Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The David Petraeus sex scandal is resonating far beyond its original borders.
Since I wasn't particularly interested in the sleazier aspects of the story, my main thought was to wonder why General Petraeus was sandbagged in this fashion.
After all, plenty of men in high places have been caught with inappropriate parts of their anatomies caught in the cookie jar before, and while it may lead to resignations for various contrived reasons, it rarely leads to this kind of public scandal...unless somebody in power wants it that way. The general's little love triangle ( or is it a hexagon?) didn't need to be outed, especially since people leave White House jobs in DC all the time after an election. Yet it was. Why?
Charles Krauthammer thinks he knows:
What Dr. Krauthammer is talking about is the fact that the FBI knew all about General Petraeus' extracurricular activities way back in May of 2012, yet he was allowed to continue in place until now, with the White House ignoring the national security implications of possible blackmail or security leaks.
While I originally thought that the delay was just to avoid embarrassing the president during election season, it looks like this goes even deeper.
It is, of course, an old tradition in certain political circles to collect useful tidbits like this and hold them in reserve for when you need them.If the Obama Administration in fact did that,it's a serious matter - a major security lapse allowed solely for political purposes.
But now, it appears that a question has been raised about whether Petraeus was promised a chance to resign gracefully or even to stay on provided he toed the Administration line about an out-of-hand mob incensed by a video..which is pretty much what he did in his testimony of September 13th.
But then the question remains..if this is how it went down and General Petraeus submitted and did what the administration wanted, why destroy him anyway?
I can think of reasons.
General Petraeus was never one of the president's Chicago circle, he's always conducted himself with honor, he's not particularly an Obama loyalist and as such, there's no telling when he might roll back over. This way, he's disgraced and discredited no matter what.
No matter what he says about Benghazzi when he testifies before Congress, it can now be ignored with a nudge, a smirk and wink by the regime and their media allies.
Not that I think the General is going to contradict his performance of September 13 all that much unless something special happens, like an offer of immunity. There is this thing called perjury.
What he will likely have, for now at least, is a few rough hours as congress parses his Libya Report to the White House, provided they can manage to pry it loose form the Obama Regime.