Petraeus and Bhengazi

I'm mystified by what the conservabots think he is going to say that will be helpful in their witch-hunt.

Anybody want to take bets that his testimony will largely exonerate the White House of all the conspiracy theories being floated around by the whackadoos?

Depends on what his testimony uncovers.They can be like Charlie Brown,a hero or a goat.

...the conspiracy theories being floated around ... Originally Posted by timpage

What "theories"?

I'm mystified by what the conservabots think he is going to say that will be helpful in their witch-hunt.

Anybody want to take bets that his testimony will largely exonerate the White House of all the conspiracy theories being floated around by the whackadoos? Originally Posted by timpage

+1

Nothing...he'll back the regime up 100%....they got more shit on him....disgracing him and his wife was just a warning......

Nothing...he'll back the regime up 100%...... Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

He wants to keep his retirement......so does the wife!

18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and our military monitored the battle in real time starting with the first phone calls directly from Benghazi.
A small military force from Tripoli was dispatched and was able to rescue some personnel hiding in other buildings. Ambassador Stevens remained missing, as did these three men. The fire-fight raged on.
The shocking news of October 22 was that a drone ordered in from Tripoli sent back images of the attack in real time. The battle was sent on streaming video direct to the Situation Room in the White House. Within two hours, emails from Benghazi reported that Al Qaeda in Libya was claiming responsibility.
President Obama, our Commander-in-Chief, had military options available to try and save our men. He could have had the drone armed with Hellfire missiles. He could have scrambled fighter jets from Sicily to drive off the attackers. He could have dropped in Special Forces. He had seven hours to take action.
He did nothing. Doherty and Woods died in the last hour of the attack.

What "theories"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You're right, "fantasies" would be a better word.

The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and our military monitored the battle in real time starting with the first phone calls directly from Benghazi.
A small military force from Tripoli was dispatched and was able to rescue some personnel hiding in other buildings. Ambassador Stevens remained missing, as did these three men. The fire-fight raged on.
The shocking news of October 22 was that a drone ordered in from Tripoli sent back images of the attack in real time. The battle was sent on streaming video direct to the Situation Room in the White House. Within two hours, emails from Benghazi reported that Al Qaeda in Libya was claiming responsibility.
President Obama, our Commander-in-Chief, had military options available to try and save our men. He could have had the drone armed with Hellfire missiles. He could have scrambled fighter jets from Sicily to drive off the attackers. He could have dropped in Special Forces. He had seven hours to take action.
He did nothing. Doherty and Woods died in the last hour of the attack. Originally Posted by tttalinky

Petraeus just gave a statement that his resignation had nothing to do with Libya.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...908.html?hp=l4

The single one thing that the Admimistration does not want to be let known is all of this happenned because the State Department did not want to antagonize the Muslims.

We sacrificed four Americans because of this. Any retaliation in real time would have resulted in quite a bit of collateral damage.

It all goes back to the first question that anybody should ask. Why, in a very hostile inviroment, was our embasy left with such a smathering of protection. And, on of all days, the 11th aniversary of 9-11.

The blood of these four Americans is on the hands of what ever sorry sack of shit political correct thinking bastard decided that "it's no big deal".

The entire Middle East is a dangerous place. What right thinking person would not know this.

The single one thing that the Admimistration does not want to be let known is all of this happenned because the State Department did not want to antagonize the Muslims.

We sacrificed four Americans because of this. Any retaliation in real time would have resulted in quite a bit of collateral damage.

It all goes back to the first question that anybody should ask. Why, in a very hostile inviroment, was our embasy left with such a smathering of protection. And, on of all days, the 11th aniversary of 9-11.

The blood of these four Americans is on the hands of what ever sorry sack of shit political correct thinking bastard decided that "it's no big deal".

The entire Middle East is a dangerous place. What right thinking person would not know this. Originally Posted by Jackie S

+1 Odumbo's foreign policy in a word: "APPEASEMENT"!

+1 Odumbo's foreign policy in a word: "APPEASEMENT"! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

How the heck do you come up with that? It's just bizarre and flies in the face of every fact that we know.

1. He has personalized "hit lists" where he chooses the next terrorist to get a drone missile up his ass.

2. He upped the ante in Afghanistan with the surge.

3. He authorized US forces to enter Pakistan without permission, a sovereign entity and an ally, to kill Osama Bin Laden.

The list goes on and on......you just look stupid when you parrot what Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative entertainment industry feeds you, instead of objectively assessing what we all know to be are facts. Facts, not political spin desiged to gain an advantage for the GOP.

The single one thing that the Admimistration does not want to be let known is all of this happenned because the State Department did not want to antagonize the Muslims.

We sacrificed four Americans because of this. Any retaliation in real time would have resulted in quite a bit of collateral damage.

It all goes back to the first question that anybody should ask. Why, in a very hostile inviroment, was our embasy left with such a smathering of protection. And, on of all days, the 11th aniversary of 9-11.

The blood of these four Americans is on the hands of what ever sorry sack of shit political correct thinking bastard decided that "it's no big deal".

The entire Middle East is a dangerous place. What right thinking person would not know this. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Thing I have asked and none of you experts have answered is-If it was known well in advance of 9/11 about attacks.Why was the Ambassador where he was?

Stupidity, Incompetence, Arrogance, any number of reasons.................maybe he was told to stay put despite the threats.

Why is it important. The fact that he knew he was in a dangerous situation is established fact......

Thing I have asked and none of you experts have answered is-If it was known well in advance of 9/11 about attacks.Why was the Ambassador where he was? Originally Posted by ekim008

Why was the Ambassador where he was? Originally Posted by ekim008

That was his assigned post. Apparently he had requested additional security and it was not provided. In that process if anyone really gives a shit about his ass then if they cannot afford to "protect" him, as is spuriously claimed from time-to-time by political idiots, then they "bring him home" with the rest of the "troops" in harms way!

It's really not space science. Even Hillary knows that ...

.. since she had to dodge sniper fire on the tarmac in Eastern Europe when "1st lady"! And I won't even mention why she didn't answer the ...

... 3 a.m. phone call about inadequate security for "her people" in Libya.

Or just dream up some bullshit reasons:

!. Romney's Fault
2. Bush's Fault
3. Republicans didn't fund enough to cover the air fare home.
4. All of the above.