RUSH: It's actually impossible to know when Petraeus is gonna testify. NBC and Fox say Friday. ABC says... No, wait. Fox says Friday. Everybody else says Thursday. Then there's the Senate and the House, and then some say that John Kerry (who served in Vietnam, by the way) will conduct the Senate off-site, behind-closed-doors testimony. I don't even know, folks, why Petraeus' testimony is relevant.
The president's got a press conference in a little bit over an hour. He's gonna answer everybody's questions about this and it will be over. No, no, no. I'm kidding. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't get a question about it. Let's play a little game and make a little prediction. If Obama gets questions about Benghazi, my bet is that the question will be, "What do you think of these sneaky Republicans, Graham and McCain, who want to appoint a select committee to look into what happened to the video filmmaker?"
Does anybody really think the media is gonna ask Obama what really happened in Benghazi? The media is there to cover for the guy. The media is there to protect him. Whatever questions he gets about Benghazi are gonna be softballs and setups that are designed to have him sweep it under the rug as far as most people are concerned, so that whatever comes afterwards is made to look like it's about a bunch of sore losers.
"They're small-time nitpickers who want their little select committee to look into it, as though they really care about four dead Americans. But we know that all they want to do is nail our young, wonderful president." So everything they ask Obama will be a setup so that he can answer it and be done with it. He'll do it very professorially and very compassionate-filled and so forth. And anything that follows, Republicans will be portrayed as sore losers. Here's what Krauthammer said...
But before Krauthammer, Bill Kristol: Noted foreign policy expert and leader of the neocons. Bill Kristol on Fox last night said that he talked to somebody (he didn't name names) who told him that at the end of Petraeus' testimony on the 14th or 15th, whenever it was, of September, somebody said, "Okay, what happened? What did you see?" and Petraeus said, "Do you want to know what really happened or do you want the official line?" Now, Kristol didn't mention any names so we don't know who it was that told Kristol that he had asked that question of Petraeus.
Krauthammer was on Special Report with Bret Baier last night on the Fox News Channel.
KRAUTHAMMER: He understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration. And he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet. And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That's the thing that connects the two scandals, and that's the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant.
RUSH: Okay. So, as far as Krauthammer is concerned, the Obama regime held the scandal over Petraeus' head for favorable Benghazi testimony. But now? Now Petraeus has resigned, or been pushed out, whatever is the case. So now the theory is that Petraeus is free to tell the truth and so his testimony on September 13th -- which was, by the way, "It was a spontaneously combustible little protest out there brought about by the filmmaker."
Petraeus did say that, that he traveled to Benghazi himself and did his own investigation. Now he's been fired, or allowed to resign, because somebody who knew about this affair for a long time finally went public with it. You know, it's a reasonable thing to think he might have been blackmailed over this, and it's reasonable to think that he might have wanted to get out from under the blackmail by resigning.
So now everybody's waiting with bated breath for his testimony tomorrow and/or Friday before the Senate and/or House in their off-site, closed-door committees. And there's a bunch of conventional wisdom that's sprung to life that says, "He's gonna go in there and he's gonna tell everybody that it wasn't the video! He's gonna go in there and tell everybody it was not spontaneous-combustion protest.
"He's gonna go in there and tell 'em it was Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda was there, and they were building up, and they planned the attack, and it was for a whole bunch of reasons, but the video had nothing to do with it." I'm sorry; that's not what I think is going to happen. I just don't think it works that way. I mean, a lot of people are holding out hope for honesty and integrity and the American way and doing the right thing.
But would somebody tell me where that's happening in our government?
Would somebody tell me where that can be relied on anywhere, by anybody, at the government level?
I don't see it.
And I think they've still got something to hold over Petraeus.
If they want him to tell the story about the video, that's what he's gonna tell.
Folks, let me make another point to you about Petraeus and his testimony tomorrow and/or Friday. I really am unsure, and it doesn't matter. It's one of the next two days.
If Petraeus goes in there and says anything different than what he said on September 13th, do you know the world of hurt that he's in? What did he say on September 13th or whenever the testimony was? He said it was the video. He said it was an out-of-control mob, spontaneous combustion protest because of the video. Okay, now let's say that he goes in tomorrow and if he doesn't say exactly what he said to Congress back in September, then he's gonna get the question, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?"
Lets play the game. Let's say he goes in there and changes the testimony. (imitating Petraeus) "I was here in September and I was mistaken. It was not a video that made the protest happen. It was not the video that was at the root of the death of the Americans." Bang the gavel, crowd goes nuts.
"General, general, you said that it was the video."
"Well, yes, but I've done my own investigation, Senator, and found that was wrong back on the 13th. We all were wrong. It clearly wasn't the video."
Well, then the fur starts flying. "So, General, are we to believe you now, or are we to believe you then? General, you were just caught red-handed having an affair. You're a man of obviously big character flaws and now you're changing your story, so what are we supposed to believe? Who knows what to believe with you anymore, General."
Do you think Petraeus is gonna go through that? I know some of you think, "Rush, he's a man of honor. He will stand up for what's right in there." Well, even if he does, I'm gonna tell you they're gonna destroy him, and it'll leak. You have to understand what's going on here, folks. There is a circle-the-wagon operation around Barack Obama that nobody's gonna penetrate. That is abundantly clear. The Democrats, the media, they're not gonna allow this thing to become Watergate. They're not gonna allow this circle of protection to be penetrated in any way, shape, manner, or form.
I'll remind you, you go back to Petraeus' testimony before Congress, before the surge in Iraq. MoveOn.org is running a full-page ad in the New York Times, "General Betray Us." Hillary Clinton called him a liar before he had uttered a word. Hillary said that you have to suspend reality in order to listen and believe Petraeus. So they've already indicated they have no problem whatsoever calling the guy a liar.
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to repeat something as a helpful hint here that I said earlier this week that is obvious now. It's always been the case. It's been the case for years. We keep hoping that something's going to change, but it isn't. No dispute will ever be resolved until the Democrats win it. So if you had some hope or prayer that there's gonna be some huge treasure trove of, "Gotcha, Obama!" from Petraeus' testimony, it isn't going to happen.
A, he's not gonna commit perjury. He's not gonna say something different than he said the last time. And, B, whatever they've got on him, they've got on him. They were able to kick him out of office. They were able to blackmail him or do whatever with this affair business. They kept it. They knew what was going on. They held it in check 'til they needed it. But the idea that somehow Obama's gonna be made to take the hit on this Benghazi thing?
It isn't gonna happen.
The Democrats get away with it.
That's the lesson.
No dispute will be finished and resolved until the Democrats win it. You just may as well, for the foreseeable future, resign yourself to that.