Petraeus and other big name witnesses to testify to Benghazi Committee

The House Benghazi Committee has announced some big names are about to testify behind closed doors, including former director of the CIA David Petraeus.

As I write in “Stonewalled,” in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Petraeus first drew ire from some administration colleagues for not reading from the Carney-Obama-Clinton-Rice book of fiction:

While they’re pushing the spontaneous protest narrative, he’s disclosing full information on the suspected al-Qaeda links, to House Intelligence Committee members at a classified briefing, according to those present. Then the talking points his agency approves for public dissemination on September 14 say that the CIA provided warnings on September 10 that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, could come under attack and that Benghazi was in a precarious state. Clinton’s state department sees the inclusion of that damning information in the CIA’s original proposed talking points as a “knee-jerk cover-your-ass moment” on Petraeus’s part. One official later tells me, “We thought, Why are you guys [Petraeus’s CIA] throwing us under the bus? . . . They made it seem like the State Department was given a warning they ignored. [But] no specific warning was given.”

Emails indicate that on September 15, 2012, a CIA representative sent Petraeus the final version of the talking points that had been revised “through the Deputies Committee” after “State voiced strong concerns with the original text.” The CIA’s references to terrorism and early warnings had been removed.

Petraeus expresses disapproval of the final version, writing that he would just assume that they not be used. But his deputy, Morell, and the White House give them the green light.

Is all of this the beginning of the end of Petraeus’s career as CIA director?

Not long after Petraeus butted heads with other Obama officials over Benghazi, his alleged affair with a journalist and biographer suddenly surfaced. The FBI had long been aware of the relationship and had investigated it — but set it aside — months prior. Only after the Benghazi attacks, as Petraeus’s loyalty to the administration falls into question, does the affair become revealed and everything turns sour for the spy chief and he resigns. (Continued below)

You can read much more about Benghazi and Petraeus in Stonewalled.

Former Director of the CIA David Petraeus
Former Director of the CIA David Petraeus


Petraeus testifies to the Benghazi Committee this Wednesday. The following day, Charlene Lamb, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs for Diplomatic Security testifies. State Department diplomats who worked in Libya said that Lamb repeatedly denied their security requests in the build-up to the Benghazi attacks.

Friday, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testifies. And next week, the committee hears from former Defense Department Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash.

Watch Full Measure this Sunday for new information on the Benghazi attacks and the rescue that never came.

Watch Full Measure Sundays on a Sinclair station or livestream at 9:30a EST at
Watch Full Measure Sundays on a Sinclair station or livestream at 9:30a EST at



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 thoughts on “Petraeus and other big name witnesses to testify to Benghazi Committee”

  1. The FBI has a long history of digging up dirt on officials and others to coerce them. NSA spying is an extension of that, but it provides dirt on virtually everyone. Any rising stars or newly elected officials can be coerced. At the first opportunity this information is used to force individuals in sensitive positions to do things or cover up information that could end their careers, and forever more they’re willing participants to do their master’s bidding.

  2. The whole Benghazi investigation has been a huge, but sadly not unexpected disappointment. How can you get to the bottom of things when half the committee is intent on covering up and obfuscating and grandstanding?

    Apparently Congress has no teeth anyway. No matter what they uncover, there are no real consequences.

    Because the Democrats have, once again, been successful at making this all political and have managed to drag this out for years–no one really cares.

    Finally, rank and file Democrats will vote for the devil himself if he has a “D” after his name. I do not believe there is anything that could be uncovered about Hillary or Obama, that would preclude nearly 50% of the voting population from voting a straight democrat ticket.

    That is, after all why Democrats push for welfare, and immigration, and want refugees and the list goes on and on–it’s all about power and staying in power.

    The only thing that will keep Hillary out of the White House is for here to be charged and convicted of a felony–and given the FBI works for Obama, that is not going to happen. How is it they have not made a single arrest in the email scandal? Crimes were committed–to that there is no doubt. But, so far–nothing. And nothing but smoke and mirrors is all we will get.

    1. Now, that Petraeus is going to testify, the 5-sided puzzle plaice (Pentagon) releases they are “thinking” about taking away one or more stars retroactively.

      No pressure or coercion here–not sir.

      What’s the difference between this administration and the Mafia–you can go after the Mafia.

Scroll to Top