Why does Petraeus' resignation, mean that he suddenly can't testify about Benghazi?

[Little-Acorn]

General David Petraeus abruptly announced he had had an affair and resigned as head of the CIA a few days ago. And practically the first response anybody came out with, was Sen. Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) announcement that Petraeus, who had been scheduled to testify before Congress on the terrorist attacks on our consulate in Benghazi Libya, now would not testify.

Huh?

I don't get it. What does Petraeus' resignation have to do with being qualified to testify?

Did anybody in our intrepid press corps ask Sen. Feinstein where she got that conclusion?

Feinstein is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee that is holding the hearings in the Senate. Has she deigned to tell us WHY she felt that Petraeus should now change his plans about testifying?

Among many strange things in Petraeus' sudden, surprise resignation, this question is probably the most baffling. Can anyone think of ANY reason why Petraeus' resignation, should inexplicably cause his testimony to be cancelled?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

General David Petraeus abruptly announced he had had an affair and resigned as head of the CIA a few days ago. And practically the first response anybody came out with, was Sen. Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) announcement that Petraeus, who had been scheduled to testify before Congress on the terrorist attacks on our consulate in Benghazi Libya, now would not testify.

Huh?

I don't get it. What does Petraeus' resignation have to do with being qualified to testify?

Did anybody in our intrepid press corps ask Sen. Feinstein where she got that conclusion?

Feinstein is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee that is holding the hearings in the Senate. Has she deigned to tell us WHY she felt that Petraeus should now change his plans about testifying?

Among many strange things in Petraeus' sudden, surprise resignation, this question is probably the most baffling. Can anyone think of ANY reason why Petraeus' resignation, should inexplicably cause his testimony to be cancelled?

Could be that Petraeus was given the order to stand down by obama himself and revealed if called to testify that he would not lie. Now he has been forced out and as cover suddenly his testimomy is cancelled. Clearly his resigning bears no weight on his testimony of what happened that day. Smoke and mirrors is what we are getting and all thanks to obama's reelection! Now two critical investigations fast and furious and Libya ambassador murder fiasco will be either stopped or managed in a way that clears obama.
In short , we have a traitor running our nation into the ground and the idiots just gave him 4 more years to finish the job! I firmly believe nothing short of a revolution will save this nation now!--Tyr

[jimnyc]

Thread:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37707-Petraeus-Resigns

Just sayin'!

[jimnyc]

And as also pointed out, not only is there talk of him not testifying since he retired, but Clinton as well, due to a scheduling conflict. I truly hope Congress doesn't allow this to get completely swept under the rug like the fast and furious crap.

[aboutime]

As a former military person who had the highest, of highest respect for the General.

I have my own suspicions that not only HE was told to STAND-DOWN by Obama. But just take a look at everyone in the Pentagon who has been SILENCED enough. Their military career's are PROMISED to be On the Line if they dare attempt to disclose wrong doing anywhere in the Government.
Thus the silence of Hillary, The Joint Chiefs, Petraeus, and even the SECDEF who is also talking about leaving.

If all of these "COINCIDENCES" don't appear suspicious to common people outside the government. Then my opinions of how terribly Uninformed Much of America is. Can actually be proven by their silence, or fears of being labeled as racists, or terrorist sympathizers. MUCH like I have been since 2008.

[jafar00]

It could have a lot to do with the fact that the Benghazi "Embassy" had little diplomatic function and was more a CIA base for whatever sneaky crap they were doing there.

[jimnyc]

It could have a lot to do with the fact that the Benghazi "Embassy" had little diplomatic function and was more a CIA base for whatever sneaky crap they were doing there.

Doesn't and shouldn't matter in the slightest bit. Regardless of the function, they should receive support if it was requested. And the CIA director should still be responsible to report to congress what he knows about the security requests. This doesn't mean that they would need to reveal any national security secrets - this is solely about Americans, which would be the case regardless of function, and them requesting help, being denied, and any subsequent coverup of facts surrounding denying this request.

[mundame]

Congress is starting to demand answers about this craziness.

[jimnyc]

Congress is starting to demand answers about this craziness.

My thinking is that they are going to delay as much as possible (as if they haven't already) and delay as many people as possible and try to get all their ducks (aka lies) in a row before testifying about anything. It should be a bipartisan committee and no stone left unturned. Anything less would be a slap in the face to the families of those who lost loved ones. Petraeus is a general and hopefully will have more honor and integrity than the rest and ensure the entire truth, of what he knows anyway, comes forward. Then again, his affair shows that both aren't exactly a priority to him, but lets hope the country comes first. No way in hell should this be any type of investigation like F&F which was so obviously horrid activity that was investigated by the very people who committed those activities.

[jafar00]

Doesn't and shouldn't matter in the slightest bit. Regardless of the function, they should receive support if it was requested. And the CIA director should still be responsible to report to congress what he knows about the security requests. This doesn't mean that they would need to reveal any national security secrets - this is solely about Americans, which would be the case regardless of function, and them requesting help, being denied, and any subsequent coverup of facts surrounding denying this request.

True. As the Director at the time, he should be able to testify. However, this is the CIA we are talking about. :/

[jimnyc]

True. As the Director at the time, he should be able to testify. However, this is the CIA we are talking about. :/

This is true to an extent, but Petraeus is a 4 star General and I'm still not sold on him willing to be a party to any type of coverup. I think he's being pushed in certain directions. Even the CIA must answer to higher-ups. Of course they can lie and cover up things just like the rest of government, but by no means should they get a free pass from having to answer for failures. And quite frankly, I don't think they did anything wrong or failed at anything. I don't think the requests for support went to them but rather through the state department channels and to the current administration. There are plenty of diplomatic communications to back this up, and the rumor-ville says there are even more damning cables to which haven't been released. But the worst, of course also a rumor, is that this activity was perhaps monitored and a general and an admiral were ordered to stand down, and subsequently relieved of their duties when they stated they would disobey any such orders.

IMO, if an American is abroad in ANY official capacity, they most certainly should receive support if requested, and definitely if it's lives on the line, and definitely if it's on sovereign territory like an embassy.

[tailfins]

The voters have spoken. Obama's actions in Benghazi were A-OK. It's worth sacrificing American lives if it means free stuff.

[Abbey Marie]

This is true to an extent, but Petraeus is a 4 star General and I'm still not sold on him willing to be a party to any type of coverup. I think he's being pushed in certain directions. Even the CIA must answer to higher-ups. Of course they can lie and cover up things just like the rest of government, but by no means should they get a free pass from having to answer for failures. And quite frankly, I don't think they did anything wrong or failed at anything. I don't think the requests for support went to them but rather through the state department channels and to the current administration. There are plenty of diplomatic communications to back this up, and the rumor-ville says there are even more damning cables to which haven't been released. But the worst, of course also a rumor, is that this activity was perhaps monitored and a general and an admiral were ordered to stand down, and subsequently relieved of their duties when they stated they would disobey any such orders.

IMO, if an American is abroad in ANY official capacity, they most certainly should receive support if requested, and definitely if it's lives on the line, and definitely if it's on sovereign territory like an embassy.

Well, he did cover up an affair on his wife of 38 years. :dunno:

[Marcus Aurelius]

It could have a lot to do with the fact that the Benghazi "Embassy" had little diplomatic function and was more a CIA base for whatever sneaky crap they were doing there.

you have some sort of proof of this, right? Or, is that just your 'opinion'?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The voters have spoken. Obama's actions in Benghazi were A-OK. It's worth sacrificing American lives if it means free stuff.

Those voters think any sacrifice is ok as long a they get their free stuff. What was obama's black vote percentage this time -95 or 96 percent? I rest my case..-Tyr