Petreus Testifies about Benghazi

As I write this, General David Petreus is testifying in Washington in a closed hearing. Closed hearing or not, it will probably take about five minutes after the end of the hearing until we start to hear what the general says. We do know a few things for certain that had previously been questioned. These include the following:

1) In the 24 hours after the attack on the embassy in Benghazi, it was clear to the CIA and the White House that this had been an assault by a terror group. It was believed to be the work of an al Qaeda affiliate in North Africa. Both the acting director of the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence so testified yesterday in a Congressional hearing.

2) When the Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on five different Sunday morning news shows on September 16th, she just told the country what the president had told her to say. She really knew little else about the subject of the attack. President Obama himself told us this in his press conference two days ago.

3) There is no explanation yet how Rice could have told America that there was no evidence that Benghazi was a terror attack when the intelligence community and the White House believe the opposite to be true. Neither the acting CIA director or the DNI could answer this question before Congress. Both claimed not to know.

4) In the days right after the attack, Congress was briefed by Petreus and told that the attack was likely not a terror attack but the result of anger over the youtube video. This was wrong, and it was contrary to the intial understanding of the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community. Today's testimony may clear up how this could have happened. We will learn if Petreus was forced to mislead Congress or if he was simply confused or deranged.

5) In early August, Attorney General Eric Holder personally approved certain steps in the investigation of Petreus and his affair with Paula Broadbent. Holder said yesterday that he made the decision at that time not to tell president Obama about the investigation since he did not see any national security implications to it. Holder, the most political Attorney General of the recent past, expects us to believe that in the middle of a presidential election, he did not tell his friend the president that there was a potential scandal brewing that could blow up at any moment during the campaign and greatly embarass the administration. Only a fool would believe that.

6) The week before the attack in Benghazi, the Democrats at their convention spent speech after speech telling America that Obama had destroyed al Qaeda. It would hardly look good for Obama to have an attack the very next week kill the US ambassador and three others. For the story to focus on the youtube video, however, Obama needed the cooperation of Petreus who would be briefing Congress. And, as a total coincidence, there was this investigation that could destroy Petreus' career about which Obama had been kept in the dark by Holder. Really?

7) For days after Rice spoke, Obama's people maintained that this was all due to the video and that there was no terror involvement. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman said about ten days after the attack that there was no evidence of any terrorist involvement in the event. No evidence! Among other things, the Congressional committee yesterday was shown the real time video of the Benghazi attack taken by a surveillance drone starting within minutes of the beginning of the attack. Everyone who saw that video says that it makes clear that there was no mob, no upset over the video, and only an organized attack by well armed terrorists.

I hope Petreus tells the truth. America deserves to hear what actually happened. After all, Petreus has already lost his job and, probably, his marriage. Maybe he can at least salvage part of his reputation.