“Petraeus agrees to testify on Libya before congressional committees”
Former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify about the Libya terror attack before the House and Senate intelligence committees, Fox News has learned.
Petraeus had originally been scheduled to testify this Thursday on the burgeoning controversy over the deadly Sept. 11 attack. That appearance was scuttled, though, after the director abruptly resigned over an extramarital affair.
The resignation has since expanded into a sprawling scandal that now includes allegations that Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, exchanged “inappropriate” and sexually charged emails with Jill Kelley, a Florida socialite linked to the Petraeus case. The rapid developments in the case have all but obscured what until last week was an intense debate on Capitol Hill and beyond over the Benghazi terror attack.
The logistics of Petraeus’ appearance are still being worked out. But a source close to Petraeus said the former four-star general has contacted the CIA, as well as committees in both the House and Senate, to offer his testimony as the former CIA director.
Fox News has learned he is expected to speak off-site to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday about his Libya report.
The House side is still being worked out.
While Petraeus prepares to give his side, lawmakers have begun to openly question when Petraeus first knew about the investigation that uncovered his affair — and whether it impacted his statements to Congress on Sept. 14 about the Libya terror attack.
Petraeus briefed lawmakers that day that the attack was akin to a flash mob, and some top lawmakers noted to Fox News he seemed “wedded” to the administration’s narrative that it was a demonstration spun out of control. The briefing appeared to conflict with one from the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center a day earlier in which officials said the intelligence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News he now questions whether Petraeus’ statements — which were in conflict with both the FBI briefing and available raw intelligence — were in any way impacted by the knowledge the FBI was investigating his affair with Broadwell.
King questioned whether the investigation “consciously or subconsciously” affected his statements to Congress.
That last being code for was Petraeus being blackmailed, or did he fear being blackmailed?
As with the Benghazi attacks proper, we’re being asked now — with the help of a compliant, progressive press that merely parrots the administration party line (fight the Power!) — to believe that the President or his top staff knew nothing whatever about a potentially compromised CIA head until just after the election. That is, that the FBI, which knew about the affair many many months back, didn’t share that information with the Imperial President or anyone close to him.
This, all of it, the entirety of our political spectacle, is a mirage. A fraud. A fantastical and oftentimes surreal puppet show.
And as we watch it, we’re being asked to bracket reason, logic, experience, and evidence, all things that, when applied to this administration’s very existence reveal it as but a series of interconnected disasters (from our perspective; from the perspective of the far left things are going swimmingly!) that each help, in their own ways, to undermine our constitutional republic, the rule of law, the stability of our economy and currency, and the liberty of the individual — the narrative for which is clothed in the phony populism of “fairness” and “social justice” and “tolerance”.
We have a leftist Administration and a leftist Senate. We have a bureaucracy overrun with leftist operatives posing as civil servants. We have a leftist Justice Department. We have a leftist press running point and providing rhetorical cover for a leftist campaign to overthrow our constitutional system. To all of these people, the ends justify the means. That is the essence of the “anti-foundationalism” preached by leftist academics who daily work to delegitimate the Enlightenment paradigm under which our system of governance was born and through which it is not only justified but required as a way to protect individual liberty against the persistent encroachment of tyranny.
And here, the entire apparatus has swung into cover-up and distract mode in order to protect a President who allowed Americans to die so that he won’t lose a “mandate” to finish remaking the United States into a soft socialist / liberal fascist country.
Now, I realize we’re supposed to be talking about giving Latinos amnesty to show we care about their basic human dignity (and what says “we care!” more than granting them a life of dependency financed through government plunder); and that we’re supposed to mend our message so that we aren’t the party of old white people and the rich — the best ways being to agree to tax the millionaire bastards who can afford to pay their fair share, and to court any number of different identity groups through “outreach” that includes promises that we, too, want to protect you vagina, or that we, too, really really like education and teachers.
But then, I’m not interested in what “we’re” supposed to be talking about. Because to do so would make me a coward and a scapegoating asshole, too. And while I may be many things, those are not two of them, and they never will be.
Instead, so long as this site stays live, I’ll be talking about reclaiming our constitutional birthrights. About fighting tyranny, whether it comes in the jackboots of a leftist administrative state or little fuzzy bunny slippers looking out for my kids’ dietary needs.
I don’t do polls. And I don’t stick my finger in the wind in order to appease the general mood of what would otherwise be my target audience. And frankly, what we’re seeing right now from many Republicans, a full-on retreat that I believe in their hearts many of them actually desired, is embarrassing to watch.
This country is, in my honest opinion — and said without an ounce of intended drama — done. Gone. But that doesn’t mean I have to stop fighting.
I take solace in the fact that many of us are left who won’t let the conclusion of this coup come easily.