Petraeus Will Not Walk “The Benghazi Plank” For Obama Regime

On CNBC’s Kudlow Report, John Batchelor revealed that when David Petraeus testified on the Hill about the Benghazi attack he was not under oath.  You read that right—he was not under oath.

Batchelor is reliably ahead of news cycles and he informs that “Petraeus did not resign because of the affair he mentions in his resignation letter.”

Batchelor boldly asserts that Petraeus did not want to return to the Hill under oath next week to be confronted over the inconsistencies in his remarks about the CIA’s part in the fiasco.

The White House developed the hateful video talking points which Batchelor describes as “nakedly fallacious” and Petraeus did not, did not correct the public record.

At risk right away is the administration's plan to seat Susan Rice as the next Secretary of State in Obama’s cabinet.  However, all the principals of the national security apparatus are at risk:  Tom Donilon, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs, the President and Vice President.  It appears that the American people were purposefully misinformed by the Obama administration.  

The Senate Intelligence Committee will proceed at all possible speed in the Lame Duck session and this will go far and high in the administration.  We already see that the leaking is brutal as it reveals Obama’s secret policy of aiding strongmen and warlords regardless of their Jihadist connections.

Ever since the story broke that four Americans were left to die in Benghazi, the only news outlet that covered the tragedy was Fox News.  It is inescapable now for the media lapdogs to ignore the story since infidelity on the part of Petraeus is part of the new narrative.

Did Petraeus resign to outmaneuver the White House that was making threats against him and Broadwell about security?  Did the White House get surprised by the resignation?  

Only a fool would accept a White House-engineered resignation about an affair of the heart with a glamorous mother of two.