Patraeus throws Obama under the bus

[HomeInspect]

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus | The Weekly Standard

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”




So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

 

[waltky]

He will be missed...

General David Petraeus: A huge loss for US
10 November 2012 - General David Petraeus created a new blueprint for fighting insurgencies

The US has lost one of its most admired public servants - the man who came up with the plan which successfully got his country out of one unpopular war, and will get it out of another by 2014. General David Petraeus took a remarkable amount of experience with him when he went to be the new head of the CIA just over a year ago. He had commanded the international forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and was probably the cleverest and the most highly-praised soldier of his time. General Petraeus certainly had more experience of combating terrorism in its different guises than any other military or civilian figure in the Western world.

He rebuilt the entire counterinsurgency strategy of the United States, which had been almost a forgotten subject since the Vietnam war, and created a highly effective blueprint for fighting insurgencies. For this amount of brain-power and strategic and tactical thinking to be lost to the United States because of an affair with his biographer will no doubt seem to many in Europe and the rest of the world to be completely disproportionate. But this is not simply another example of the kind of Puritanism which bemuses non-Americans.

'I feel closer to SAS'

As the boss of the CIA David Petraeus was expected to set an example to the people under his command; and extra-marital affairs have often led to blackmail and other difficulties for intelligence workers in the past. Once the FBI had uncovered the evidence for his affair and told him, it probably never occurred for a moment to General Petraeus that he might be able to hold onto his job. As I found over the years, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, General Petraeus is a very pleasant and witty man, as well as a highly intelligent one.

An anglophile and a member of the American special forces, he visited the headquarters of the SAS in Hereford and often praised its way of doing things. "I sometimes feel closer to the SAS than anyone else," he once told me in private. It may not just have been politeness on his part. His toughness, perhaps even cynicism, served him well in Baghdad and Kabul as well as Washington. When the American forces were becoming badly bogged down in Iraq, with faulty tactics, nothing much in the way of strategy, and visibly declining morale, Petraeus stepped in and changed everything. "Of course it's possible to win this war," he told me crisply in 2007, "and I intend to do it."

'The surge'

 

[BreezeWood]

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need"

the CIA was responsible for security inside of Libya, where were their own personnel when the consulate was attacked ?

Petraeus is in fact being relieved from command and the affair is simply an easier way out than a public hearing where the CIA would be held responsible for the failure to protect American citizens that would end with Petraeus's likely dismissal.

 

[Mad Scientist]

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need"

the CIA was responsible for security inside of Libya, where were their own personnel when the consulate was attacked ?

Petraeus is in fact being relieved from command and the affair is simply an easier way out than a public hearing where the CIA would be held responsible for the failure to protect American citizens that would end with Petraeus's likely dismissal.

And you're ok with that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need"

the CIA was responsible for security inside of Libya, where were their own personnel when the consulate was attacked ?

Petraeus is in fact being relieved from command and the affair is simply an easier way out than a public hearing where the CIA would be held responsible for the failure to protect American citizens that would end with Petraeus's likely dismissal.

And you're ok with that?

Anything to spare Obama is fine with Obama fluffers.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Typical dumbfuck liberal talking about stuff over its head.

The CIA is not responsible for the security of a State Department facility, you fucking moron.

The CIA was doing behind the scenes work in support of the State Department, but they are not responsible for security besides gathering intel and fighting terrorists where they can.

Guarding the State Department facilities is the responsibility of (drumroll)....the State Department.

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need"

the CIA was responsible for security inside of Libya, where were their own personnel when the consulate was attacked ?

Petraeus is in fact being relieved from command and the affair is simply an easier way out than a public hearing where the CIA would be held responsible for the failure to protect American citizens that would end with Petraeus's likely dismissal.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus | The Weekly Standard

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

William Kristol has finally become unhinged!!!

I can't wait for the CIA or another Bush admin official to come out and side with the Obama admin again, as have others.

FOX News and those like Kristol on the deck of the Good Ship Wingnut are lost in a storm of their own making, while below decks in steerage, the tools at USMB are wildly flailing about and screaming just to hear their own voices above the roars of celebration by the rest of America

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need"

the CIA was responsible for security inside of Libya, where were their own personnel when the consulate was attacked ?

Petraeus is in fact being relieved from command and the affair is simply an easier way out than a public hearing where the CIA would be held responsible for the failure to protect American citizens that would end with Petraeus's likely dismissal.

The General's troubles started a long time ago as the FBI was investigating attempts to break into his email account.

One has nothing to do with the other

 

[HomeInspect]

After throwing him under the bus... he resigns and intends not to testify.. how convenient... I hope he gets summonsed by Congress

 

[GuyPinestra]

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need"

the CIA was responsible for security inside of Libya, where were their own personnel when the consulate was attacked ?

Petraeus is in fact being relieved from command and the affair is simply an easier way out than a public hearing where the CIA would be held responsible for the failure to protect American citizens that would end with Petraeus's likely dismissal.

Uhh, no.

The State Department is responsible for the security of embassies and ambassadors.

Idiot.