I am writing as this news is breaking. General David Petraeus has resigned from the CIA as a result of what he himself is calling an extra-marital affair. He is insisting that the White House did not pressure him to resign.
It's way too early to make any definitive statements about this, but given the situation and uproar over Benghazi and the conflicting statements coming out of Washington and the CIA, the pending testimony on Capitol Hill, combined with the election makes the timing highly suspect. Was the White House upset about the CIA's recently-released timeline?
The obvious questions are, however:
Who revealed the affair? Somebody had to. I doubt that Petraeus himself would decide to reveal it on his own out of shame. Who told Petraeus that they knew about the affair? Perhaps, it was the media that discovered it. If that is the case, we will soon know. Could it have been someone in the administration that discovered it? How long did "someone" know about this?
How sad that such a great career has to end this way.
But stay tuned.
Update: (Saturday)
Daily Caller reports today that Petraeus will not testify before Congress as previously scheduled.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/09/petraeus-will-not-testify-in-house-intelligence-committee-hearing/
Subpoena him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
History teaches us that under in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin the Red Army was purged of its best officers and men. In fact the purge nearly destroyed the Red Army and it was a real possibility that due to the purge (And killing of these men) that Germany could have destroyed the Soviet Union.
Now look to today. First Cmdr. Joseph Darlak, captain of the frigate Vandegrift, then, Capt. Owen Honors was relieved of duty Tuesday as commander of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, then General Ham was relieved. There is a massive Reduction in Forces happening in the military. While civilian (union) workers are not being fired, the men and women in uniform are being basically fired.
Rumors are rampant that there was a Seven Days in May coup d'etat being planned if Obama won. I doubt it, bum Obama is removing all and any opposition to his plans there can be. Rumors are also rampant that this was the last free election we as a nation will ever have. That Obama has no intention of ever giving up power and he will soon find a way to eliminate both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court.
This doesn't smell right Gary. I'm getting too many calls from old friends talking about the RiFs going on and how they are only affecting those with a Conservative bent.
Sad? Come on. This supposed failure of character is as old and commonplace as mankind. When men become superhuman love affairs too will become anachronistic.
Sad? Come on. When men become superhuman, love affairs will become anachronistic. Until then, he just reveals he's human.
I always thought Gary had substantially higher standards than the National Enquirer, but now I'm not so sure.
If Petraeus had an affair, then it MUST have something to do with Benghazi, right?
Where's the laughing mouse icon when you need it?
By the way, the CIA's timeline refuted most of the speculative nonsense that was building before the election.
Typical Gary.
Always assuming the worst of the Obama Administration.
From my understanding the FBI uncovered the affair when they were investigating a case involving Petraeus' lover.
If the Director of the CIA is having a secret affair, he could be blackmailed.
007,
Blackmail? Absolutely. Just think had be been president of the US!
Like Bill Clinton.
On the 12th FBI and CIA men testified that it was a terrorist attack. Then on the 14th Petraeus testified it was a mob demonstration that got out of control, exactly the description held and repeated many times by the administration and Obama.
Obviously this calls attention to the Obama lie that his foreign policy is a failure in the Middle East. His Cairo speech made no difference. The Islamic Extremists were not placated Obama put "daylight" between the US and Israel. Not good before an election so disclosure was delayed until AFTER the election.
Petraeus was a valuable general. He could have withstood the disclosure of an affair as many other generals and Presidents have. It looks like he is being set up to take the blame and he is falling on his sword for Obama.
It is just like information about the Iranian jets fired on our drone in international waters over a week ago was kept under wraps until AFTER the election. Not good to let the voting public know that Obama did not know what to do in response.
If the press were worth a damn and not committed to protecting Obama, no matter what, a lot more would come out.
.
As Gary notes, the Petraeus resignation, as well as the mass "firings" mentioned by Findalis, are are least suspicious, and are somewhat reminiscent of the "Saturday Night Massacre" during the NIxon years.
Interesingly, Petraeus has been in office for a short enough period that it seems reasonable enough to infer that the affair pre-dated his appointment. If that should be the case, then a couple of conclusions may be reached.
Q. Why did the affair not surface during the "vetting"/background process??
A. It almost certainly did.
Q. If the "shame" of an affair was not sufficient to keep Petraeus from accepting the appointment in the first place from fear, even probable knowledge, that it wuld surface, why is it necessary for him to now resign due to the same shame??
A. Probably because there are other reason(s) for the resignation than the affair.
Q. What other possible reason could there be for the resignation??
A. YOu can bet it was something to do with at least Benghazi,if not elsewhere.
Etc., etc., etc.
I have not heard a lot of the other stuff Findalis talked about. However, with regard to Obama having no intention of ever giving up power, I do know that Bill Clinton, as documented by one of his "biographers" who I believe has it on tape, tried his dead level best, thankfully unsuccessfully, to somehow violate/circumvent the
22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in order to become President again in the future, even though he was obviously term-limited, both legally and constitutionally.
Rumors that this was the last free election we will ever have, have been greatly exaggerated, not unlike early rumors of Mark Twain's death. Willing to put money on it Findalis? WE can settle the bet Jan 20, 2017.
elwood, regarding Clinton, I believe you are referring to coverage in The Onion during the interesting interregnum in 2000 when we didn't know who our president-elect was. They ran stories about mass rioting, competing armed militias, Republicans in Texas executing 535 Democrats in New Mexico for unpaid traffic tickets, reclaining the state's electoral votes for Bush, and, best of all, Clinton declaring himself ruler for life, while Hillary was renamed "The Bride of Lord Clinton on Earth."
It was all good fun. Don't tell me you read it as straight news copy? (Where IS that laughing mouse when you need him?)
Siarlys--I have no idea what The Onion is, have never read it if it is readable, or gone to its blog if it is a blog. Or anything. I have no idea what you are talking about. And this was prior to your interregnum.
What I did have reference to is a book, The Clinton Tapes (I believe) written by an apparently continuous associate of Clinton's (Taylor Branch, I believe) from their days way back on the Texas McGovern campaign.
Toward the end of Clinton's second term, Branch followed him around taping a lot of his musings and activities. According to Branch, Clinton hated to leave the White House so bad that he unsuccessfully tried to dream up ways to come back as president. One idea he apparently had, at least as I recall it, was to get elected as VP and cut some kind of deal to succeed to the presidency upon the resignation of whoever was elected president after him. He saw this as a possible way around the 22nd Amendment.
I have no indication that Branch was lying, I believe he has it on tape, and anyone knows that Clinton would have sold Hillary into the white slave trade for an additional 24 hours as president. I don't know if it would have taken a week or a month or whatever for him to have similarly sold Chelsea.
@ elwood p suggins
Perhaps that is the reason Clinton went to bat for Obama. So Hillary can win the Presidency in 2016 and he would be the power behind the throne.
You should enjoy this one elwood:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/clinton-declares-self-president-for-life,191/should
Your own tenuous recollection of even more tenuous speculation is of no greater credibility.
Hillary won't be running in 2016. She's already such a wrinkled old prune.
Post a Comment