As they say, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

Amen to that, Bravo. When, not if, Congress finally gets around to impeaching Obama as the most corrupt administration ever, I’m going to send Rep. McCarthy yet another blistering message to go further and see whether Obama’s credibility problem extends to covering up his own illegal presidency: http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/cold-case-posse-boss-fingers-hawaii-officials/?cat_orig=us

??? Are we talking about an embassy being attacked and Americans being murdered or are we talking about a general getting some strange stuff? I fail to see the connection.

Maybe it’s just me, but from what I’ve seen and heard the media that was once quite sweet on him has turned on this guy like a rabid dog. So easily they forget that General Petraeus accomplished what his predecessor couldn’t; he got us out of Iraq. He made a serious error in judgement and publicly took personal responsibility for his actions. Obama and his democratic colleagues didn’t cover anything up or do the General any favors. To the contrary, I feel as though the democrats, media, and administration threw him under the bus. Any day now, I’m expecting the media to come out with a one hour piece “Special Report; Tommy Franks; Misunderstood Genius”. Lets keep this all in proper perspective. Even Generals are fallible.

SWVoice, considering that it was Petraeus who told us on Sept. 14 that the consulate attack was a “flash mob” type of violence in response to the anti-Muslim video when it was later determined that he and the others knew what the hell really went on from the get-go, which was that it was a terrorist attack, one can only wonder whether Petraeus, as a disgraced CIA chief, was part of the bungled handling of the disaster before, during and after it happened.

To help Catpaw connect the dots, perhaps Petraeus’ predicament may very well have clouded his judgment in dealing with the matter, knowing that Paula Broadwell recently revealed that some Libyan militants were being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi, which may have precipitated the attack in an effort to free them.

Some saw Petraeus’ resignation as an effort to avoid testifying what and when he knew about the events surrounding Benghazi disaster, but it looks like he will now testify about the matter: http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/petraeus-to-testify-before-congress/?cat_orig=us

Obama is now giving his press conference. Not surprisingly, he is talking about the looming “fiscal cliff” rather than the double scandals, but we’ll see if the reporters get him to talk about the latter.

…perhaps Petraeus’ predicament may very well have…

Speculation is the imagining of what the facts are when you don’t know what they are; a common problem for the extreme right that cost them the election. Patience is a virtue. The ability to accept or tolerate delay in seeking the truth is a universally admirable trait of good character. You should try it some day.

Well, let’s see what Petraeus has to say in light of the following email that I received from Grassfire Nation:

Did the White House use their knowledge of former CIA director David Petraeus’ affair to get favorable testimony from him regarding the deadly terror attack on our Libyan consulate?

According to syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, Petraeus told the House Intelligence Committee on September 14, three days after the attack, that it was “a spontaneous protest against the film ‘ Innocence of Muslims.”’

Appearing on FOX News’ “Special Report,” Krauthammer said the Obama administration was holding the affair over Petraeus’ head for that testimony: “As long as they needed him … everybody was silent. And as soon as the election’s over, as soon as he can be dispensed with, the sword drops and he’s destroyed.”

But it now appears that Petraeus isn’t going quietly into the night. With his legacy in shambles, and little to lose, FOX News is reporting that the former CIA director wants to testify at tomorrow’s intelligence committee hearings.