CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns Effective Immediately (Pelosi, supporter, murder)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree. If he loves his country and those 4 stars he wore then he should tell what he knows without hesitation. The question is could the Obama administration put a injunction on those records and prevent them from being released as a stall tactic, like with Fast and Furious.
Of course, the sizable executive powers created by Obama and allowed by the Congress over 4 years could allow the same kind of activity that Fast and Furious did. Obama/Jarett aren't about let this thing get out of hand.
Screw that! I want to seem Petraeus sworn in, and telling what he knows!
Even if he is I will bet a dollar to a dime that you wouldn't have heard a minute of it.
Quote:
Feinstein seems primarliy concerned that the FBI apparently has been on this for months, and never gave the Intel Committee a heads up, as common sense and the law requires:
What law requires the FBI to inform The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about an on going domestic criminal investigation?
General David Petraeus abruptly announced he had had an affair and resigned as head of the CIA a few days ago. And practically the first response anybody came out with, was Sen. Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) announcement that Petraeus, who had been scheduled to testify before Congress on the terrorist attacks on our consulate in Benghazi Libya, now would not testify.
Huh?
I don't get it. What does Petraeus' resignation have to do with being qualified to testify?
Did anybody in our intrepid press corps ask Sen. Feinstein where she got that conclusion?
Feinstein is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee that is holding the hearings in the Senate. Has she deigned to tell us WHY she felt that Petraeus should now change his plans about testifying?
Among many strange things in Petraeus' sudden, surprise resignation, this question is probably the most baffling. Can anyone think of ANY reason why Petraeus' resignation, should inexplicably cause his testimony to be cancelled?
His testimony isn't cancelled. it will be presented by the acting CIA director Michael Morrell.
Couldn't Senators who want to know, subpoena those documents from the CIA and provide him with them?
This is not an obstacle to Petraeus' testifying.
Has Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) explained how she was able to conclude so quickly, that he should not testify?
actually, the senate intelligence committee can do exactly that, whether or not the CIA wants the info out or not. congress holds the purse strings of the CIA, and can cut them off if they so desire.
"Feinstein and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the intelligence committee's ranking Republican, said it was possible Petraeus would be called to testify when the congressional hearings convene Thursday.
"You know, he's trying to put his life back together right now and that's what he needs to focus on,'' Chambliss said on ABC's This Week. "But at the end of the day, I would not rule out General Petraeus being called to testify. That still could happen at some point in time.''
She did nothing of the sort. She has in fact said Petraeus would probably be called in a separate hearing to testify as a citizen.
She said she initially said she was dismayed that he resigned, but now knows more than she did then, and concurs he did the honorable thing by resigning.
General David Petraeus abruptly announced he had had an affair and resigned as head of the CIA a few days ago. And practically the first response anybody came out with, was Sen. Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) announcement that Petraeus, who had been scheduled to testify before Congress on the terrorist attacks on our consulate in Benghazi Libya, now would not testify.
Huh?
I don't get it. What does Petraeus' resignation have to do with being qualified to testify?
Did anybody in our intrepid press corps ask Sen. Feinstein where she got that conclusion?
Feinstein is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee that is holding the hearings in the Senate. Has she deigned to tell us WHY she felt that Petraeus should now change his plans about testifying?
Among many strange things in Petraeus' sudden, surprise resignation, this question is probably the most baffling. Can anyone think of ANY reason why Petraeus' resignation, should inexplicably cause his testimony to be cancelled?
In short, yes, he can be called to testify, and, he may invoke his rights of the fifth amendment.
Here we have a very normal attempt at analogy from the left.
Nothing so sensible, of course. It was merely the standard attempt to change the subject to George W. Bush, and get conservatives talking about that rather than talking about the subject of the thread (why Petraeus was suddenly not going to testify to Congress abut Benghazi). Ignored as it deserved.
It is a measure of liberals' concern about the real question, though, that they tried to change the subject so quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooper
Why is it necessary for you to insult the OP?
Same reason all the liberals have. They are desperate to avoid discussion of Petraeus' reasons for resigning and the Democrats' reasons for not wanting him to testify, and will throw up any diversion they can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
