Benghazi Massacre Far Graver Matter Than Watergate
The stunning resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus, days before he was to testify on the CIA role in the Benghazi massacre, raises many more questions than his resignation letter answers.
"I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair," wrote Petraeus. "Such behavior is unacceptable ... as the leader of an organization such as ours."
The problem: Petraeus' "unacceptable behavior," adultery with a married mother of two, Paula Broadwell, that exposed the famous general to blackmail, began soon after he became director in 2011....
The Benghazi--Patraeus Bashers wrote: --- Bush-2 !---- Remember Folks, It Was Bush-2 Who 'Made Patraeus'--Not Obama ! So, It's Bush-2 Republicans--- George Bush-1 !--- GEORGE BUSH-1 COULD IT BE THAT THE "SKULL-&-BONES" REPUBLICANS, WHO ARE ( DIRECTOR BUSH-1's !--- ---
Been thinking this over. The chances that details of a national security issue would be given to House republican leadership and not the White House is preposterous. So, both had the information, the House leadership was just informing the White House that they also knew. To quote the article (emphasis added)...an FBI "whistle-blower" from Florida contacted the Republican leadership in the House and TOLD THEM OF THE DYNAMITE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SITTING ON...This makes your original question and subsequent conspiracy claim,one that has no merit because the POTUS already knew the information you claim they withheld. Now, we don't know if for security reasons the White House kept silent on it till they did. So, though it benefited them by not releasing the intel, the keeping it under wraps may not have been politically motivated.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: In all due respect, if you can't see that then you are being blinded by your prejudice against republicans.
To use respect as a cover for abuse is to show that you have none.
If you choose not to read an article critically for both what it says and what it conveniently skips over then perhaps you should consider the beam in your own eye.
Partiality is sin. Those that wish to apply the same standards of accountability to all are not the ones commiting it.
Sorry, not trying to clear republicans of anything, just reading the article for what it says not for what you wish it said. The article implies that republican leader acted upon the information he was given and it was kept silent by the administration. In all due respect, if you can't see that then you are being blinded by your prejudice against republicans. Seeing that there were calls by republicans for hearings and information being released about this attack, even saying publicly that the president knew it was a terrorist attack and not acknowledging it (maybe you forgot the president's speech about it) IN OCTOBER, withholding this information would have only benefited one party prior to the election, and that was the party in the White House.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Maybe we are reading two different stories. The article DOES NOT say that it was the the republicans who held up the truth until Nov. 6th. It says Cantor called Mueller and the game was up, BUT the truth was held up until after the election. That was obviously the administration that chose to do that.
Yes, the article does silently pass by the very obvious implication. That is my point! cnsnews (and you for that matter) cannot simply give the Republicans a free pass on this. The same standard of accountability applies to ALL.
It takes the complicity of EVERYBODY who is in the know to maintain a conspiracy of silence.
The Republican leadership KNEW from late October to November 6th but maintained a public silence and did not inform the President directly despite the threat to national security.
None dare call it treason wrote: Another basic question is: 5. Why did the Republican leadership in the House also sit on this information from late October until after Nov 6th? Should they not have informed POTUS immediately if the security breach was so grave?
Maybe we are reading two different stories. The article DOES NOT say that it was the the republicans who held up the truth until Nov. 6th. It says Cantor called Mueller and the game was up, BUT the truth was held up until after the election. That was obviously the administration that chose to do that.
5. Why did the Republican leadership in the House also sit on this information from late October until after Nov 6th? Should they not have informed POTUS immediately if the security breach was so grave?
1
There are a total of 10 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
michael hranek from endicott, new york: "
unprofitable servant
thank you for you..."
