It has been amazing to watch the media and the administration in concert twist and mangle the story-line behind the unfortunate General Petraeus scandal to unrecognizable forms.
I have watched details slowly emerge and get twisted for days, with the entire mainstream media ignoring the fact that the General resigned two days after the President’s re-election.
Two days… it was not only one day in order to attempt to not be overly obvious, but it was a matter that could not even wait weeks. And it is not exactly clear when Petraeus resigned and when Obama accepted the resignation, he may even have resigned the day after the election. When you get fired from a White House Cabinet position, you always “resign”. The president asks you to resign and you do so - statements are coordinated to maintain dignity, you cite personal reasons and the President thanks you for your service and even praises it.
It was clear that this was not that kind of resignation. It really was a resignation. Petraeus walked into the White House and resigned, and thanked the President only for accepting his resignation. Even more surprising, the “personal reasons” were stated clearly to the public – they were related to having an affair. This was a case of preemptive strike.
Rather than letting the media leak the affair, Petraeus, able strategist that he is, “leaked” it first, taking the bang out of any press exclusive. This was very obvious, and yet it seems there was more to it than that.
As more details emerged, it became evident that the General was not only preempting the press in releasing information about the affair, but also preempting the President and his FBI. Petraeus was apparently liable to be fired and indicted by this administration that seems to love going after (“put my boot on their throat”) good American citizens rather than their enemies.
It seemed excessive to be indicted for having an affair, but we could assume that due to his sensitive position in the CIA and prior military career, there could be possible infractions of security and law. At the same time, the connection with the election was now more apparent:
Petraeus held on as long as he could, hoping for a Romney victory. Mitt Romney would call off the dogs (the FBI), and handle the matter quietly internally, Petraeus hoped. Romney would have better things to do as a new President than hunt down popular American war heroes and brilliant assets to the country.
With Obama re-elected, and no longer concerned with public opinion since there is no third therm, the General knew it was time to go, and he did his best at preempting the firestorm.
Either because of simple collusion, or because lack of imagination since Petraeus is nominally an Obama appointee, the media mentioned none of this.
Why could the General hold on until the election? Why wouldn’t Obama pounce on him before the election? Especially since Obama did not know he would get re-elected for sure. Well because it is a double-edged sword. Obama was protecting Petraeus until the election, because since he was an Obama appointee and part of his cabinet, the scandal could hurt Obama’s reelection chances. It would upset those that support Petraeus and would blame the President, and it would upset those that would blame Obama for having promoted and supported the General. Obama would not act until he was reelected.
Why would Obama want to go after his own appointee?
For the same reasons he goes after his own states, his own US companies, and his own US policy. For the same reasons he let a US ambassador be without security in one of the most dangerous places on earth (for an American ambassador). It is his ideology, he wouldn’t describe them as “his own”. Petraeus is an Obama appointee much like Defense Minister Robert Gates was. Obama had little choice. Both men, having been instrumental in the successful surge, were the type of people lacking in the leftist cabinet camp, very popular and competent (specifically in military matters). When Obama actually faced the reality of running two wars and trying to win “his” Afghanistan, he dreaded the responsibility, apparently acknowledged his own complete ignorance on the matter, and kept these Bush appointees who had been so successful and whose policies he had criticized so much, both from the Senate floor and at the campaign trail.
General Petraeus was an Obama appointee because Obama could not do without him. He could not do without his popularity among exactly the type of people that can doubt Obama’s patriotism and commitment to the troops, and he could not do without his expertise and service. Other than that, there is no love lost between them, and Obama would gladly replace him with an ideological compatriot as soon as he can (that was already done in the case of Robert Gates, by replacing him with the incompetent Leon Panetta).
Given the chance of destroying the popularity of such a Republican figure, a Bush appointee with a spotless record due to Iraq, it is hard to imagine Obama would not pounce on it. It gives him a perfect out. While Robert Gates himself no longer wanted to continue in politics, the career of General Petraeus was not nearly over, rather he was a rising star. This scandal provided Obama with the excuse needed to not only get rid of him without taking any blame for it, but destroying his spotless reputation and popularity.
Given all this, it was incredible to see the media ignore the unusual resignation and circumstances announced just after the President’s reelection. And if in fact the CIA director hoped or knew that Romney would be able to stop the FBI (which cannot be done under a real serious criminal activity – the president is not king), it shows how much of a personal driving force Obama was in pushing the FBI against him.
The alternative spin that has been implied by the media everywhere is ridiculous. They are trying to make a case that as head of the CIA, Petraeus is somehow to blame in Benghazi, and therefore this has led to his resignation. The administration first mentioned a video (whose producer is now in jail – Freedom of speech did not stop them from finding him guilty of some other law – there are plenty on the books) as its scapegoat for the murder.
When that no longer flew, it was this mystery “intelligence” that told them to lie, and not listen to the dozens of people present who knew in real-time what was happening and did not mention any protest about any video. Now, Petraeus fits perfectly into this maze of lies… he must have been the mysterious “intelligence” that is to blame.
Or perhaps as it has also been implied, he was responsible for not sending help or saving the Ambassador and his colleagues in time. Anyone who is familiar with the hearings on the matter that thankfully the GOP under Congressman Darrel Issa is conducting, knows the CIA has nothing to do with this nor does anyone else except the State Department. I have written about this elsewhere, but as the hearings clearly show, the State Department was offered plenty of forces by the concerned military at no extra cost (there goes their budget excuses) and they were refused.
The staff at the consulate consistently begged for more security and warned about the dangers they faced and they too were ignored. There was a conscious decision to not “offend” the rabble of Islamist rebels and terrorists the administration had just helped to power. Not “offending Islam” is one of the cornerstones of this administration, they go to great lengths to try to achieve it. Meanwhile Islam, who is not offended by anything other than the existence of non Muslims, continues on its path of world domination as they laugh at their enemies’ new found weakness (where is good ol G. W.)
As far as the actual scandal and the details behind it, others involved and whether there was breaches of law or security, we will examine afterwards when more of the murky details emerge in truth – there is still too much distortion. We certainly wish the General the best, America has much to thank him for, and as far as any affair is concerned, we leave that between him and his wife.
And so, it is absurd that Petraeus would be to blame in any way for Benghazi, that is irrelevant to what is happening here. Or at least, not in the way being espoused; only the opposite case may be possible where perhaps Petraeus and his CIA were part of the warnings of security threats etc that were ignored. It is possible that Obama feared Petraeus’ testimony or that of others in the CIA on the matter, but it is virtually impossible to believe the media’s tale that he is somehow to blame for the Ambassador’s death and this is his punishment.
The only thing General Petraeus is to blame for as far as concerns Obama and his administration, is of not being a radical leftist who wants to appease his enemies instead of defeat them.