Six lingering questions about Petraeus’s exit
The White House says no one there knew about the Petraeus situation before Wednesday and the president himself was informed Thursday. But if the story had broken a week earlier, those headlines would have overtaken much of the president’s message about the middle class and his work in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Who made the decision to wait, and why, is going to be the subject of scrutiny as this scandal continues to unfold…
Petraeus appears to have successfully kept the situation quiet for months, if not longer. He had known for all that time that he was violating the moral and professional code that he cited in his message to CIA employees Friday. And he knew for weeks that the FBI was looking into the situation.
But something made him come forward now.
The larger circumstances of the election and next week’s hearing might be pure coincidences. Members of Congress were this week informed of the situation, and that’s a tried and tested way for information, especially juicy information, to leak out. Add to that their frustration at not being told until now, and the possibilities increase exponentially.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
IN Obama’s America all coincides must benefit Obama.
rob verdi on November 11, 2012 at 8:42 AM
But I read yesterday the FBI, in collusion with the Justice Department and the White House knew about this last week (at least), but kept it silent specifically for political reasons.
catmman on November 11, 2012 at 8:44 AM
I cannot believe the Obama administration keeps getting away with this Sgt Schultz bullspit.
I honestly cannot believe it.
catmman on November 11, 2012 at 8:49 AM
Yeah, journalists have always bought the “coincidence” excuse on stories involving sex, lies and presidential elections.
forest on November 11, 2012 at 8:58 AM
I have to wonder if the msm didn’t have wind of this prior to the election, too, and just sat on it.
It amazes me that the American public tolerates the msm working in cahoots with obama.
Blake on November 11, 2012 at 9:03 AM
They get away with it by playing aloof and distant. During the election there was talk about Obama seeming like he didn’t really care if he got elected. He was detached and vague, going on late night talk shows..appearing on The View with Michelle holding his hand and crossing his legs like a woman..really lame stuff.
He detached so he could not have to make any definitive statement or position that could be used against him. He has always used this technique. Even when commenting on positions, he would state both sides of the situation at different times, so if someone called him on one stance, he could “go to the transcript” and point out him stating the opposite. Its the way this administration gets away with things from the handwaving away of cases by DOJ..or now Hillary not having to testify on Benghazi because of a “scheduling conflict” etc.
As long as they get away with it, there is little reason to answer to anyone.
Mimzey on November 11, 2012 at 9:19 AM
They actually tolerate it. They only have that one side of the story. The view that Obama is honest and has whats best for the country as his goal…and that conservatives hate the planet..women..minorities..children..old people..gays..gay old people..puppies..clean water, and you.
Mimzey on November 11, 2012 at 9:26 AM
actually don’t tolerate it.
Mimzey on November 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM
So here’s yet another political scandal that Obama, “knew nothing about”. Is there an unwritten code in the White House that the President must not be told of anything that might potentially take his attention away from his golf game, or planning his next appearance on The View? Since when does the FBI or the CIA keep potential security risks from the President?
And FYI- Stay away from Drudge today, the barrage of relentless headlines regarding “Life under Obama” will ruin your morning.
BettyRuth on November 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Another lingering question: Why do Petraeus and the woman look like they could be brother and sister?
albill on November 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM
Notice how the media never expresses skepticism about Obama, but only concocts, or repreats, assumptions about his motives that are unrelentingly positive, and cast him as the innocent victim of the failings of others.
You have to wonder how many of these utterances are explicitly planted by the White House. I would normally be tempted to assume most are plants, but the media is so eager and so adept at fatuousness over this President that the White House could probably keep hands-off to maintain deniability, and still get media coverage as favorable as if they had writen it themselves!
drunyan8315 on November 11, 2012 at 10:20 AM