jarrett, aka The Scum of The Earth.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I wish we could hear his testimony, though. I don't have anything against King, but I would like to have heard it from Petraeus. I
understand he may have gone into some classified stuff, but somehow I don't think anything linked to his testimony would have
to be classified. The committee wants to know who was in the loop and who made the decisions.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353119154' post='846990']
I wish we could hear his testimony, though. I don't have anything against King, but I would like to have heard it from Petraeus. I
understand he may have gone into some classified stuff, but somehow I don't think anything linked to his testimony would have
to be classified. The committee wants to know who was in the loop and who made the decisions.
[/quote]

Apparently, Petraeus made it quite clear what the CIA talking points were when it left that agency.

He also made it clear he couldn't say where along the line the narrative changed for Rice's Sunday talk show tour and another two weeks of BHO subterfuge on the Hollywood show circuit.

What I [i]didn't[/i] hear anything about was his testimony to another committee after that, parroting part of the video explanation. Oh course, the FBI, and that means BHO too, had him by the nuts at the time.

- OS Edited November 17, 2012 by OhShoot