Breaking: Petraeus to testify on Benghazi attacks; Update: Petraeus offered testimony

posted at 9:12 am on November 14, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

So far this is only a breaking headline at Fox News, but the word on Twitter is that former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify in both House and Senate intelligence committee hearings about the terrorist attack that killed four Americans and sacked our consulate in Benghazi.  That reverses the previous announcements that Petraeus would decline to testify and have acting DCI Michael Morell handle Congress in his stead.

We’ll add more as the story develops.  This probably won’t mean any big surprises in the Benghazi story line, but it will give Congress an opening to demand answers on how the White House decided to push the spontaneous-movie-review meme for so long in the face of the overwhelming data that the attack was both deliberate and well-planned, with paramilitary forces, materiel, and tactics.

Fox does have a story link up, but with little detail as of yet.

Update: Fox reports that Petraeus initiated the agreement to talk with the committees, but at least one of these will be off-site and presumably behind closed doors:

After Petraeus’ resignation, lawmakers complained that the scandal was no reason they shouldn’t hear from the man at the helm of the CIA when CIA operatives came under attack alongside State Department employees in Benghazi last month.

The logistics of Petraeus’ appearance are still being worked out. But a source close to Petraeus said the former four-star general has contacted the CIA, as well as committees in both the House and Senate, to offer his testimony as the former CIA director.

Fox News has learned he is expected to speak off-site to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday about his Libya report.  The House side is still being worked out.

Last night’s Fox News Special Report has a pretty good rundown of the kind of questions Petraeus is likely to face — especially what his role might have been in briefing Susan Rice before her appearances on five Sunday talk shows to push the false “spontaneous demonstration” story.



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 3 4

HondaV65 on November 14, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Go away Obama voter who also donated to Fauxahontas. Nothing you have to say has any value.

kim roy on November 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Tend to agree. What is with these friggin Gone with the Wind parties at Tara military base? I don’t like it at the WH, and I don’t like it in the mil.

They talk of the Situation room having real time feeds from Benghazi. Just as possible there were real life feeds from Camp Asshat

entagor on November 14, 2012 at 1:25 PM

They were events meant to fundraise, not parties per se, sure that silly woman Kelley acted like a Kardashian on the South Tampla social scene, and the top bras are guilty of cultivating this bimbo and letting her in their circles and privy to their whereabouts and movements…but that’s an entirely different matter. Those ‘parties’ actually raised a lot of money for different wounded soldier projects. Apparently South Tampa is a very rich and conservative area and very attached to the military and there’s a lot of volunteering going on among the housewives of S Tampa and a lot of money are being raised. Sure, it comes with a lot of spicy stories involving generals and these housewives too :)…

jimver on November 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Benghazi:

FAST AND FURIOUS WITH STUPID TO THE POWER OF 10.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 14, 2012 at 1:46 PM

jimver on November 14, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Do you really think a great soldier would leave people to die in Benghazi?

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I like to believe not. But then he was the director of CiA and not a general in charge with his troops’s lives when Benghazi happened, apples and oranges pretty much…I am sure a lot of agents and operatives died in the field sometimes because previous CIA bosses made the wrong calls and decisions. Do we ever hear about them or the operations they were involved in and that were botched? If whatever was going on in Benghazi was a CIA typical operation, as in gun transfer, etc, expect to hear nothing close to the truth. But then that doesn’t have anything to do with Petraeus being an honorable or dishonorable soldier, it has to do with the way the agency operates, and he was the director of that agency. I am sure that when he accepted that position he knew that it wasn’t working under the same premises like the military.

jimver on November 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Petraeus led his men into battle, took a bullet for this country, and saved the country of Iraq. If we wasn’t pulled out of Afghanistan he would have saved them too. If Honda can back up those props I’ll put him on the same level. Until then….

itsspideyman on November 14, 2012 at 1:04 PM

How is controlling just one city and just a part of one province in Afghanistan a “victory”? Stop reading and repeating utter BS.

Soviets, who never had to play via “rules of engagement”, could not do much in Afghanistan, what makes anyone think that we did any better. We actually did MUCH WORSE. When you have no “enemy” to fight, so to speak, you can’t win. Fighting partisans will never win you a war. We should have never entered the damned place to begin with, use nuclear ability to make it a parking lot with loss of lives for us. No other solution to this fiasco.

Afghanis adapted and then adopted new tactics in the process. Work from the inside, and as we can see they are doing it with great success. “Great soldiers” notwithstanding. Same as communists did to our country in the past 100 years, destroy from inside. With great success, I might add judging by last week and on-going.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Above: to make it a parking lot with NO loss of lives for us.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Rockshine on November 14, 2012 at 12:03 PM
Limbaugh talking about this right now with same interpretation.
esr1951 on November 14, 2012 at 12:12 PM

It was the damnedest thing I have ever seen. The press was openly fighting with McCain and Co trying to run cover for the regime.

You can forget any kind of honest reporting on anything in this country for the foreseeable future. The Republic should be very afraid. I can understand all the calls for secession.

Rockshine on November 14, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Rush is saying Patraeus isn’t going to say anything to purger himself. he isn’t going to come clean….I have a small amount of hope that Patraeus will try to make things right..to tell the whole truth about the Libya Operation..about the gun running, lack of security, prisoners…EVERYTHING…maybe I’m being naive but i hold out hope that Patraeus has a small amount of honor left and wants to tell the truth…Obama can’t be untouchable forever can he? can he? =(

sadsushi on November 14, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Soviets, who never had to play via “rules of engagement”, could not do much in Afghanistan, what makes anyone think that we did any better. We actually did MUCH WORSE. When you have no “enemy” to fight, so to speak, you can’t win. Fighting partisans will never win you a war. We should have never entered the damned place to begin with, use nuclear ability to make it a parking lot with loss of lives for us. No other solution to this fiasco.

Afghanis adapted and then adopted new tactics in the process. Work from the inside, and as we can see they are doing it with great success. “Great soldiers” notwithstanding. Same as communists did to our country in the past 100 years, destroy from inside. With great success, I might add judging by last week and on-going.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM

For one thing remind me what were the Soviets doing in Afghanistan anyways, nothing to plunder there, no resources there, simply to expand the empire…So, it was a bad call for them in the first place to be there, am pretty sure it did ‘t help the Soviet troops morale too much being in a place that they had no idea why they were there for to begin with, or what they were fighting for. Entirely different story why we are in Afghanistan though, Al Qaeda and all…

jimver on November 14, 2012 at 2:05 PM

sadsushi on November 14, 2012 at 2:02 PM

As a caller reminded Rush, Petraeus went to Benghazi and did his own investigation after he made the YouTube reference, so he could say his investigation turned up new info, which surely it did.

Also, Rush just reported that Petraeus wanted to stay on, but they made him resign.

petefrt on November 14, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Chuck todd via newsbusters
Obama insulated because petraeus is a Republican

Translation…. we are going to cover for dear leader

cmsinaz on November 14, 2012 at 12:07 PM

He is not a R. He is an Obama backer.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 2:20 PM

You’ve sounded much more optomistic in the past that this would come back to bite Obama. That article says Petraeus takes the fall. Is that your take now?

txhsmom on November 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM

If he is to redeem even 1% of his honor/glory, he will testify under oath, tell exactly what happened, let the chips fall exactly where they belong.

Will the senate do something about it? No.

But the world will know that the buck stops with Obama.

A bigger cover up there never was. The re-election of Obama depended on it.

May he and the media be utterly destroyed, for dereliction of duty, alas.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Have you ever crossed Hillary?

kingsjester on November 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM

More truther innuendo re the Foster case which never produced evidence he was murdered. Did she do something squirrely with the files? Yes, but you have nothing other than conjecture that she had someone murdered.

Bradky on November 14, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Well, that and a lot of dead bodies.

Hillary made 100,000 dollars in the cattle futures market the one and only time she speculated in it. There’s no proof she did anything wrong, but it would take an idiot to believe she didn’t have insider information.

Hillary and Bill deliberately smeared the civil servants in the White House Travel Office just to fire them and replace them with cronies.

Hillary tried to claim she was under sniper fire as a First Lady visiting overseas during the Balkans “war.”

In a court of law, Hillary is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Since this isn’t a court of law, we’ll have to make our own judgement based on her moral character. Hillary is a known liar who is willing to cheat and falsely accuse others of crimes, but has never been proven to commit murder. That leaves a whole lot of gray area.

tom on November 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM

For one thing remind me what were the Soviets doing in Afghanistan anyways, nothing to plunder there, no resources there, simply to expand the empire…So, it was a bad call for them in the first place to be there, am pretty sure it did ‘t help the Soviet troops morale too much being in a place that they had no idea why they were there for to begin with, or what they were fighting for. Entirely different story why we are in Afghanistan though, Al Qaeda and all…

jimver on November 14, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Let me reverse the question. What was in it for us to invade Afghanistan? And what exactly did we accomplish in the process? No more than Soviets did. A few well placed nuclear hits would have done wonders not only in Afghanistan, but in neighboring Iran, Iraq and Syria, as a lesson and a warning for generations to come. Just as we did in Japan 60 years ago. With no loss of lives to us.

Between the likes of Allen West and Petraus I know who is a real warrior and hero willing to put American lives above their “court martial” BS.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 3:16 PM

tom on November 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Yep, and not to mention Vince Foster’s neat trick of walking out of one of the most secure places on earth (the White House) without (a) signing out on the logbook and (b) leaving any surveillance footage of him exiting. Then his files end up in Hillary’s quarters in the WH. No reason for even the simplest-minded detective to suspect or connect anything there. No sir. /

ghostwalker1 on November 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM

If he is to redeem even 1% of his honor/glory, he will testify under oath, tell exactly what happened, let the chips fall exactly where they belong.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Care to name one person with honor wanting to work for Hussein?

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Line on Drudge says “Documents reveal claims of nepotism, fraud, child porn inside agency”, and link goes to “404 -Not Found”. Hmmmmm…

kg598301 on November 14, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Care to name one person with honor wanting to work for Hussein?

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Aside from his thingie, why he’s in this predicament.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Care to name one person with honor wanting to work for Hussein?

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I will be your huckleberry, and the name you want is Mattis, why you ask, because he only cares about winning not who he works for, in other words, America winning, he may be the second coming of Patton, time will tell!

MarshFox on November 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM

They just revoked Jill Kelley’s military base pass!!!

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 3:55 PM

They just revoked Jill Kelley’s military base pass!!!

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Should have never had one.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM

They just revoked Jill Kelley’s military base pass!!!

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 3:55 PM

*911* IVIOLABILITY!

SarahW on November 14, 2012 at 4:08 PM

House and Mercedes repo’s come next…

bofh on November 14, 2012 at 4:13 PM

We’re asked to believe that the FBI investigation into the general’s affair, with its enormous national-security implications, was conducted over a period of weeks and the president was never told anything about it until Mr. Petraeus submitted his resignation. A half-dozen government agencies, in this fanciful telling of the story, treated the president as if he were a virgin in a bordello, all to preserve his “innocence” in the final weeks of a bitter election campaign. If the president didn’t know what was going on upstairs, this is incompetence bordering on criminal malfeasance.

With no facts, we have only the tangled web of lies in the changing official stories. Was the general intimidated — if not blackmailed — into joining the president, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in their ridiculous story, told over and over, that the Benghazi attack was set off by demonstrations protesting that obscure video? Mr. Petraeus supported the president’s story about the video in testimony to Congress shortly after the assassination of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. He surely knew better.

By all accounts David Petraeus was and is a man of honor and integrity, now disgraced and broken by a familiar indiscretion born of human frailty. Looking to Congress for brave men and women who can unravel this web of deceit, a web perhaps woven of high crimes and misdemeanors, is usually a fool’s errand. But Congress is all we’ve got.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

What a freaking mess…..

The General needs to go before congress and spill the whole truth, no matter the consequences.

I don’t want to hear any word parsing, I want to hear the truth.

ted c on November 14, 2012 at 4:22 PM

What a freaking mess…..

The General needs to go before congress and spill the whole truth, no matter the consequences.

I don’t want to hear any word parsing, I want to hear the truth.

ted c on November 14, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Tomorrow per Fox, do not know if it’s open or closed hearings.

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

What a freaking mess…..
The General needs to go before congress and spill the whole truth, no matter the consequences.
I don’t want to hear any word parsing, I want to hear the truth.
ted c on November 14, 2012 at 4:22 PM

The truth, or something that can be spun back to harm Obama?

Either way, I wouldn’t expect much. It’s the CIA. Regardless of who is president the activities they engage in overseas are 99.9% of the time a secret. If its not also as equally obvious that the CIA was doing SOMETHING mission wise at that consulate, as it is obvious that it wasn’t just about a movie, then I don’t think you’re being honest.

We’re likely to find out very little, I think. But that doesn’t mean it’s a big America destroying conspiracy. It’s the CIA. And conservatives aren’t victims.

Genuine on November 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Tomorrow per Fox, do not know if it’s open or closed hearings.

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Do you know if it will be sworn testimony?

bofh on November 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Caption for the front-page photo on this story:

“You must be at least THIS tall to tell tall tales about Benghazi…”

VekTor on November 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Trying to find WHO will be at the hearings…in the House it says
Hearing: Benghazi and Beyond: What Went Wrong on September 11, 2012
10:00 AM | 2172 Rayburn HOB
Host: Committee on Foreign Affairs | Full Committee

who won on November 14, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Petreaus would look worse than he already does if he was to admit that he lied for the regime to save his ass instead of trying to save his men in Benghazi who were abandoned before and after by Hillary and Obama. He will not say anything differently. It was a spontaneous attack caused by a video. End of story. The worse that happens to his reputation by sticking with the lie is that he screwed some broad that was better looking than Monica. Big deal. If he were to ever want to run for POTUS on dem. ticket, it would be a resume enhancer.

Nothing to see here. Lies and damned lies. Move along.

they lie on November 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Corruption, moral turpitude and Leftist leanings in the U.S. military are not new phenomena.

When these men reach the rank of general, they are de facto politicians.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Tomorrow per Fox, do not know if it’s open or closed hearings.

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

The one in the senate is a closed hearing.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM

By all accounts David Petraeus was and is a man of honor and integrity, now disgraced and broken by a familiar indiscretion born of human frailty. Looking to Congress for brave men and women who can unravel this web of deceit, a web perhaps woven of high crimes and misdemeanors, is usually a fool’s errand. But Congress is all we’ve got.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

No honorable man would let Americans die when help could have been delivered in time.

We need to stop this BS once and for all. There is absolutely nothing honorable about Petraus’ (non) actions. Fomr letting Americans die to then openly lying to Congress.

THERE IS NO HONOR IN LETTING AMERICANS DIE.

riddick on November 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM

The one in the senate is a closed hearing.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM

He will be testifying in front of the House on Friday, per Fox.

Anyone know if that will be televised?

JPeterman on November 14, 2012 at 7:36 PM

DON’T DO “MAD MEN” IN A “MAD MAX MEDIA” WORLD.Gentlemen, let General Petraeus serve as a warning — this is not the day you can hide a passionate, handwritten note. You would be amazed at the relationship information put on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media.

Mutnodjmet on November 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I will be your huckleberry, and the name you want is Mattis, why you ask, because he only cares about winning not who he works for, in other words, America winning, he may be the second coming of Patton, time will tell!

MarshFox on November 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Yep, the Mad Dog is the Joe Arpaio of our proud military. Unleash him and stay out of his way, and we win wherever his AOR is. Should have been named SAC ahead of Petraus or anyone else, but he’s considered too volatile politically. Which is exactly why he’s the right man for the job. You don’t fight a way half-way. You disable the enemy’s ability to fight as quickly and thoroughly as possible. We haven’t done that in far too long.

Freelancer on November 14, 2012 at 11:15 PM

More truther innuendo re the Foster case which never produced evidence he was murdered. Did she do something squirrely with the files? Yes, but you have nothing other than conjecture that she had someone murdered.

Bradky on November 14, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Right. Vince Foster was shot in the back of the head, and there wasn’t enough blood where his body was found to account for the bloodloss of his wound. None of the footprints found anywhere in the park were from his shoes. Clearly a suicide.

Freelancer on November 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Freelancer on November 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM

More hysterical speculation – what a surprise. “Not all the facts fit neatly, therefore my wild eyed theory just HAS TO BE CORRECT” – Freelancer

Bradky on November 15, 2012 at 8:02 AM

The one in the senate is a closed hearing.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM

What are the chances that anything from the closed hearing makes its way to the public?

jimver on November 15, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4