I’m basing this message on the assumption David Petraeus will testify about Benghazi. A few months ago, when Petraeus was in the hunt for the VP spot on Romney’s ticket I posted this thread: Should you read the Emergency Warning thread you will see a link to Chelsea Schilling’s great piece that basically told conservatives —— Not so fast. Her warning included this: What you don't know about David Petraeus Conservatives may think twice before championing CIA director for Romney VP Published: 08/08/2012 at 9:10 PM by Chelsea Schilling What you don’t know about David Petraeus Max Fisher tells us Petraeus engaged in nation-building. That is clearly an important tenet in global government. General Petraeus in Iraq showed that he believes the US military should be used for democracy-building which is what nation-building is. In order to position itself for democracy-building the US military must first become an international police force involving itself in foreign civil wars when the US is not threatened in any way. By “not threatened” I mean not threatened in a real sense —— not some touchy-feely flimsy philosophical threat that may or may not materialize at some future date. Now that a Communist demonstrated his kind can sneak into the White House, Americans must become more vigilant concerning the use of their military. If they fail to see the danger now —— the next Communist president will do even more damage. Remember this: The US military has been an all-volunteer force since 1973. That must immediately change in a major conflict. Everything an AVF does in nation-building sets a dangerous precedent for a military that requires conscription to defend the country in a full-scale war. Parenthetically, a few years ago, before he was disgraced, Representative Charley Rangel called for re-instituting the draft. Knowing Democrats, I’m certain he wanted more military personal available to staff meals-on-wheels programs in foreign countries. It is one thing for the U.S. to keep its military strength at its highest level in order to protect trade, and defend itself against aggressive totalitarian governments determined to expand beyond their own national borders, it is something else to trick American servicemen and servicewoman into fighting for socialism/communism by going through the United Nations under one pretext or another. Bottom line: Democracy-building is a major plank in the New World Order’s political platform. Democracy-building also builds a military in countries that hate the US. Many in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Afghanistan will be only too happy to side with China or Russia in an all-out war. Those militaries will be used against the American people. There is no need for concern if foreign militaries are backward. Well-trained and well-armed is another matter. In the same vein, Americans should go very carefully about sending American “peacekeepers” into Syria as part of a United Nations force. A UN with more authority leads to UN legitimacy. Returning to Benghazi Here’s something to look for. Will Petraeus’ Benghazi testimony be restricted to the CIA’s handling, and aftermath, of the Benghazi Affair? or will it spill over to his military career? To me, they are inseparable. This should be the thrust of the questions he is asked: Did you base your decisions as a general, or as CIA Director, on doing what was best for the global government agenda? Finally, Can you image how it would look if Romney had chosen Petraeus for his running mate? Happily, Petraeus’ sex life is relevant for one reason only; it brought Benghazi to the forefront. He’s not going to say anything of importance when Democrats ask him a lot of softball questions designed to protect Hussein & Company. The one hope is that something might slip out when Republicans ask the questions —— something everybody involved in the coverup wants kept in the dark.