Regarding BenghaziGate, it appears some Moderate Republicans are growing a spine…and President Obama doesn’t like it one bit:

“Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack,” said Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican.

The exchange came after Mr. Graham and Sen. John McCain said they would try to block Ms. Rice if Mr. Obama tapped her to become secretary of state. They said she hasn’t done an exemplary job in her current post as ambassador to the U.N., and also said she has damaged her credibility because she inaccurately blamed the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi on a mob protest.

Mr. Obama, in a press conference, angrily said his critics should instead go after him, and said Ms. Rice was only acting on behalf of the White House.

“She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me,” he said. “And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”

You mean, you actually want to discuss the fact that she, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and you, all lied to the world, by blaming the Muslim Riots in the Middle East, and the murder of 4 Americans at the Benghazi Consulate on a stupid  Youtube Video, which no one had ever seen?

Maybe, you were just upset that your former Director of the CIA, General David Petraeus, is going to be testify about the whole bloody mess, behind closed doors:

Gen. David Petraeus will testify before a House Committee on the Libya embassy attack Friday morning, despite the ongoing FBI investigation into an extramarital affair that led to his resignation as director of the CIA.

The hearing held by the Senate Intelligence Committee is closed to the public and the media. Petraeus is expected to answer questions about the CIA’s knowledge and handling of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Two of those Americans were with the CIA.

It was unclear at first whether or not Petraeus would testify as planned, after he abruptly resigned from the agency amid news of his affair with biographer Broadwell. Five days ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee said the retired General would skip the hearing.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calf., said Wednesday that Petraeus “willing and interested” to talk to the committee, CBS News’ Stephanie Condon reported earlier Wednesday.

“It’s just on Benghazi. Our hearings are on Benghazi and the intelligence that preceded Benghazi and the intelligence that determined security,” she told reporters.

Congressional investigators get access to telegrams, intelligence reports, and classified emails as they interview top security and Pentagon officials. Sources tell CBS News’ Margaret Brennan that intelligence officials will show footage from an unmanned surveillance drone that was overhead during the assault.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has oversight of the State Department, has already been briefed about the attack by Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell.

Dr, Charles Krauthammer was on Special Report on Fox News the other day. He offered his insights on General Petraeus’ situation:

I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought it could be kept secret and that he would stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what would happen and therefore hoping 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 I was, his testimony on September 13. That is the thing that connects the scandals and the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else.

The reason it is important is here a man who knows the administration holds his fate in his hands and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the secretary of defense had said the day before, at variance with what he heard from his station chief in Tripoli and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact he knew his fate was held by people in the administration at that time?

Perhaps, the important question is: Is he going to man up, do the right thing, speak the truth and shame the Devil, concerning BenghaziGate? Or, is he going to keep his mouth shut and take one for the team?

Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith remain unavailable for comment.