Petraeus Testimony: Benghazi Was Terror Attack

Posted by on Nov 16, 2012 at 10:20 am

Get ready for the smear onslaught against David Petraeus by the Obama regime.

A congressman says David Petraeus is telling lawmakers he believed all along that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack.

The former CIA chief is testifying behind closed-doors before the congressional intelligence committees. It’s his first Capitol Hill appearance since resigning last Friday over an extramarital affair.

Republican Rep. Peter King tells reporters after the House hearing that Petraeus focused his remarks on Libya.

Lawmakers say Petraeus told them that CIA talking points written after the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus says that reference was removed by other federal agencies that made changes to the CIA’s draft.

Of course we’ll never get the truth from Obama, Rice, Clinton, et al., so expect the cover-up to continue.

Tags: ,

One Response to “Petraeus Testimony: Benghazi Was Terror Attack”

  1. MT Geoff on 16/16/12 at 11:38 am

    I’d like to draw a line between impeachment, removal, and resignation about now.
    “Impeachment” means to accuse the president (or certain other officials) of misconduct through a motion in the House of Representatives. Two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. Neither was convicted, although both had majority votes to convict.
    Richard Nixon resigned when a committee voted articles of impeachment but he was not impeached.
    Impeachment relates to high crimes and misdemeanors. We’d have to have a trail of blackmail that actually lands on Obama’s desk to impeach him over the Libya events and the probable blackmail of DCI Petraeus. I’m betting that trail is real but vague.
    But members of Congress can call on the president to resign for incompetence without an indictment. I grant that Obama almost certainly won’t, but such calls can be based on incompetence or malfeasance short of “high crimes” and can weaken a president greatly. That’s all the more true if the UN ambassador and the Secretary of State is implicated in the incompetence and malfeasance.
    I’d rather have a weakened Obama (bad as that is) than Joe Biden in any form. No investigation is likely to implicate Uncle Joe, though, so losing Obama is probably a bad deal.