Feinstein: Maybe the FBI should have told us about the Petraeus probe

posted at 5:01 pm on November 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

You think? As chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Diane Feinstein and her committee have to be informed of any event of significance involving intelligence from all federal agencies, as Chris Wallace points out during the interview. Feinstein specifically replies that the FBI failed to tell them that they had the Director of the CIA as a target of an investigation for potential national-security breaches. That’s precisely the kind of circumstances under which the chair and vice-chair of the two Congressional intel committees need to be briefed — and Feinstein says that in similar circumstances in the past, they were:

Will Feinstein subpoena David Petraeus? She doesn’t rule it out, but Feinstein says both she and vice-chair Saxby Chambliss are satisfied with having deputy director Mike Morrell testify in his place. That tells me that the committee has less interest in Petraeus’ personal actions than in the organizational response of the CIA, to which Morrell would be more than qualified to testify.

However, when asked directly by Wallace whether the Obama administration had enough warning before the attack on September 11th to prompt them to beef up security in Banghazi, Feinstein goes further and notes that these weren’t just warnings — they were actual attacks on Western targets in the city, as well as on our own. “That, to me,” Feinstein says, “is sufficient intelligence on which to make a decision.”

As far as the shifting stories from the White House go, Feinstein doesn’t believe they were politically driven — but she does question the competence of the people who were confused about the nature of the attack for so long. Feinstein echoes John McCain when she says, “The minute you know mortars are used, the minute you know RPGs are used, it’s either a terrorist attack or a military attack. Those are the only two things it could be. … It’s pretty clear the minute mortars show up, the minute RPGs show up, you have a terrorist attack.” Wallace asks why the President continued to talk about the YouTube video for more than a week with that in mind, and Feinstein says that she feels that the proper assessment could have been made much earlier — which is why she wants access to all of the data that came through before, during, and after the attack.

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2

Who cares about this?? or a better question is Why do people care about this?

Dollayo on November 11, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Because it’s a BFD.

chewmeister on November 11, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Don’t we know that if it were a Republican administration instead, these ‘revelations’ would be proof positive of the lying evil corrupt multinational-controlled GOP politicians stealing the elections.

azrael on November 11, 2012 at 10:11 PM

This woman is as dumb as a rock. Does she think she is kidding ANYONE ?

And we are left with these self-indulgent bozo’s to fix the problems.

What a disgraceful joke.

FlaMurph on November 11, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Feinstein wasn’t told because there was no fbi investigation and there was probably no affair.
This is all Benghazi coverup amd Petraous is the one person who can blow the whole covert operation wide open

audiotom on November 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Someone needs to inform the senator that she is as ugly as sin and as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Bubba Redneck on November 12, 2012 at 4:20 AM

Benghazi was a “nonstory”. No Donks interested. Petraeus is. It diverts attention even further from the attack and lays a foundation to blame the intelligence agencies if the story doesn’t go away.

Diane, take heart. The media is going to cover for you no matter.

hawkdriver on November 12, 2012 at 6:04 AM

They didn’t blow the cover off this affair until Petraeus stood up for the CIA and fired back at Shrillary who promptly packed her bags for another foreign trip.

Kissmygrits on November 12, 2012 at 8:40 AM

A bit off topic, but Laura Ingraham was on the same show (Fox New Sunday) later with Chris Wallace and she did a fantastic job of defending conservatives. Why isn’t this covered on HotAir?

Is HotAir aiming to become another site that just concentrates on the topics of the day, or will HotAir continue to push the conservative ideology. Yes, we lost this election and the Kirsten Powers, Evan Bayhs and Bill Kristols of the world can sit and mock Laura while she is still defending conservative values, but someone has to come in for her and stand behind her. I was hoping HotAir would highlight how condensending they were to Laura, especially the facial expressions from Kristol and Powers. I applaud Laura for hanging in there!

metroryder on November 12, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Comment pages: 1 2