As it now stands, David Petraeus' scheduled testimony before Congress on the Benghazi affair has been cancelled since he is no longer CIA director. The House still has the right to subpoena his testimony, and in my view, they must do so.
First of all, to have his successor testify may mean that first-hand testimony will be lost. It is Petraeus who was director at the time of the attack, and it is his testimony that is crucial as to what the intelligence information was in real time and any directives the CIA may have received as the attack was in progress.
On September 14, Petraeus, in his testimony before Congress, pointed to the video, "The Innocence of Muslims" as the cause of the incident in Benghazi, a line that has now been rebuked. Within 24 hours of the attack, intelligence sources were reporting a coordinated Al Qaeda attack. Yet, the administration and the UN ambassador Susan Rice were still blaming the video for several days.
Petraeus' testimony is needed to clarify the above contradictions as to how the attack unfolded. More importantly, since Petraeus has also defended his agency against allegations they refused to send aid to the mission in Benghazi, he needs to add his testimony to the record as to who was responsible for holding back the military during that 7-hour attack.
There are so many questions as to how Petraeus was brought down and why over his affair. How long was this known within the administration and why did this resignation come about now-after the election and just prior to his scheduled testimony before Congress?
As for Petraeus himself, his legacy is now on the line. After such a distinguished military career, I feel that history will forgive him his affair in light of his accomplishments. If he testifies and testifies truthfully, my guess is history will honor him even more. However, if he does not testify truthfully or withholds his testimony and knowledge altogether, I feel he will be condemned by history.
David Petraeus owes it to his country to reveal everything he knows.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
No question history will honor his service and skill, and forgive him the affair. Ditto for Bill Clinton, although his affair is more worthy of blame.
We have gone too far down the road of considering any moral pecadillo the media can turn up as cause to turn a person out of office who has a lot to offer.
Grover Cleveland was elected president in the teeth of accurate information that he had fathered a child out of wedlock.
Yes, Gary, what I just said includes Anita Hill's testimony. If the Democrats in the senate hadn't been having a Chris Matthews moment over the dirt that seemed to have been dug up, they might have paid more attention to the real reason Clarence Thomas should not have been confirmed. Its in his own autobiography: he couldn't answer basic questions about law, jurisprudence and precedent. He didn't know his stuff. He wasn't competent.
But Petraeus was.
Mr. Paranoid here again. If Petraeus’ testimony would contradict the party line, and I can see where it very well might, and if he was determined to stick by his guns, I can certainly understand why the exposure of his affair, even though it was almost certainly known to the administration for quite some time, and his subsequent resignation, occurred when they did.
One man’s conjecture/speculation is another’s analysis. If Gary is correct that Petraeus testified that the video was the cause of the attack after it was known elsewhere that it was actually a terrorist operation, then he is (or was) either incompetent, part of the cover-up, or out of the loop and himself disinformed. Even Siarlys says he was competent, with which I believe most would agree. If he was part of the cover-up, he would still be CIA director. His departure only makes sense, at least to me, if he refused to take part in the cover-up conspiracy and its aftermath, and made noises about his intention to tell the truth about the whole thing. There are certainly other scenarios, but this one makes the most sense to me.
I really don’t have the rest of it figured out yet. I agree with Gary that Petraeus has a duty to tell the whole truth, and can only hope that he does. Unlike Siarlys, I know how to prepare crow since I may have to eat it sometime, including here and including this issue, but we will see.
This may end up being like the Clinton debacle, when people make more out of the affair than was there in an effort to discredit him, and ignore the much larger aspects such as perjury, subornation of perjury, and witness/evidence tampering. Hope not.
One man’s conjecture/speculation is another’s analysis...
Oh, right you are elwood... FACTS have no bearing on the difference between speculation and analysis... Don't take Gary's English classes. He'd have to flunk you.
Post a Comment