Is the Petraeus resignation really about the affair? How many more will resign, rather than testify?

General Petraeus resigns and says he won’t be testifying next week before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Benghazi.   Now we learn that Hillary Clinton is too busy, “scheduling conflicts”, to testify before the House Foreign Affairs committee, also investigating what happened in Benghazi.   Hillary Clinton is also stepping down from her position as Secretary of State.  It seems no one wants to talk about why 4 brave Americans didn’t get help when they asked for it and so desperately needed it.  Surely it wasn’t all about the re-election of the President.  Was it?  Surely he wouldn’t have let 4 brave Americans die!  But we need to know what happened so that it NEVER, EVER, happens again.  How we will do that when top officials involved won’t answer questions about it?  That’s making it all the more suspicious.  Will we ever learn the truth or will the coverup continue to work?

What’s with the ‘scheduling conflicts’?  I seem to recall that the President had a similar ‘conflict’ when the Israel Prime Minister wanted to meet with him.   The President was campaigning in Nevada.  What are the priorities of this administration?  As economists would say, ‘Revealed Preference’.

We know that Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress rather than testify on the Fast and Furious program.  Now it appears likely that Holder will leave his position as Attorney General, making it certain that he will never testify on the program.  We will never know why two Americans died and many more Mexicans.  Not a coverup exactly, they simply refuse to discuss it.   That’s also effective in burying the truth.

Is the Petraeus resignation really about him not wanting to testify on the Hill?  If not, why did he wait until this week to resign  when the affair has been known for many months?  The timing is rather suspect, to say the least.

How many more people in the Obama Administration will resign to avoid scrutiny on Capitol Hill and to protect the President?  I hope Woodward and Bernstein are on it!


13 thoughts on “Is the Petraeus resignation really about the affair? How many more will resign, rather than testify?

  1. 1. People have known Clinton was resigning as Secretary of State for almost two years now.

    2. Petraeus will testify if call. The method for calling people to testify before Congress, especially private citizens as Petraeus is now: Subpoena.

    3. If you understand the idea of being vulnerable to blackmail, you’d then understand pretty quickly why Petraeus was run out of the CIA.

    Nothing to see here, stop reading the Drudge Report…

    1. Rachel The dietary laws were redisnced in both Acts and the Epistles. The rest, of course, still hold.Unfortunately, there are some that we cannot know. Even among Jews, there is debate on what Lev 19 meant by round the corners of your heads and mar the corners of thy beard. I do have a beard, but I do not know where it’s corners are. Some say that to mar the corners is to fashion one’s beard into a goatee, which I do find abominable. Others posit that shaving one’s beard is trying to look like a woman.In any event, these things were decided long ago by men whose lives were devoted to God. I, too, would like to know more of when, how, and why these decisions were made. If you have any information, please share it.Does the church deny entrance to women in jeans? I imagine that some do. I am not in a position to deny anyone entrance. It is the job of a church to change the sinful habits of its congregants.

  2. Nothing to see. Petraeus is going to testify. Announced today. Conspiracy debunked, not that there was a conspiracy that even needed to be debunked.

    1. Yup, no one is covering up anything. It was all about the film. Come on, no one believes that. New post coming. Sorry A.G. this story is not over, no matter how much you and the democrats hope that it is.

  3. Riiiight………and the Benghazi attack on 9/11 was all about some film that no one had seen. Sure. That’s the ticket.

  4. My purpose was to call out your ludicrous claim that Petraeus was somehow not going to testify about Benghazi because of his scandal. I simply stated, and this isn’t a Democractic position, that if Congress wants him to testify, then he will be called to testify through subpoena. I’ve made no claim as to what he will testify to, or how people will justify the initial explanation for Benghazi.

    1. You need to listen to more news sources A.G. MSNBC is not keeping you well informed. I am hopeful that the General will tell the truth this time because he will be under oath to do so, unlike his first testimony.

    2. I didn’t call you anything, but if the shoe fits………Yeah, if Congress subpoenas someone they are likely to show up. Not sure what your point might be, Ashton.

  5. And after all that squirming, Joe and his feollw apologists failed. They wouldn’t even agree that it’s wrong to refer to another human being as it. It’s hard to believe that we live in the presence of such moral cowardice.

Comments are closed.