Why can’t/won’t Petraeus testify?
posted at 5:47 pm on November 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Duane, what puzzles me is why Petraeus’ resignation disqualifies him from testifying at all. I’m not the only one puzzled, either. NRO’s Katrina Trinko can’t figure it out:
Perhaps there is some protocol I’m unaware of, but I don’t see why resigning should affect whether Petraeus testifies or not. He was in charge of the CIA when the Benghazi attack occurred, and the CIA has been under plenty of fire for how the attack was handled.
Neither can John Hinderaker:
This gets curiouser: Petraeus was scheduled to testify before a Congressional committee on Benghazi next week, but in view of his resignation his testimony has been canceled. That makes no sense to me. Why should his resignation have anything to do with testifying about events that occurred while he was the director of the agency?
The only explanation I can conceive is that Petraeus doesn’t really have any information to tell Congress that relates to his own personal actions relating to the Benghazi attack. That seems curious in and of itself — after all, the attack involved the CIA annex and two CIA operatives died. Did Petraeus not take part in any decisions about the response to the attack or intel gathering before and after it occurred? If all Petraeus had to offer Congress in testimony was a rundown of the organizational efforts, then his deputy Mike Morrell can give that to Congress.
Don’t be surprised to see a subpoena heading Petraeus’ way from the House Oversight Committee to make sure that’s the case, though.
Recently in the Green Room:
- Real question: Does Obama’s budget fund overseas abortions to protect endangered animals?
- Photo of the day: Crimea now belongs to Russia, at least on Russian propaganda TV
- Vatican: Pope Francis wasn’t talking about same-sex relationships; Update: “Civil unions” explained
- RNC ad: Crying infant greets Obama’s new debt-laden budget
- Update: Grayson dismisses ‘erratic’ wife after abuse allegation