(Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

BY CHRISTINA HARTMAN

When David Petraeus resigned Friday as CIA Director, there were a lot of conspiracy theories concerning an upcoming testimony to Congress.

WHBQ: “The resignation comes just as Petraeus was set to testify before a congressional panel investigating the Benghazi attacks.”

CNN: “It almost sounds like in some way this is some kind of smokescreen for the Benghazi Congress hearings...”

CNBC: “Will we ever get the real answers? Was the threat of blackmail behind this?”

It was suggested the general — who admitted to an extramarital affair — quit his post as CIA head to somehow get out of testifying to Congress about what he knew about the September attacks on a US consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

But Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein confirmed Wednesday the embattled general will still testify.

Questions have swirled as to whether Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell might have compromised national security.

In a news conference Wednesday, President Obama says there’s no evidence that was the case, and that the reason he accepted the resignation of the nation’s top spy was because Petraeus “did not meet the standards that he felt was necessary.”

But New York Republican Rep. Peter King thinks the affair might have affected the government’s response to the Benghazi attack, saying when Petraeus spoke to Congress a few days after, he was “wedded” to the Obama administration’s narrative.

Quick backstory — the president’s critics have said the administration’s response was muddled following the attack, accusing the administration of first blaming the attack on a demonstration that spun out of control. Officials have since said it was a coordinated terrorist attack, but in light of the Petraeus affair, Representative Peter King told Fox News,

“It's impossible to believe that he thought he was giving ... honest testimony.”

King is essentially raising questions as to whether Petraeus — who knew he was being investigated over the affair — was being “consciously or subconsciously” influenced by that investigation. He’s not the only Obama administration critic raising that possibility. Here’s Charles Krauthammer on Fox News.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: “...he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration. And he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.”

But if Petraeus was somehow blackmailed to keep quiet about Benghazi, Hamed Aleaziz of Think Progress writes...

“Today’s news that Petraeus will indeed testify... renders Krauthammer’s and others’ theories moot.”

Details about Petraeus’ testimony are still being worked out, and as of late Wednesday afternoon a date for the appearance hasn’t been set.

Petraeus to Testify: Was He Pressured on Benghazi?

by Christina Hartman
1
Transcript
Nov 14, 2012

Petraeus to Testify: Was He Pressured on Benghazi?

(Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

BY CHRISTINA HARTMAN

When David Petraeus resigned Friday as CIA Director, there were a lot of conspiracy theories concerning an upcoming testimony to Congress.

WHBQ: “The resignation comes just as Petraeus was set to testify before a congressional panel investigating the Benghazi attacks.”

CNN: “It almost sounds like in some way this is some kind of smokescreen for the Benghazi Congress hearings...”

CNBC: “Will we ever get the real answers? Was the threat of blackmail behind this?”

It was suggested the general — who admitted to an extramarital affair — quit his post as CIA head to somehow get out of testifying to Congress about what he knew about the September attacks on a US consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

But Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein confirmed Wednesday the embattled general will still testify.

Questions have swirled as to whether Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell might have compromised national security.

In a news conference Wednesday, President Obama says there’s no evidence that was the case, and that the reason he accepted the resignation of the nation’s top spy was because Petraeus “did not meet the standards that he felt was necessary.”

But New York Republican Rep. Peter King thinks the affair might have affected the government’s response to the Benghazi attack, saying when Petraeus spoke to Congress a few days after, he was “wedded” to the Obama administration’s narrative.

Quick backstory — the president’s critics have said the administration’s response was muddled following the attack, accusing the administration of first blaming the attack on a demonstration that spun out of control. Officials have since said it was a coordinated terrorist attack, but in light of the Petraeus affair, Representative Peter King told Fox News,

“It's impossible to believe that he thought he was giving ... honest testimony.”

King is essentially raising questions as to whether Petraeus — who knew he was being investigated over the affair — was being “consciously or subconsciously” influenced by that investigation. He’s not the only Obama administration critic raising that possibility. Here’s Charles Krauthammer on Fox News.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: “...he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration. And he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.”

But if Petraeus was somehow blackmailed to keep quiet about Benghazi, Hamed Aleaziz of Think Progress writes...

“Today’s news that Petraeus will indeed testify... renders Krauthammer’s and others’ theories moot.”

Details about Petraeus’ testimony are still being worked out, and as of late Wednesday afternoon a date for the appearance hasn’t been set.

View More
Comments
Newsy
www2