Bill Kristol: A source tells me Petraeus wasn’t completely honest in his Benghazi briefing to Congress

posted at 9:36 pm on November 13, 2012 by Allahpundit

Click the image below and pay special attention to the end of the clip. This is quite an accusation. Quote:

Final point, though, he may have been under pressure, as Charles says, to go along with the administration line on September 14th about the video, which he knew was not true. Someone else told me that General Petraeus, on the Hill that day, Director Petraeus I should say, said privately to one of the members of Congress, said, “This is what happened in Benghazi,” he said, “Do you want the official line or do you want the real truth?” So I think he knew that he was not telling the full truth. He is, on the other hand, the CIA director. They were involved in some pretty complicated things, perhaps, in Benghazi. To be fair to him, maybe he thought that national security required him not to fully spill the beans and to kind of go along with a line that was otherwise politically convenient for the administration.

Yeah, but the briefing on September 14th wasn’t a public hearing. It was a closed-door session before the House Intelligence Committee (via Pat Dollard). When is the DCIA allowed to willfully conceal information or even out-and-out lie to them? And if Kristol’s source is telling the truth, Petraeus wasn’t even really concealing it. He was basically telling them that he was feeding them official disinformation about some element of what happened. Presumably it had to do with the local annex there being a secret CIA base, but I’m not sure why the Committee couldn’t be trusted with that information. And if he was lying to protect the annex’s secret role, why did he feel obliged to include the detail about the “spontaneous” protest? That should have no bearing on the annex. This is why he needs to testify.

By the way, if you’re looking for the latest episode of “Real Housewives of CENTCOM,” here you go. Two sources tell Fox News that the e-mails between Gen. Allen and Jill Kelley were in fact a bit more than flirtatious and amounted to the e-mail equivalent of phone sex. I confess, as I was reading the story, I completely lost the plot for a moment as to why it’s newsworthy and how we arrived at the point where we’re all interested in it. It matters, I guess, because Allen has been nominated to be the U.S. commander in Europe and this reflects on his judgment. Or because maybe, depending upon how many e-mails there are, it shows he’s been spending way too much time dallying with Kelley instead of attending to his duties in Afghanistan. I’m not sure how the FBI stumbled onto their e-mail correspondence in the first place, though, or even whether it was the FBI at all or some Pentagon agent vetting Allen for the Europe promotion. (See Marc Ambinder’s list of questions about FBI behavior in this case.) Did Kelley invite the FBI to read her e-mail initially in order to track down Broadwell, and then they inadvertently intercepted e-mails to her from Allen? If that was a risk, why would Kelley invite them to read her e-mail in the first place? Or maybe there’s more here than meets the eye. I’ll leave you with this from the Fox piece about Allen and Kelley:

Sources said officials are reviewing 20,000 to 30,000 pages of documents — mostly emails — between 2010 and 2012. One official would only say “there is the distinct possibility” this case is connected to the Petraeus investigation.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

You’ve mentioned this before. What have they done/not done that’s foolish?
txhsmom on November 13, 2012 at 11:41 PM
They both knew about what was going on and remained silent.
sharrukin on November 13, 2012 at 11:54 PM

That’s what I thought he meant. Will somebody spill the beans already?!?

txhsmom on November 14, 2012 at 12:07 AM

They both knew about what was going on and remained silent.

sharrukin on November 13, 2012 at 11:54 PM

That’s what I thought he meant. Will somebody spill the beans already?!?

txhsmom on November 14, 2012 at 12:07 AM

So far only Paula Broadwell has willingly revealed anything. Not sure if Congress will act but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Even if Petraeus lied, it would be foolish to put any trust in Bill Kristol and his alleged inside sources.

David Blue on November 14, 2012 at 12:16 AM

I agree with other bloggers. Kristol is devious an unreliable and unless Patraeus is covering up something greater than a shag in the bag, this story only has prurient interest But… Comparing girl friends Bill Clinton and David Patraeus

Looks: Clinton’s girlfriends were ugly, uglier and ugliest. Not the type of lookers that you would expect the leader of the Free World to possess and the last known specimen was a fatty looking like a bullfrog with tits.
Patreus’ known girlfriends (one definite and one likely)are definitely an improvement. Paula Broadwell is kinda-sorta sexy in an intellectual Smith College sort of way.

Honesty about affair:Under pressure Patraeus came clean and voluntarily resigned. Under pressure Clinton continued lying and it was only when the hard core (no pun intended)DNA evidence of Clinton’s semen spilled on a blue dress did Clinton issue a statement about improper conduct-still not calling it sex–just an act rhyming with SNOW JOB. So according to Clinton-he’s not a liar because a BJ is not sex. Get it? er… no!And Clinton did NOT resign.

Moral of the story–The uglier the woman the more people will refuse to believe it’s true and you’ve got to have a legal background (not a military one) to lie in such a manner that your popularity actually increases after telling it.

MaiDee on November 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Charles Krauthammer said essentially this tonight on Fox News, I thought Kristol was just repeating what Dr. K said…

d1carter on November 13, 2012 at 10:08 PM

That was my impression, too. I usually heavily discount or ignore what Kristol says. But not Krauthammer, especially when he is making a statement about the facts. He does his homework.

And this should be fairly easy to confirm considering it seems more than one member of Congress heard Petraeus say this. Sounds like Petraeus may not have liked what he “had” to say and gave himself a little CYA wiggle room.

farsighted on November 14, 2012 at 6:26 AM

/yawn

Tired of being outraged. Weary of giving a crap. The people don’t get in trouble for this, F&F, any number of other atrocious unconscionable activities – the get rewarded.

*prepares more*

By the way, can we get a thread with some links now things we can do to help things burn? It’s going to, no doubt, so why not take advantage of it, take some Obama stash and accelerate my preparation process for when the zombies come. I want to simultaneously starve this beast and bleed it.

Midas on November 14, 2012 at 7:55 AM

other atrocious unconscionable activities

… and by that I don’t mean the affair(s) – couldn’t care less; I mean the whole Benghazi mess, etc.

Midas on November 14, 2012 at 7:59 AM

A source tells me Petraeus wasn’t completely honest in his Benghazi briefing to Congress

Not possible.

No one in the CIA tells lies.

CorporatePiggy on November 14, 2012 at 8:00 AM

One or both of these women may be a spy.
Kelley is of ME extraction and seems to be drawn to like the mystique of the upper echelons of military power.
Broadwell seems to be narcissistically inclined. After all, she’s got TS/SCI “and then some” clearance. I ask for what? What’s her need to know with regard to the DCI?
Twenty years ago, the KGB would have been very interested in either of them as a source. Perhaps they are today. What about other intel agencies like Pak’s ISI?
This is more than a sex scandal. If it’s not about Benghazi, then maybe it’s about a foreign power compromising the DCI.

freedomfirst on November 14, 2012 at 8:00 AM

To be fair to him, maybe he thought that national security required him not to fully spill the beans

LOL…these neocons and progressives are amazing. Libya, and whatever the hell we were doing over there, had nothing to do with the security of the United States, or the defense of our nation. It was about sticking our nose in places where it doesn’t belong and once again we felt the blow back. I’m not blaming private citizens but I am blaming Obama and the continuation of endless interventions by an empire that’s losing its power.

MoreLiberty on November 14, 2012 at 8:01 AM

wow

MoreLiberty on November 14, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Sure is looking like the Marxist and his people used the knowledge of the affair to blackmail Patraeus into helping them cover up Benghazi until after the election.

bgibbs1000 on November 14, 2012 at 8:12 AM

We all know that the reason you can’t have the CIA Director or top military brass engaging in extra-marital affairs is that it opens them up for blackmail.

Well, who would have guessed that the blackmailer would be the Obama Administration?

The White House is a criminal enterprise.

Turn MD Red on November 14, 2012 at 8:13 AM

maybe he thought that national security required him not to fully spill the beans and to kind of go along with a line that was otherwise politically convenient for the administration.

Bingo! He sold out his country for political convenience. They must have promised not to charge him if he keeps his mouth shut. Wait for this part of it to go down some rabbit hole. Did Petraeus and Allen pass Jill around? She sounds like a camp follower. Not too many people talking about her origins, either. Her family is from Lebanon, been here since the ’70s. She could be a spy/plant sent here to get close to higher ups in the military. Mission accomplished.

Kissmygrits on November 14, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Bill Kristol is a little weasel of a man. Almost as irritating as Rove.

jake-the-goose on November 14, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Your government lies to you.

Always.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Broadwell is a reservist. I find that interesting in a woman married to a wealthy radiologist with two children. Why would she still be in? According to my “inside source” a JAG the Army would have no trouble making her active duty in order to Court Marshall her if she compromised national security but not for adultery.

Haunches on November 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM

This entire ordeal is muddling up the search results for Jill Kelly, my favorite actress.

EddieC on November 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Bill Kristol is a little weasel of a man. Almost as irritating as Rove.

jake-the-goose on November 14, 2012 at 8:22 AM

That’s mighty bold of you. I’m really not sure if he’s less irritating than Rove.

Haunches on November 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Found another screened word, it starts with “s” and ends with “ex.”

Fallon on November 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM

I heard on the news this morning that prez revenge is going to have a presser today on the Petraeus scandal.

He’ll get to the bottom of it and tell us all the truth about what is going on: viva transparancy!

How many press conferences did he have on the Benghazi incident? I forget.

tru2tx on November 14, 2012 at 9:10 AM

It’s a new election, it’s a new bus…

right2bright on November 14, 2012 at 9:19 AM

AP:

Yeah, but the briefing on September 14th wasn’t a public hearing. It was a closed-door session before the House Intelligence Committee (via Pat Dollard). When is the DCIA allowed to willfully conceal information or even out-and-out lie to them?

For the sake of clarification, read again a key portion of what Bill Kristal said:

. . .
Someone else told me that General Petraeus, on the Hill that day, Director Petraeus I should say, said privately to one of the members of Congress, said, “This is what happened in Benghazi,” he said, “Do you want the official line or do you want the real truth?”
. . . . (my emphasis added

In other words, Petraeus, according to this account, didn’t tell this to the Committtee. On the 14th of September he fed them the Administration’s cover story. His motivation in doing so is extremely suspect. Was he doing it to protect national security secrets? Or, was he doing it in hopes that the administration would continue to hide his inappropriate relationship — and, therefore, his historical legacy?

The lie he told the Committee was the same flat out lie that Susan Rice told the entire nation a few days later, and that Sec’y of State Hillary Clinton even told face-to-face to Charles Woods, the father of former active duty SEAL Glen Woods, who was killed defending the Ambassador and others during the terror attack on the facilities.

. . .
“Her countenance was not good and she made this statement to me … she said we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted,” he said on radio host Glenn Beck’s online show, adding that she also apologized.

Woods said he “could tell that she was not telling me the truth.”
. . . .

And if Kristol’s source is telling the truth, Petraeus wasn’t even really concealing it. He was basically telling them that he was feeding them official disinformation about some element of what happened.

Again, he told the “truth” to one Member privately — NOT the entire Committee.

He told the Committee the cover story.

Presumably it had to do with the local annex there being a secret CIA base, but I’m not sure why the Committee couldn’t be trusted with that information. And if he was lying to protect the annex’s secret role, why did he feel obliged to include the detail about the “spontaneous” protest?

As to why he towed the Administration line, see in general, Eddie Murphy: “It was a perfectly good lie, and it was working.”

As to the “presumably” bit? No, I’d say it had a whole lot more to do with a slew of uncomfortable facts that were in the back of their minds, such as 1) there had been an unanticipated and undetected (via intelligence) military-style terrorist attack on our consulate; 2) during the course of hat attack, our Ambassador and three others were murdered; 3) several Administration members had participated in militarily failing to respond in any way to several calls for help, and they even failed to put a response team in the air while they were deciding what to do when they got there; all in the context of the fact that 4) the Administration was caught up in the midst of a Presidential election; and that 5) they were all aware that they were extremely politically vulnerable on the question of their failure to make adequate provision of security for the Ambassador and his staff BEFORE the attack, and their utter failure to act DURING the attack . . . and (many more blanks to be filled in).

That should have no bearing on the annex. This is why he needs to testify.

He has to testify! And, it may come down to a very ugly choice.

I hate to say it, but he may ultimately need to be given testimonial immunity as to his September 14th testimony to Congress in order to get him to tell the full, horrifying truth.

Holder says he is “staying on” which doesn’t surprise me at all. Obama desperately needs him to keep a lid on this thing. And I have no doubt that there have been extensive discussions of “executive privilege” at the highest levels of government in that context!

Hillary Clinton, of course, wants to retreat as far as she can, even though it was her failed “provision of security” decisions that laid the weak foundation upon which the Battle of Benghazi was ultimately fought and lost.

In the end, Benghazi likely will become known as the only battle in American history during which the President, and all of his top advisors (defense, diplomatic, intelligence) immediately participated, oversaw and lost the battle — and then turned around and tried to blame it all on a bad movie!

Trochilus on November 14, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Gee Bill, ya think?

jake49 on November 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM

In the War on Terror, here are a few key differences between the Battle of Abbottabad and the Battle Of Benghazi which readily explain why we won the first and lost the second.

Abbottabad was a well-planned, and well-practiced surprise attack on a compound, using top flight military fighters, intelligence, and back-up, all with full provision of equipment. It was watched by several top Administration officials sitting in the situation room, and only participated in to the extent of wiring either a “yes” or “no” to the participants on the decision to kill OBL. The participants even understood that that would be the order given anyway.

Benghazi also involved participation by top Administration officials from easy chairs in the “situation room.” But this time, the surprise was entirely on us. A well-planned military style attack, by terrorists using RPGs and GPS-guided mortars, was launched against an insufficiently hardened facility, one that had been previously identified by us as incapable of withstanding a sustained attack. There had simply been no adequate preparation for an attack, and a security force (Lt. Col Andrew Wood’s unit) had even been brought home, in spite his pleas, and of a number of other warnings regarding restive terror organizations in the area had been issues, intelligence regarding a growing threat from heavily armed groups in that area of an unstable post-revolutionary country. Most of that information had been conveyed on a number of occasions through the Department of State, but had been ignominiously ignored, or minimized by the Sec’y of State and her staff.

It now looks like no one in the situation room that night even thought to immediately put a response team (e.g., a Marine FAST Team) in the air and “on the way” to Benghazi, or to even put a C-130 equipped with a mini-gun overhead, either of which might have arrived in time to offer some form of defensive assistance to those brave few carrying on the fight below, virtually alone. Either that or someone suggested it, and the idea was shot down.

Instead, they all froze. Presidents and cabinet officials should not be overseeing any ongoing military operation. There was no response effort launched, and in the end they all sat there, no doubt some of them in horror, until one or more individuals in that situation room that night made the final decision to pull the plug on four Americans being massacred right in their line of video sight, via an overhead drone.

And, in the aftermath, to cover up for their lack of preparation and mendacity, someone also decided to concoct a cover story by which they would try to shift the blame away from themselves by insisting that it had somehow been precipitated by a crazed mob gone out of control, one that had been demonstrating against a bad movie Made in America!

Trochilus on November 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM

 
Other than being used by Obama to blackmail Petraeus into testimony fitting the meme, the business with the broads is a distraction.
 
Are the pundits talking about this? Heck no. They’re talking about the election and “what’s wrong with republicans”.
 
We’re just at the beginning of: Obama pt.II The Nightmare Really Gets Going.
 
Its gonna get worse.

ignatzk on November 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Maybe another take on all this is what AlJazeera is saying about all this.
first a vote for AlJarzeera if you are don’t know is a news agency like BBC, AP and others. I find them to be a bit for fare then our main stream media.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/11/2012111393726260587.html

jpcpt03 on November 14, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Obama pt.II The Nightmare Really Gets Going.

Contemplate this: the nightmare is well under way, Revenge hasn’t even been re-inaugurated yet.

Second terms don’t work out well for presidents, but the nation isn’t going to fair well, either.

matthew8787 on November 14, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Sources said officials are reviewing 20,000 to 30,000 pages of documents — mostly emails — between 2010 and 2012. One official would only say “there is the distinct possibility” this case is connected to the Petraeus investigation.

20,000 to 30,000 pages of freaking documents.

The Federal Government spends $100 billion dollars of deficit per month.

20,000 to 30,000 pages of freaking documents.

Why do I have this image of legions of government cubicle dwellers wasting 100 billion dollars of deficit per month. Chatting, sending useless e-mails, generating mountains of paper.

I am beginning to believe the Soviet Union had a more efficient bureaucraacy.

MichaelGabriel on November 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Scandalous affair? Not much.

Remember … CLINTON.

TheAlamos on November 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Kristol?
yeah…he’s credible.What…Hannity wasn’t available?

greataunty on November 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM

We all know that the reason you can’t have the CIA Director or top military brass engaging in extra-marital affairs is that it opens them up for blackmail.

Well, who would have guessed that the blackmailer would be the Obama Administration?

The White House is a criminal enterprise.

And the home to our country’s most serious threat.

Kenz on November 14, 2012 at 11:25 PM

I don’t put a lot of faith in Bill Kristol’s credibility. This guy is a typical RINO and flip flops on just about everything. The only way to take Kristol is with a grain of salt.

savage24 on November 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2