Krauthammer: #Petraeus’ affair might explain his September #Benghazi testimony

Posted by: ST on November 14, 2012 at 9:27 am

Intriguing. From last night’s Fox News Special Report (via Noel Sheppard):

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.

And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s 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?

And the relevant part of what Petraeus said – and the conclusions drawn:

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”

“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus. “At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”

That was just two days after the attack. How could Petreaus have definitively stated at that time that the “offensive anti-Islam video” was what caused the Benghazi attack in which four Americans were murdered, including a US Ambassador and two Navy SEALs?

And remember, initially the President blamed the video for what happened. Most notably at the United Nations. Yet we know for a fact that within 24 hours high-ranking officials were privately speculating on an Al Qaeda link. We need answers, and soon, before the administration has any more time to further misinform the American public about what they knew – and when.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 Responses to “Krauthammer: #Petraeus’ affair might explain his September #Benghazi testimony”


  1. Kate says:

    This surely will come up when he testifies. The fact that he was beholding to the administration to keep his job…then after the election, the FBI was given a green light to open the floodgates against him proves that this was a politically motivated action to keep things quiet until there was no chance that it would hurt Obama’s reelection effort.

    I am totally appalled that this is the way Obama’s administration uses people. I feel they appointed Petreaus as CIA chief perhaps to keep their enemy close….to check his activities. Am I the only one who finds this creepy?

  2. Tina says:

    This is disappointing on many levels, not the least of which is the appearance of US govt involvement in arming Islamists and/or running secret detention centers – or that Petraeus would’ve played along with his testimony to save his job.

    Our government needs to be investigated and tried to the full extent of the law – all of them. There is no way Obama did not know about the true nature of the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks.

  3. This is proof positive the WH already knew about the FBI investigation. They held it over his head to force him to assert the video caused the attack. He was a useful idiot; when the usefulness is drained only the idiot remains.

    “For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.”–Mark 4:22

  4. Carlos says:

    OK, folks, let’s step back a minute and look at the situation in an overall view:

    This is the Obama administration we’re talking about.

    Petraeus was a part of this administration.

    No one in this administration, almost literally, has said anything anywhere close to the truth since Obama began his first presidential run in 2007.

    So now the question isn’t “why did Petraeus do this?”, the question is, “Why is anyone the least bit shocked and surprised one of Obama’s soldiers got caught with his shorts down and then hung out to dry?”

    The interesting part to me is going to be to see how the Republicans let everyone above Petraeus off the hook.

  5. Drew says:

    For the life of me I dont understand all this concern over Patreaus’ affair.

    Seems to me its just turnaround. The general is now taking orders from his privates…. :d