How many times has this blog used the metaphor, “beat like a dead horse”? ( https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/17/the-radicalislamist-in-chief-his-forward-march-towards-a-green-red-tyranny-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ …ditto… https://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/11/john-brennan-obamas-cia-pick-is-a-muslim-convert-brotherhood-mafias-infiltration-near-complete-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/). Well, too many times, but it is not for nothing. And when the stakes are so high there is no room to quibble.
Kal v’chomer (as is said in Israel), even more so, when it comes to Benghazigate, the BIGGEST scandal in U.S. history, it is incumbent upon all of us to beat this horse’s essence into the public’s consciousness. No crevice should be left unmolested, so listen to Beck’s clear timeline, but it is not as if this is news herein – http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j_Oqm6xCCyU#!
In this regard, General Petraeus was front and center at this blog, understanding full well what his ouster entailed. Moreover, the background surrounding his (forced) resignation had much more to do with political payback, than with the hotties caught in his midst. In fact, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and the diddlers in Washington (some even swing both ways) hardly have a moral leg up on the General. Infidelity aside, to retrace this blog’s steps, re the General’s unceremonious dumping, start herein:
Exhibit Number One – six months ago, the General starred as a centerpiece of this blog – https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/27/benghazigates-petraeus-testimony-will-ensnare-the-potus-his-gang-addendum-to-covering-up-benghazigate-exquisite-political-timing-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ …and it was “predicted” that he would ultimately ensnare the POTUS in his web of lies. Hmm…
Exhibit Number Two – stage left…as Benghazigate’s hotties entered the mix, not incidentally intertwined with both the General and the attendant political intrigue – https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/18/benghazigates-femme-fatales-not-just-smokin-hot-chicks-addendum-to-covering-up-benghazigate-exquisite-political-timing-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ …but pay particular attention to the Lebanese femme fatale…this blog has mega reasons in pointing the readership in her direction.
Exhibit Number Three – do take a look-back into the political timing of throwing the CIA Director under the bus – https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/13/covering-up-benghazigate-exquisite-political-timing-sacrificing-a-cia-director-to-boot-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/… but in retrospect, surely they are kicking themselves for their ill conceived game plan. Every dog(s) has its day…
Exhibit Number Four – is really the first one out of the gate tying in the General to Benghazigate’s downfall – https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/11/benghazigate-theory-revealed-at-this-blog-shored-up-by-lt-col-ralph-peters-overall-theory-leading-to-petraeus-resignation-too-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ …but for purposes of clarity, sometimes it is necessary to place the timeline in backwards order, but the readers are more than capable of assessing the damage.
So now that we are up to speed, others in the know are jumping on this blog’s bandwagon. Welcome aboard!
‘General Petraeus To Testify On Benghazi This Week’
Yep, I’m going to beat Benghazi Like A Dead Horse.
OK, This article looks like things are going to rock and roll when
General Petraeus Testifies this week. Seems he may have an ax to grind with skippy. I’d like to pull one paragraph out and highlight how Jay Carney answers a reporter’s question. It just amazes me how these people can say so much and not even come close to answering your question..LOL
I’ll run the whole story after the pull out. Am I confusing you? Cause I’m sure as heck confusing myself. ~ Steve~
“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”
And this is Carneys response.
“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”
Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.
Just what in the hell is he saying? I know he did not answer the question, and seems he threw the C.I.A. under the bus. Now if memory serves who was the director of CIA at time of Benghazi? Hmmmm-
————————————————————————————————”
NOT to be outdone, the Washington Times joined in on the “spin cycle’s” rapid-pace undoing, something which this blog has been hammering from the get go – https://adinakutnicki.com/2013/05/07/benghazigate-reaches-fever-pitch-whistle-blowers-testifying-hill-huma-once-again-share-the-spotlight-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
‘Watch out for Petraeus in Benghazi scandal’
By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world — the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.
But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.
Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.
Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.
For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.
And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.
So little is known about what happened in Benghazi: Where was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time. Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in? Members of the military say they were ready — burning — to go. The call came in: Stand down. Let them die. There were dozens of witnesses to the attack that night: Where are they? What do they know? What really happened that night?
And who forced the heavy-handed redactions of those infamous “talking points,” the ones that sent Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations onto the Sunday talk shows to declare that the attack was just the culmination of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube?
Carnival barker Jay Carney looked almost ashen Friday as he took the podium to face a suddenly invigorated press corps. Of course, the public briefing came after a private session with “reporters who matter,” a sure sign the White House is in full hunker-down mode — and, more precisely, terrified.
“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”
“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”
Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.
Speaking for the White House, the flack said the CIA was fully to blame for the talking points. Fully. “That is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA,” he said.
“Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants.” That line was stricken: Everything was fine there — fine fine fine.
And: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That line, too, was deleted by … someone. Instead, this was inserted: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.
With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.
A warning to those West Wing sycophants suffering from acute OOCS: Don’t walk down any dark alleys.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/?page=2#ixzz2TB1BiC00…and the bombshells will keep exploding, as the General seeks revenge, as well as setting the CIA record straight – http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/22258258/ex-diplomat-is-asked-to-answer-benghazi-questions#axzz2TP7BakWk
As many of this blog’s dedicated readership already recognize, there is an affinity, as well as an appreciation, herein for those who shoot straight and take no prisoners, in the metaphorical sense. But this does not obviate a similar penchant for a literal interpretation; those who gun for the west should NEVER be left in an upright position, to live to harm us another day. And it is for this reason why the (politically-infused) smackdown to Petraeus must be rectified. Most significantly, if the good General helps to bring down Obama Inc., a criminal-bent regime, it will be a most auspicious outcome.
Waiting in anticipation….with bated breath…payback IS a bitch!
Adina Kutnicki 
Sorry to disagree with you, but I think Patraeus is a political general, of which we now have too many, who will not have the courage to oppose Obama. He had a notorious affair, established the Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan, which has resulted in more American deaths in four years than in eight years of Bush, and he is cowardly.
Three Amercian generals and one admiral were fired by Obama after Benghanzi because they would not lie for him. Patraeus has in the past and will continue to do so. He could have “gone public” when the first Benghazi talking points were issued, but he chose to remain silent. He now has a cozy academic position and won’t endanger it.
He wears a chest full of ribbons, almost all of which are awards for some kind of desk duty. He is a chump.
Those who should be testifying, the 30 or so Benghazi survivors, are now detained at Walter Reed Hospital for “counseling, ” i.e. brain washing.
I, for one, have no faith whatsover in Patraeus. His past butt-kissing tells all.
Don, of course he is a political animal. But it is a question of payback, similar to a publicly scorned woman, despite his current academic position. He has to clear his sullied name, and this is primary.
The most intrinsic point of this “circus” is to eventually smoke out the survivors, as they are the centerpiece, in addition to those who already testified.
I am not suggesting that the General will stand up and call the POTUS a liar, but I am saying that his sworn testimony will do more damage to the entire leadership than many realize. He didn’t resign because of his infidelity (and if I was his wife I would have first knocked him out with a frying pan, and then taken him to the cleaners financially, but that’s just me…), that’s for sure..
I hope he tells the truth about every thing he knows. I believe our military should be running our military & not the president. If the military has in mind to do something to protect the people they should be able to do so & not have a president tell them no, as in stand down at Benghazi and let the people die. A few brave men did not listen to that order and went anyway. We had help 1 hr away in Italy. One general said it would take 20 hours for them to get ready to go. I do not believe that for a second. They stand ready at a moments notice. They could have been in those planes and in the air no doubt in less than half hour.
The way it works is that theatre or operational commanders have wide discretion and can order troops to protect their people who are under attack. However, in Benghazi an ambassador was involved so that goes up to the president to approve an armed response. I didn’t make the protocol up. It comes from Lt. Gen. Boykin and Lt. Gen. McInery and a former ambassador who were all in positions to know at one time. Unfortunately, we have a commander-in-chief, Obama, (or the Muslim-in-Chief as Adina aptly calls him) who thinks more of his own political fortunes than he does of American lives. Thus, there was no armed response even though there were Special Forces on the ground in Tripoli, more at Sigonella and reportedly more training somewhere near Turkey.
As for the hack who said it would take 20 hours: no, these guys practice for this kind of situation and keep go-bags ready. There’s always a ready team. It would have taken a few hours at most to get there. Here’s a story I heard: on 9/11/01, the carrier George Washington was cruising off the coast of Georgia conducting routine tests. By the time the second plane had hit, the carrier had orders to turn around and head with all speed to New York to defend the city. They had no fighters, no pilots, no air crews, no jet fuel, no supplies or provisions and yet 16 hours later that flattop and its planes were patrolling off New York City. That means everything had to be delivered to the carrier en route, which they practice for. The US military can do amazing things once they get the order to do them. They just need the orders. If the men who give the orders are too cowardly to do so, the military cannot move. That’s what happened in Benghazi.
So many questions and no straight answers. I so hope the lives of our best and brightest are vindicated when Chicago and company are evicted from the White House and capital.
God bless
Pingback: BENGHAZIGATE’s NUGGETS: Thinking Outside The Box Leads To The Missing, Most Intrinsic, Piece Of The Indictment…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki | Adina Kutnicki