Send the US marshalls to bring Hillary and Petraeus to testify.

Why is it that only Republicans seem to be dragged before Congress to testify when there is the specter of a crime being committed? Or when Democrats do appear, they feign ignorance, pass the buck, and just refuse to cooperate like Eric Holder and “Fast and Furious.”

I can think of the Watergate Hearings that went on for weeks. The hearings were televised. Millions of people watched them. Dozens went to jail. President Richard Nixon was forced to resign.

Then there was Oliver North. He was dragged through the muck of hearings in order to embarrass Ronald Reagan. Fortunately for the conservative world, Lt. North made minced meat of his interrogators.
Now we come to the latest Obama scandal that’s finally getting press attention because sex is involved. Charles Krauthammer said the following On Fox News Special Report:

“In an odd way and sort of discouraging way, now that the story is attached to a sex scandal, it will become a story that will be pursued by the media as were not pursued before.”

The David Petraeus resignation is not just about sex. It’s a National Security issue with a sexual component. The media will use the sex angle to divert attention from the real issues of the possible breach of National Security, the laxed attitude that is now present at the highest levels of government that started with Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky affair and opening the military to homosexuals.

Liberals don’t consider extra-marital affairs a big deal. Liberal commentator Bill Press is a perfect example:

“Let me just tell you flat out I don’t think he (Petreaus) should have resigned. I don’t think he should have been forced to resign. He wasn’t forced, it was his decision. I don’t think he should have resigned. I think it’s sad that we lose the services of so great a man over an extramarital affair.”

The military has strict rules regarding sexual relationships. A breach of trust is a big deal in any relationship, especially when people with power over our lives are involved and when military and classified documents are involved.
Something is unsettling about the timing of the resignation and Petraeus’s involvement in the Benghazi investigation. ABC News reports:

In late October, Petraeus traveled to Libya to conduct his own review of the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

While in Tripoli, he personally questioned the CIA station chief and other CIA personnel who were in Benghazi on Sept. 11 when the attack occurred.

Is there a relationship between what C.I.A. Director Petraeus found out in his investigation and his abrupt resignation? Did the Obama Administration in the use of Chicago-style politics have something else on the Director beyond his admission of infidelity? Was he told, “Either resign or we’ll make all the investigative files from the FBI known to the public.” Would his military pension be affected? We don’t know.

That’s why Petraeus and Hillary Clinton must be forced to testify. Congress should send out U.S. Marshals and bring back Hillary from her wine and cheese tasting vacation in Australia with friends so she can testify on what she knows about Benghazi as well as Petraeous and what he learned from interviews he conducted in Tripoli.



Read more:


added footnote:
    Obama and the media today do not play by the rules of the past. Obama is not going to be cowed by concerns for his legacy -- he's already loved by those who voted for him and he's not going to get more love from them by trying to win anyone else over. In addition, he's a hard-core ideologue, despite his pretensions otherwise, and he knows there's more legacy benefit in pushing the ideology button than doing what's good for the country or the public as a whole. He's playing the Rushmore Annex card here, looking to get a spot next to FDR.

As for the media, likewise they do not play by the rules of the past. To prove this, you need look no further than how the media, largely en masse, has ignored Benghazi, which is, by any measure, a huge, juicy scandal. So, I do not believe that the media will cover this story unless Petraeus drops a nuclear bomb on the administration in his upcoming testimony. But then, his testimony -- if it even happens -- is behind closed doors, so again, that's unlikely.

The media may cover the Petraeus scandal up to the point that it's a good gossip story providing opportunities to smear the military establishment. But I believe they will self-impose a firewall that goes no further than Petraeus, his family and the woman involved. They will not muss a single hair on the head of Dear Leader.