That's a good thing.

controlled" says Petraeus. ha ha. that comment will have @Gop heads exploding!

of Petraeus's involvement in what was going on in Libya at the time. Odd that he's commenting on it, or that he's sucking up to her now. But whatever, just reinforces what I already suspect about her.

then maybe there are some similar qualities playing here.

Assumes she will stack it like Obama did, tilted to the Right.

him cover. Why do you think he never testified? He's probably sending a coded message to the GOP to shut up about Benghazi or else the truth will eventually come out. I don't think the operation was illegal. We had the right to be there. We signed an agreement with the Libyan government to help collect weapons that had fallen into civilian hands during their revolution, but what happened after we inventoried them I'm not so sure.
I commented early on that the Republicans had jumped on the blame Hillary band wagon way too quickly if they were truly investigating and didn't know what happened. I thought the only way they would jump on Hillary so quickly was if they knew what happened and knew it wouldn't be revealed.

And she had absolutely nothing to do with it. Yet Petraeus, Clinton, Panetta--none were harmed by their association with the events in Libya.

was thrown under the bus for it, but to suggest Clinton wasn't affected by Benghazi is a joke. Patreus wasn't affected because he didn't even testify. Panetta was in a similar position. Clinton is the face of everything that happened in Benghazi.

Last edited Tue Feb 11, 2014, 01:24 AM - Edit history (1)

serves me correctly. Panetta also testified. No, I don't think Hillary was really affected by it--they tried to make it stick to her, but it didn't, and it won't. But the most recent Senate report does show fumbling between State and Defense in terms of security for Stevens, and why was he at a CIA annex? These are questions that haven't been resolved, probably due to classified activity.

wasn't part of the investigation led by Issa, and wasn't before the entire Congress, so who knows what questions were asked.


We don't know exactly what was going on at the CIA annex, except that their official job was to help account for and secure weapons lost during the revolution. It's been suggested that these weapons found their way to Syria where they were helping the rebels.

The whole thing about Petraeus and his showing up at a bunch of right wing meetings that summer and the clear screw up of the CIA in the Benghazi mess smells a lot. 3 CIA guys got killed there, too. A lot of people at the CIA have not forgotten that, either. Petraeus got to retire with a little egg on his face over the affair, and he went real quiet, so he knows that something much more serious could have come out of it for him.

Petraeus needs to butter up HRC any way he can, because she was clearly infuriated that her friend was killed. He is probably shaking in his boots about HRC as president, she will not forget what happened to her friend.

People saying he wants the VP spot is a laugh. He just hopes to keep his pension after 2016. It will not be forgotten how she had to keep quiet about what happened. Is there a statute of limitations for treason?

RNC for 2012 but declined. Patreus did defend some things right away. He did claim that the attacks were in part over the video, but that was largely ignored. I remember when he testified before the closed door committee his answers didn't support the Republican official propaganda. Probably why he wasn't quoted every five minutes in the right wing media.

about Biden, no?

, I did not in 2008 when she rolled into Iowa thinking her candidacy was a done deal. Petraeus is a slug in a uniform whose endorsement makes my skin crawl. I have a visceral reaction to him. Now that all that has been said, it is more important to work on 2014. I'll await other possible candidates to enter the 2016 field. In the meantime, Hillary's people are making the same mistake they made before. Making the assumption that it is her time is a peculiarly R notion of candidate selection. Dems need to be selecting carefully.

Guaranteed, he'll endorse the goop candidate as better.

How should the US extricate itself from Afghanistan?

Brian Schweitzer: "With Helicopters. Today."

Hillary Clinton’s Honduran Disgrace

By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive, March 5, 2010

Hillary Clinton continues with her hawkish ways, making Obama’s foreign policy less distinguishable from Bush’s every day.

She just met with Honduran President Pepe Lobo, she’s notified Congress that the Obama administration is restoring aid to Honduras, and she’s urging Latin American nations to recognize the Lobo government in Tegucigalpa.

The democratic opposition in Honduras boycotted lobo’s election, since he’s allied with the forces that overthrew Manuel Zelaya last June.

But for the longest time, Hillary Clinton stubbornly refused to call the June takeover a “coup,” even though her boss, the president of the United States, immediately denounced it as such.

SNIP..

“Other countries of the region say that they want to wait a while,” she said on her Latin American trip. “I don’t know what they’re waiting for.”

CONTINUED...

http://progressive.org/wx030510.html

For some reason, this is the same foreign policy endorsed by Secret Agents in Washington since 1964: Money Trumps Peace. So, until she's the nominee, I'm going to keep open the possibility of a more democratic Democratic candidate.

She's attracting a whole lot of people who want business as usual.