Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Breaking: Petraeus will testify before Congress on Benghazi attacks, FOX News confirms

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by jibeho
 


Bah, more transparency...... I don't like this testifying behind closed doors crap the last few administrations are pulling at all....
edit on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:17:07 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


I agree!! I want to see this hearing displayed in grand Iran-Contra fashion. Remember that? Network TV interrupted the daily Soap Operas to carry that coverage followed by extensive coverage on the Evening news. Fawn Hall and Ollie North were household names back then.

Sadly, the MSM is more concerned about the dirty/realty TV sex angle in this case than they are about the tragedy in Benghazi. Pathetic!

What do you think the famous punchline quotation will be post the investigation for the General? I mean Bubba had 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman'....'I did not inhale' etc etc
edit on 14-11-2012 by hp1229 because: edit content




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


I thought he said he didn't exhale

Oh wait that was a stoner movie



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by hp1229
 
I thought he said he didn't exhale

Oh wait that was a stoner movie
already the 'all in' is replaced with 'all the way in' to the title of his biography book



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Media production companies and the celebrity talking heads are going to treat us to a show....

in the end all the facts you will collect from their theater will fit into a small three-paragraph article....

but they will turn it into weeks-long hellish speculation and division-engendering drama.

Full-time continuous campaigning... that's what it is.... it's been ongoing for a long time, no?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Media production companies and the celebrity talking heads are going to treat us to a show....

in the end all the facts you will collect from their theater will fit into a small three-paragraph article....

but they will turn it into weeks-long hellish speculation and division-engendering drama.

Full-time continuous campaigning... that's what it is.... it's been ongoing for a long time, no?




Well said


Second line!



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Doesn't matter...... his (Petraeus) responses have already been given to him and he has them committed to memory.

Obombya will come out squeaky clean as always.

No transparency, no accountability, no negative consequences.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by CALGARIAN
I'm thinking that Obama may end up going the way of Nixon.


Ya, except that Obama is not a crook and if you think otherwise, you're a racist right-wing nut.

/sarcasm



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkKnight21

Ya, except that Obama is not a crook and if you think otherwise, you're a racist right-wing nut.

/sarcasm


That'll be the counter argument...as usual.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Closed-door session. Figures.
More coverage on scandal then Benghazi. Figures.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


Killing an ambassador is an act of war.

does everything have to be dem/rep bs?

Cant it be about right and wrong?

Or does everything Obama do have to relate to something about Bush?

P.S. I hope we can get some real information out of this.
edit on 14-11-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I personally think Petraeus is a straight shooter. He has stood above the right left BS even when Romney wanted him to be VP. Even with a Israeli spy Paula Broadwell breathing down his neck he came out and said Israel is a rouge not a friend. And how about Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu were business partners when Romney was at Bain. Petaraeus still had the balls to call Israel out for being rouge.

Petraeus is above the BS. But I hate to see what happens to those who crossed him in the end.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by azbowhunter
 


You're dead on with that one Azbow, its one big game of ring around the rosey to keep everyone good and confused and by the looks of all the previous posts, its working!



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Two things:

Petraeus is set to testify on Friday.

General Petraeus will testify before House Intelligence Committee on Friday. Hearing will be closed to public
www.breakingnews.com... ce-committee-on-f

I am hoping he comes clean this time.

Krauthammer: White House 'Held Affair Over Petraeus's Head' For Favorable Testimony On Benghazi
(with video)
Read more: newsbusters.org...

and not to derail, but this video/story made Krauthammer one of my heroes:

Krauthammer Nails Obama To The Wall: “Why the Hell” Did You Have Rice Address Benghazi If She “Had Nothing To Do With It?”…
weaselzippers.us... t/



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by jibeho
 


Bah, more transparency...... I hate this testifying behind closed doors crap the last few administrations are pulling....
Since its a closed door, I just hope the General doesn't hit on any of the female investigators (if any)


He does not "hit on them"

He lets them mount him and then he breeds them. Sex I think it is called.

It has been so many moons ago since I had some I almost forgot the mechanics of it. OK I lie.

Does anyone know if the good General (and he is/was very good) is a Republican?

Could be good testimony.

edit on 15-11-2012 by morethanyou because: Do you think I'm stupid?
edit on 15-11-2012 by morethanyou because: Do you?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Petraeus:I do not recall.Y'all know the usual song and dance.Deny and deflect.We know most of the questions will about his affair not about Benghazi.Just more fun and games.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


On the other hand other news media are biased toward the Democrats. Chris Matthews was busy yakking about how all these affairs are no big deal and the Prez himself says he believes it doesn't represent a national security risk. I'm guessing the Prez is more worried about Petraeus testifying than he is the affairs with women.

Also Petraeus will testify behind closed doors, so there must be some sensitive stuff.

edit on 15-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
The fact is, this and all administrations know that we Americans (for the most part) are a bunch of drooling, knuckle-dragging idiots that will change direction every time someone throws something shiny in the opposite direction. They know that what is on reality TV tonight is more important to us than what is happening in the news and Obama especially knows that if you simply keep repeating a lie, over and over, us idiots will believe it even as we stare at the facts.

Obviously I'm speaking of the majority (or is that the 47%) that are about equal to a 13 year old child, more interested in what they get than how getting it affects the future...even their own. And why is this surprising? There are more leaches, and ticks (ie. blood suckers) in this country now than ever before. And the mentality is such that if you give them a "gift", they will love you. If you speak of fact and "working hard" they dislike you.

Speaking of this group, there is no responsibility, there is no self-respect. There is nothing but "gimmie" and Obama phones. The general mentality of "no matter what I do, you must accept me"...even if it is wrong, illegal, etc. THAT is today's America. Shameful isn't it?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by azbowhunter

Doesn't matter...... his (Petraeus) responses have already been given to him and he has them committed to memory.

Obombya will come out squeaky clean as always.

No transparency, no accountability, no negative consequences.


Petraeus' responses might have already been given to him when he appeared before Congress on September 14th....


While Petraeus prepares to give his side, lawmakers have begun to openly question when Petraeus first knew about the investigation that uncovered his affair -- and whether it impacted his statements to Congress on Sept. 14 about the Libya terror attack.

Petraeus briefed lawmakers that day that the attack was akin to a flash mob, and some top lawmakers noted to Fox News he seemed "wedded" to the administration's narrative that it was a demonstration spun out of control. The briefing appeared to conflict with one from the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center a day earlier in which officials said the intelligence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack.


www.foxnews.com...

But now that Petraeus has resigned, what do you think?

The first thing the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are going to ask him is how much the affair or blackmail of the affair affected his original testimony.

In all honesty, one of my first thoughts was that Petraeus went ahead and resigned in order to give up the truth without penalty. It may look bad that Petraeus lied, but not as bad if the administration was blackmailing him.

Unfortunately, this is probably another reason why the Senate Intelligence Committee will be meeting with him behind closed doors. If it turns out that Petraeus was being blackmailed, do you think we'll ever hear about it after such a nasty election??!!



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
So what's the new conspiracy now? First you guys said that he quit so that he didn't had to testify and now that he's he's testifying anyways he's really going to keep silence? So why quit?

There's no Benghazi conspiracy and Petraeus isn't trying to hide anything.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 



Killing an ambassador is an act of war.


Only if you want it to be.

Realistically, lets say its been declared an act of war. What exactly would you have the US military do? Occupy the area? Occupy the streets? send in some jets and bomb the hell out of some apartment complex.. or factory?

Everyone's so certain Obama messed up.. If you ask me? considering the scale and ease to which they ransacked the place, considering the recent hornets nest like revolutions in the middle east, the US could have easily lost a few more ciahideouts/consulates in Egypt, Lebanon.. Syria?

And think about this, how much planning has to go into half a dozen guys, picking up their automatic weapons, jumping into a jeep and driving over. Yes, they might be somewhere affiliated to one of the thousands of terrorist groups in libya/egypt.. but on the ground they are just men with ak's and rpgs like every other group!
This was not a terrorist attack in the original sense!

Obama doing nothing, and receiving strong promises from the local government to ensure similar acts dont occur, sounds like a good end to a bad situation, when you think of the big picture...

So Pratraeus stands in front of congress and gives his 2 cents... what then? its obviously going to be positive and defend Obamas management of the situation, so I wouldn't expect shock revelations!

Maybe this is his punishment? Someone promised him his title and proceeds like he earned, if he agreed to stand there and say a few lines...



edit on 15-11-2012 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join