The four-star circus, as Drudge headlines l’affair Petraeus, continues.
In late October, Petraeus traveled to Libya to conduct his own review of the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
While in Tripoli, he personally questioned the CIA station chief and other CIA personnel who were in Benghazi on Sept. 11 when the attack occurred.
The Libya stop was part of a six nation trip to the region. Petraeus intended the review as a way to prepare for his upcoming testimony before Congress on Benghazi.
“He was looking forward to testifying,” a Petraeus friend told ABC News.
But he won’t.
Petraeus has offered two reasons for wanting to avoid testifying: Acting CIA Director Morell is in possession of all the information Petraeus gathered in conducting his review and he has more current information gathered since Petraeus’ departure; and it would be a media circus.
Morrell wasn’t the CIA director and war hero who told members of Congress that Benghazi was a flash-mob protesting a movie. Petraeus must testify.
Why would the leader of the largest intelligence service in the United States find it necessary to pick up and go to a battlefield? Dont we have people that do that for a living? He doesnt strike me as a micro-manager. He also doesnt strike me as stupid.
Why does a General Officer go to the front lines? Does he not have subordinates that he trusts to communicate with him? What does it say if he doesnt trust anyone but his own eyes to do this?
Why take the risk? Whats the benefit that overrides all the risk involved with an adventure like this? Did he just want to get out of the office for a few days?
Possibilities:
1. He was as surprised as anyone else to find out about the CIA annex in Benghazi. When you find your subordinates lying to you, you take things into your own hands.
2. There was a genuine need for clear headed facts about the entire situation. HE was sent to gather and get those facts. Too many blurred and incorrect assessments coming back, putting him ill at ease. He decides to assess the situation himself.
3. Or, there is more going on here than meets the eye. Its possible that the attack on the Benghazi location was a side effect of another action.
The purpose of this entire charade is to keep our minds of the massive vote fraud that just took place.
Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
I for one cannot understand how this tool of the dhimmi establishment came to be so widely admired. Had he the least bit of honor, he would have resigned his commission a long time ago in protest against the ROEs that keep getting our troops killed while never allowing them to win a battle or defeat our enemies.
“… and he [Morell] has more current information gathered since Petraeus’ departure.” Has intelligence changed that much since … last Friday? Mind you, we’re talking about events that took place two months ago.