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

or factory?

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Yep.
I believe an aspirin factory worked for Bill Clinton there some years ago.

I want the truth to be known,and I voted for Obama.Having said that,I wonder how many people that think this is a conspiracy or don't like Obama or WHATEVER will ever believe anything that is told to them,even if it's the absolute TRUTH?To put it another way--I can think of no scenario short of Obama's utter demise that would satisfy many of the anti-Obama people.
So--whether Petraeus and/or Clinton testify or not--I fail to see what difference it makes in some cases because it's like trying to convince a skeptic--no amount of explanation,info or proof is ever enough in many if not most cases.I do not usually enter political discussions but with everyone calling for all this blood--I just wanted to say my piece because it all seems so futile and it's dismaying to me.

Originally posted by amrith777
I want the truth to be known,and I voted for Obama.Having said that,I wonder how many people that think this is a conspiracy or don't like Obama or WHATEVER will ever believe anything that is told to them,even if it's the absolute TRUTH?To put it another way--I can think of no scenario short of Obama's utter demise that would satisfy many of the anti-Obama people.
So--whether Petraeus and/or Clinton testify or not--I fail to see what difference it makes in some cases because it's like trying to convince a skeptic--no amount of explanation,info or proof is ever enough in many if not most cases.I do not usually enter political discussions but with everyone calling for all this blood--I just wanted to say my piece because it all seems so futile and it's dismaying to me.

If you read the timeline of events dealing with Benghazi and the following general/chick/email/classified materials-Gate, and the responses to all of this by the administration..... I fail to see how anyone would NOT see some sort of conspiracy.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

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

www.foxnews.com

Former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify about the Libya terror attack before the House and Senate intelligence committees, Fox News has learned.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 14-11-2012 by Maxmars because: fixed all caps title per board policy

But .. but ... I read a post on here that was complaining he was not going to testify.... false information posted on ATS? Please tell me it aint so...

reply to post by DoubleDNH

But .. but ... I read a post on here that was complaining he was not going to testify.... false information posted on ATS? Please tell me it aint so...

The story is that Petraeus was already set to testify before the intelligence committees on Thursday, before he turned in his resignation that is. Once he turned in his resignation, it changed everything, but he called everyone to let them know that he was still willing to testify if they wanted him to. So, now they've scheduled him for Friday.

reply to post by DoubleDNH
Shortly after Petraeus announced his resignation, the Senate Intelligence Committee announced that he would not be testifying and that his replacement at CIA would be there in his place.

Senate Intelligence Committee says Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify at Benghazi hearing Thursday in place of Petraeus.

CBS News

reply to post by butcherguy


Ah you beat me to it.
But no, it was ATS lieing to hurt obama

reply to post by TKDRL


Personally, I think Petraeus was pressured to resign before Thursday, so his replacement would be the one to testify today. I don't think they (Obama administration) expected him to offer up his testimony anyway.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by DoubleDNH

 

But .. but ... I read a post on here that was complaining he was not going to testify.... false information posted on ATS? Please tell me it aint so...

The story is that Petraeus was already set to testify before the intelligence committees on Thursday, before he turned in his resignation that is. Once he turned in his resignation, it changed everything, but he called everyone to let them know that he was still willing to testify if they wanted him to. So, now they've scheduled him for Friday.

I wonder why the Senate Intelligence Committee decided to say almost immediately that he would not be testifying. He had no problem with testifying, apparently, and he is the man that would know. Just because he tendered his resignation and it was accepted doesn't mean that he is 'off the hook' from testifying.
It seems odd to me that they decided to say that he wouldn't be testifying before really checking into it.

reply to post by DoubleDNH


Patraeus obviously was forced to quit by the Obama administration and the sex scandal is just lies!!!
Too bad the Obama administration can't stop him from testifying!!! Patraeus is going to expose Obama administration!!!! /end sarcasm

One day later after he testifies: OMG he's covering up for Obama administration!, they must've threatened him or something!
Seriously, most people (mainly republicans) will still say it was a cover up no matter what, Obama HAD to do something wrong here.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Personally, I think Petraeus was pressured to resign before Thursday, so his replacement would be the one to testify today. I don't think they (Obama administration) expected him to offer up his testimony anyway.

I hope that you are correct.

It may indicate that he will be telling the truth.

reply to post by butcherguy


I don't think Petraeus started making phone calls to the intelligence committees until after they announced that he wouldn't be testifying.

I am very happy that Congress will be spending it's last 2 weeks on this issue instead of pressing issues like the economy.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I don't think Petraeus started making phone calls to the intelligence committees until after they announced that he wouldn't be testifying.

That is the answer that makes sense.
I'm guessing that the people that made the initial announcement that he wouldn't testify were a little disappointed to hear that he would be testifying. I hope that is the way this works out, anyway.

reply to post by Deetermined


That's the way I am leaning so far myself. Still pisses me off it will be closed though. His testimony might just end up being sealed by exec order or something

reply to post by Flow101

One day later after he testifies: OMG he's covering up for Obama administration!, they must've threatened him or something! Seriously, most people (mainly republicans) will still say it was a cover up no matter what, Obama HAD to do something wrong here.

Petraeus already covered Obama's butt when he spoke to Congress on September 14th.

As a Republican myself, if Petraeus repeats to the intelligence committees what he told Congress, I'll accept it as his opinion. But, I have to admit, it would make Petraeus look like a dumb a$$, since other CIA and FBI officials told Congress a different story.

Personally, if Petraeus really believes the "flash mob" story line, he should be out anyway. There were too many Al Qaeda videos floating around on September 10th (before the Libya attacks) calling for the attack. Even I saw the videos and transcripts by 2:00 pm on September 12th.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Deetermined

 

That's the way I am leaning so far myself. Still pisses me off it will be closed though. His testimony might just end up being sealed by exec order or something

Like I said earlier, if it turns out that Obama's administration was blackmailing Petraeus, I'm not sure that we'll hear about it until after the first of the year, if at all.

Originally posted by roadgravel
I am very happy that Congress will be spending it's last 2 weeks on this issue instead of pressing issues like the economy.

I am happy if they are distracted from 'fixing' the economy.

The Congress has control of the purse-strings.... they have put us in shape that we are in with their overspending.

reply to post by butcherguy


It's the spending for the war on terror / rule the world that is hurting of the US.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by butcherguy

 

It's the spending for the war on terror / rule the world that is hurting of the US.

The Congress approves all spending, whether it is for war or to help our own homeless.
Of course, they haven't actually passed a budget since 2009, but they still approve spending bills.