Skip to content


November 14, 2012

This is all the information we have right now..

(UPDATE: See below)

So far this is only a breaking headline at Fox News, but the word on Twitter is that former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify in both House and Senate intelligence committee hearings about the terrorist attack that killed four Americans and sacked our consulate in Benghazi.  That reverses the previous announcements that Petraeus would decline to testify and have acting DCI Michael Morell handle Congress in his stead.

We’ll add more as the story develops.  This probably won’t mean any big surprises in the Benghazi story line, but it will give Congress an opening to demand answers on how the White House decided to push the spontaneous-movie-review meme for so long in the face of the overwhelming data that the attack was both deliberate and well-planned, with paramilitary forces, materiel, and tactics.

Fox does have a story link up, but with little detail as of yet.




Petraeus to testify before Congress on Benghazi attack

Former CIA Director David H. Petraeus has agreed to testify before Congress about the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, The Washington Times has learned.

Mr. Petraeus will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Petraeus will testify Thursday morning before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill and before the Senate Intelligence Committee at an off-site location, a congressional source said.

Mr. Petraeus had cancelled his scheduled appearance before the Senate panel on Thursday after he resigned as CIA director on Friday amid revelations he had an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell

Lawmakers will focus what the CIA knew before, during and after the Benghazi attack, and whether its account differs from that of the White House.

However, they also are likely to ask about his affair, whether it compromised national security and whether he disclosed any classified information to Mrs. Broadwell.

During an Oct. 26 speech at the University of Colorado, Mrs. Broadwell talked about the Benghazi attack and suggested it was an attempt to free militants being held in the CIA’s annex building. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

The FBI also found classified material on Mrs. Broadwell’s computer, but she has said she did not receive it from Mr. Petraeus

Wash Times


  1. November 17, 2012 10:36 am

    yup, tell.

    Lame Cherry is way ahead of the curve, as usual. Kelly’s Lebanese heritage surely had something to do with her “unprecedented” access to the WH. Word i she’s the go between for Islamic sympathizers.

    Also, good point about Rubio and his pic with the Kelly twins.

    Sickening the way the junior repubs have come out en masse denouncing Mitt. Christie,, Jindal, Rubio. Makes you wonder,

    Don’t get me wrong. I too fault Mitt. Either he had a mole in his operation ala Penn or Doyle or he was not properly aware of the lay of the land. I do believe massive fraud took place but I wonder how much of that was enabled by Mitt’s election team’s incompetence or just plain cooperation.

  2. November 17, 2012 2:48 pm

    A little of both wyntre 😦

  3. November 17, 2012 3:14 pm

    Check this theory!

    Consider this possibility … the talking points came from the CIA, and they were altered by the campaign people in Chicago. The coverup has been about hiding the sharing of classified information with campaign officials who don’t have the proper clearance. This sharing of information could also be the source of the earlier leaks such as the virus in Iran’s nuclear program.

    I’ve always wondered why David Axelrod appeared on news programs to talk about the administration’s official policies when he was a campaign official. Those of us old enough to remember Watergate will recall the mixing of official administration business with CREEP (Committee to Reelect the President) activities and the Democrat’s outrage at the time. Perhaps we are seeing the results of a similar improper mix.

    CatDaddyKSC may be on to something, and I am highlighting his comment in the hope that the FBI and the staffs of the House and Senate committees will take notice. I suspect too that, if true, this is more than just an “improper mix.” Legal lines may have been crossed here with a political campaign redacting or helping to redact classified material it should never have seen in the first place.

    What may emerge is a kind of government by cabal, a super-government composed of David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, and possibly a few others who operated, in the service of the president, above and beyond our legal and constitutional systems — all the time thinking what they did was for the better good of our country.

    Events like Benghazi could and should be whitewashed, since in their views Obama’s continued rule was of paramount importance. To say this is a crime beyond Watergate is to understate it. In the coming days we shall see how this evolves. It is the duty of every American citizen to watch carefully, since many forces conspire to push it under the rug.

    From Roger Simon PJ Media

  4. November 17, 2012 3:24 pm


    I see you posting over at the CH. What is up with the rabid resident bully angienc over there? What an arrogant pos.

  5. November 17, 2012 8:26 pm

    Anyone else think this is possible? GOP can’t challenge voter fraud because of a 30 year old consent decree?

    Guy Benson of points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:

    • Florida: 73,858
    • Ohio: 103,481
    • Virginia: 115,910
    • Colorado: 113,099

    Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

    All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced problems with voting machines.

    This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.

  6. November 18, 2012 7:47 am

    IN THEATRES JAN. 17th, 2012 – Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged is a feature length documentary film that examines the resurging interest in Ayn Rand’s epic and controversial 1957 novel and the validity of its dire prediction for America. Set in what Novelist and philosopher Rand called ‘the day after tomorrow,’

    Atlas depicts an America in crisis, brought to her knees by a corrupt establishment of government regulators and businessmen with political pull. Despite critical scorn and continued derision from intellectuals on all sides of the ideological spectrum Atlas has remained a popular favorite and today sells more copies than it ever did.

    Why? Because – as evidenced by pointed and frequent references to Rand and Atlas Shrugged in the media — an increasing number of Americans — right or wrong — see their society devolving into a nightmare scenario like the one Rand projected over a half century ago.

    Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged looks into Rand’s background for the ideas and philosophy that inspired and shaped her novel and seeks to determine whether America is indeed headed for the disastrous outcome she predicted.

  7. November 18, 2012 8:22 am

    Wondering why the History Channel decided to run this doomsday prophecy now?
    They are predicting the D-Day date set by many cultures is December 21, 2012-

  8. November 18, 2012 8:37 am


    yup, tell.

    Lame Cherry is way ahead of the curve-

    Seems like he has bits of insider information and is able to assign puzzle pieces to the people involved connected to Obama.

    I heard former GMA anchor Joan Lunden say, she thinks Petraeus was in a vulnerable situation as he was pouring his heart out for his biography. She felt Broadwell more or less took advantage of Petraeus’ weakened emotional state.

    Joan Lunden’s microphone time was hurriedly cut off and pivoted to another topic when she made that statement.

  9. November 18, 2012 12:22 pm


    I see you posting over at the CH. What is up with the rabid resident bully angienc over there? What an arrogant pos.

    I don’t know 🙂

  10. November 18, 2012 2:23 pm

    NOW Goodwin returns to his journalistic roots? What took you so long? STFU fothermucker. Too little, too late.

    Bam hides terror truth


    Until Friday, there were two possible explanations for why the White House failed to immediately call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. One was incompetence, the other was worse.

    Now there is only one, and it is the worse one. Based on the persuasive testimony of ex-CIA boss David Petraeus, it is clear the Obama administration made a deliberate decision to mislead Congress and the American people.

    The repeated claim that the attack was spontaneous and grew out of a demonstration against an anti-Islam video — a claim made by the president and secretary of State as they stood next to the bodies of four dead Americans — was a monstrous lie. It was vile and done for the basest of reasons.

    Because we now know the truth of what happened — CIA reports were edited to remove the names of al Qaeda groups involved in the attack, Petraeus said under oath — we also know the motive. It was political self-preservation, meaning the president and his team put politics first.

  11. November 18, 2012 2:27 pm

    What Obama has wrought:

    Muslim Brotherhood now targeting Jordan

    Ruthless rioting threatens king after radical uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria

    Jordan’s anti-government riots aimed ultimately at removing King Abdullah from power are so severe that the government has turned 10,000 of its soldiers into riot police.

    Religious Freedom Coalition President and Founder William Murray said the ruthlessness of the rioting prompted the move.

    “The king has given police uniforms to 10,000 soldiers to try to maintain order,” he said.

    Those soldiers-turned-police are not the only ones guarding the king. Terrorism analyst and Act for America President Brigitte Gabriel said there are U.S. troops on the ground in Jordan.

    “We have actually positioned troops in Jordan to protect King Abdullah,” she said. “We’ve said that the Americans in Jordan are just there in case something happens in Syria so we can be close.”

    Gabriel also said the situation has grown more intense: “The reality is, we have placed troops in Jordan so we can protect the royal family in case of an uprising which we are now witnessing before our own eyes.”

    Murray reported that aid workers with his organization in Jordan have come astonishingly close to the action.

    “The riots in Jordan are about one mile from our warehouse,” he said. “The Muslim Brotherhood has cut all roads between Jordan’s cities.”

    Gabriel, who is a native of Lebanon, said the violence is no surprise, and “the Muslim Brotherhood is rising in Jordan.”

    She warned that the king’s position is in danger.

    “King Abdullah is hanging by a thread,” she said. “He has 20 percent approval in the country. The Muslim Brotherhood sees this as their opportunity to rise up after what they saw happen in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and now Syria.”

    However, the king’s decline in approval is a recent development. As WND reported, as recently as October, the king remained popular.

    International Christian Concern Middle East analyst Aidan Clay said most Jordanians support the king.

    “The king remains fairly popular and the king is still a seasoned politician who may be able to offer concessions that the Muslim Brotherhood accepts,” he said. “However, it is also true that every Jordanian is fed up with the widespread corruption within the government.

    “Moreover, the economy is quickly declining, unemployment is rising, and there is a great rift between the rich and poor. The MB is highlighting these widespread concerns in their pursuit of ‘democratic reform,’ which resonates with nearly all Jordanians – whether they are MB sympathizers or not.”

    Clay said the cover for many of the “Arab Spring” movements was the call for democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood’s use of the “democracy” line, he said, could tip the balance in their favor.

    “Of most concern is that the MB is among the primary groups calling for political reform,” he explained. “If that continues to be the case, then many Jordanians may decide to back the MB, whether or not they agree with the Muslim Brotherhood’s religious ideology. Free elections, ending corruption, higher wages, and other claims all sound great, no matter who’s leading the campaign – whether it’s the MB or liberals.

    “Many Jordanians just want change and some are willing to join whatever movement promises political reform.”

    I hope Abdullah has sent his family to safer ground than depending on security surrounding the palace will be sufficient to hold off an attack.

  12. November 18, 2012 2:53 pm

    Looks the the MB is set to take over the ME. 👿

  13. November 18, 2012 3:27 pm



  14. November 18, 2012 3:32 pm

    This could be your house or my house, if Obama invites them here.

    Southern Israel residents scared but determined


    Brave Israeli girl’s comment:

    “We don’t want a cease-fire yet. We can continue to absorb it all so long as eventually it will stop once and for all,” she said. “If we stop now it will be a waste. There have to be results this time.”

    Quite a story here:

  15. November 18, 2012 3:34 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: