Daily Commentary – Thursday, November 15, 2012 – David Petraeus Has Volunteered to Speak to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees

• Maybe as early as this week on the subject of Bengazi

General Petraeus’ Mistress Paula Broadwell Leaks Benghazi Secret Prison Inside US Annex … She Would Know this How?

The following video becomes a bit more eye opening in the wake of the news that Paula Broadwell was CIA Director General Petraeus’ mistress. As reported at Breitbart, on October 26th, 2012, Paula Broadwell, addressed the University of Denver Alumni Symposium about the recent attacks on Benghazi during a question and answer session after her keynote address. Paula Broadwell told the audience that the US was holding militia prisoners at the secret prison at the  consulate annex in Benghazi. Also, she stated that Petraeus knew of the pleas for help coming from Benghazi on 9-11.

WATCH THE VIDEO HERE. The entire video of here speech can be seen HERE.

Broadwell: Petraeus Knew of Benghazi Plea for Help.

Military expert Paula Broadwell, who was allegedly improperly involved with resigned CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, confirmed in October that the CIA annex in Benghazi asked for reinforcements when the consulate came under attack on September 11. She also acknowledged that “there was a failure in the system.”   Broadwell was speaking at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on October 26. Her lecture, which is on YouTube under the title “Alumni Symposium 2012 Paula Broadwell,” now has added value, because based on the recent disclosures, it can now be assumed that she indeed knew exactly what it was that Petraeus knew about the attack.   Broadwell confirmed the reports on Fox News that the CIA annex asked for a special unit, the Commander in Chief’s In Extremis Force, to come and assist it. She also said that the force could indeed have reinforced the consulate, and that Petraeus knew all of this, but was not allowed to talk to the press because of his position in the CIA.

Military expert Paula Broadwell, who was allegedly improperly involved with resigned CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, confirmed in October that the CIA annex in Benghazi asked for reinforcements when the consulate came under attack on September 11. She also acknowledged that “there was a failure in the system.”   Broadwell was speaking at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on October 26. Her lecture, which is on YouTube under the title “Alumni Symposium 2012 Paula Broadwell,” now has added value, because based on the recent disclosures, it can now be assumed that she indeed knew exactly what it was that Petraeus knew about the attack.   Broadwell confirmed the reports on Fox News that the CIA annex asked for a special unit, the Commander in Chief’s In Extremis Force, to come and assist it. She also said that the force could indeed have reinforced the consulate, and that Petraeus knew all of this, but was not allowed to talk to the press because of his position in the CIA.

The plot thickens … Benghazi and the resignation of Petraeus is becoming more and more suspect and reeks of conspiracy and cover up for the political expedience of Barack Obama. Make no mistake about it, Petraeus has to testify in from of Congress at the Benghazi hearings if he ever wants to have a shred of credibility.

FBI Found Out About Petraeus Affair While Investigating a Complaint Against Mistress Sending Threatening Emails to Another Woman to Stay Away from Petraeus

Petyon Place or is it Petraeus Place or is it Petraeus-gate?

File the following under, you have got to be kidding me. According to accounts, the FBI learned about CIA Director Petraeus’ extramarital affair while they were investigating a complaint from a woman close to Petraeus who had received harassing emails from the general’s alleged mistress.

The FBI traced those emails back to Paula Broadwell, a former military officer and Petraeus’s biographer, according to news reports. When law enforcement officials delved into her email account, it was apparent Broadwell and Petraeus were engaged in an affair.

The identity of the woman who filed the original complaint has not been disclosed.

This morning on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Senator Feinstein (CA-D) stated that Petraeus’ mistress, Paula Broadwell, was threatening another woman to stay away from her boy Petraeus.  Senator Dianne Feinstein also stated that she should have been briefed by the FBI sue to the nature of national security issues and potential security breaches.  In the end Feinstein added, “I can’t believe it. But, that’s what it is.”

VIDEO Hat Tip: The Gateway Pundit 

From The Hill, Senator Feinstein: No link between Petraeus resigning and Benghazi investigation. Says who? We were also told by the Obama administration that there was no terror connection between the Benghazi attacks and terrorism. They told us that the attacks were a result of a reaction to a video tape.  I am far from a tin foil hat conspiracy individual, but the timing of this resignation is far too convenient for Obama and the Congressional Benghazi hearings next week. Was there an affair, yes. Is he resigning because of the Benghazi debacle, probably not. However, why did Petraeus not resign sooner? Once again we are presented with the question that Barack Obama will never answer, what did he know and when did he know it regarding the Petraeus affair? Who really does not believe that Obama knew and was only going to disclose this until after the election? Who does not think that Petraeus was not asked ny the WH to delay his resignation until after the election and some quid pro quo would be provided to Petraeus  in return?

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she does not think there’s any connection between the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus and the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that resulted in four dead.

“On the events in Benghazi and his resignation, absolutely not,” Feinstein said on Fox News Sunday when asked about a possible link. “And I think if you really think this thing out everybody will come to that same conclusion.”

UPDATE I:  Woman who received threatening emails from Petraeus’ mistress identified as Jill Kelley, a local concerned citizen who volunteers to help the military.

CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns Over ‘Extramarital Affair’ … Petraeus will not Testify Before Congressional Oversight Committees Next week on Benghazi

ALL THE PRESIDENTS CONVENIENT RESIGNING MEN,  THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HMM …

CIA Director, General David Petraeus has resigned from the Obama Administration over an extramarital affair. What interesting timing. Petraeus was set to testify before Congress next week on the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. Are we supposed to believe that the Obama White House did not know of this resignation prior to the 2012 Presidential election? Or was this just another scandal that was hid from the American public and the play clock run out on so that Obama could be reelected? I am sure even the MSM would have asked some questions if Petraeus resigned prior to the election and what that meant for Obama foreign policy.

Just two days after President Obama’s re-election, General David Petraeus, the CIA Director, has resigned from the administration over an extramarital affair. Petraeus was slated to testify before Congress next week on the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. Bret Baier of Fox News just tweeted, “With Petraeus’ resignation effective immediately, he will not testify next week & lawmakers are said to be ‘stunned’ by the announcement.”

This is only the latest in a string of groundshaking events demonstrating that the Obama administration hid information vital to the American people during the last days of the 2012 election cycle. The fact that the most respected soldier of his generation, Petraeus, would be leaving the administration during an Obama second term, had to be known by the White House prior to the election. And they said nothing in order to run out the clock.   The fact that Attorney General Eric Holder was considering stepping down from the administration had to be known by the White House prior to the election. Meanwhile, during the election cycle, the Obama administration claimed executive privilege in order to shield Holder from questions about Fast and Furious.

Talk about an Obama administration of convenient timing. As LT. COL. RALPH PETERS (VIDEO) stated, the timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration. The Benghazi terror attack on the 9-11 anniversary and now a resignation a week before he was set to testify under oath in front of Congress. Hmm.

As stated at the Weekly Standard, the timing of this announcement is some what suspect.  It is being reported that Petraeus will not testify next week before congressional oversight committees on Benghazi as initially planned. How absolutely convenient for Barack Obama and his continued stonewalling and cover up of what happened before, during and after in Benghazi.

Congressional Republicans were furious with Petraeus for what they described to THE WEEKLY STANDARD as “misleading” testimony he gave to the House Intelligence Committee on September 14. In that session, Petraeus pointed to a protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video as a primary reason for the attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, despite an abundance intelligence pointing to a preplanned terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex there. Other members of Congress were particularly interested in questioning Petraeus about why crucial details about those attacks were left out of “talking points” the CIA prepared for lawmakers and executive branch officials. Among those details: the existence of a communications intercept between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks. The level of frustration with the CIA and Petraeus had led several top Republican lawmakers to consider calling for his resignation in late October.   Obama administration officials have told reporters that Petraeus’s resignation means he will not testify before congressional oversight committees next week, as planned. This will not sit well with Republicans, who believe Petraeus is in a unique position to shed light on the intelligence on Benghazi before the attack, the decision-making during the attack and the misleading stories told after it.

Just curious, how would the news of   Petraeus’ resignation have played if this occurred prior to the election?

MSM Bias … CBS Tries to Defend Withholding Key Part Of Obama Interview Where He Wouldn’t Call Benghazi A Terror Attack (Assassination of Ambassador Stevens)

More MSM bias and how the Corrupt Media Complex is nothing more than the Obama propaganda outlet meant to deceive the American public.

As reported at the Politico, CBS has been caught with their hand in the defend Obama at all cost cookie jar as they try and defend not airing a key portion of their ’60 Minutes’ interview where Obama wouldn’t call the Benghazi terror attack and the assassination of Ambassador Stevens a terror attack. This is the kind of interview that any media outlet dreams of … one with the president and the most important news of the day with an issue like terrorism. A sure fire ratings grabbers. Not for CBS, who inexplicably withheld the President’s comments so to protect their candidate.

Benghazi, the ‘Watergate” of our times and no MSM to hold a president accountable

Pic Hat Tip: Vanderbilt ’12

CBS News is continuing to draw fire for withholding footage of a Sept. 12 interview with President Barack Obama in which he said it was “too early to tell” whether or not the previous day’s attack in Benghazi, Libya, had been an act of terror.

That remark, which was not included in the “60 Minutes” package that first aired on Sept. 23, was also left out of a subsequent package that aired in the days following the second presidential debate, when President Obama said that he had called the attack “an act of terror” in his Rose Garden address on Sept. 12, which took place before the interview. The remark was not released until yesterday, a fact Bret Baier of Fox News called attention to earlier today.

In interviews with POLITICO, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said CBS had been “explicitly misleading” in order “to protect President Obama.” Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said he was “dumbstruck” by the network’s decision not to report on such a newsworthy item. On Fox News, Sen. John McCain said CBS was “not carrying out their responsibilities of informing the American people,” while conservative columnist Byron York wrote on Twitter that the network had “a scandal on their hands.”

Meanwhile, sources at rival television networks, who declined to speak on the record, expressed confusion over CBS’s decision.

“It’s surprising they held on to any of it,” one source said. “If [we had the interview], we would’ve put that stuff out the second it became news — again — after the debate. All of it.”

So what was the part of the interview that was cut from “We the People”? How about what might be the most key part of the interview in asking Obama whether the attack was a terrorist one or not? Shameful, simply shameful. But then again as Weasel Zippers sarcastically notes, it is not as though this was news worthy.

In the interview conducted on Sept. 12, Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” asked the president about his remarks in the Rose Garden: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?,” Kroft asked.

“Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans,” Obama said.

Hmm, I thought that Obama claimed, echoed by CNN’s Candy Crowley as she came to Obama’s aid, that Obama had called it a terror attack in the Rose Garden as he falsely stated during the 2nd Presidential debate?

Barack Obama is only at 48% in the polls because of a lying, deceitful and corrupt bias media that would do anything to make sure he was reelected including withholding important information from We the People.

As stated at Legal Insurrection, some one at CBS will most certainly be fired for this. However, not for withholding the clip, but for publishing it at all. Sadly, this is probably more fact than fiction. Is it any wonder why the MSM has not pressed Barack Obama on Benghazi and the murder of four Americans. We can only imagine how the story would have been pursued if the president was a Republican.

There is no question that the American people deserved answers and to be told by their president what he knew and when he knew it. However, with a bias MSM, those things do not pertain to democrat presidents and especially this one who the media feels the need to protect and coddle at all cost.