Five thoughts about the Petraeus affair we’re not supposed to think
2. This is not about Benghazi. Petraeus’ resignation will not prevent him from testifying to Congress about Benghazi, even though he wants to avoid testifying in order to avoid embarrassment. Every report that links his resignation to Benghazi is predicated on the assumption that the president of the United States decided to blackmail the CIA director. There is nothing anywhere to support that assertion.
3. Petraeus’ behavior was logical. Like many, but not most, men, he cheated on his wife. He tried to hide it. He did not voluntarily disclose his transgression to superiors or colleagues. He became embarrassed when the affair was exposed and resigned. He tried to hold on to his job because there is no reason to believe that his performance as CIA director would be hurt by the affair itself; instead, he knew that its revelation would do the damage. His choice of Paula Broadwell was logical. She was around him, known to him and trusted him, and had a security clearance. If Petraeus were to have an affair with anyone, and if his having an affair was an order from a deity, you’d kind of want him to have it with someone who knows him.
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
Wow, I thought this guy was an idiot before I even went to the link and then in the first point he mentions Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. No wonder the first point wasn’t posted in the short blurb, it would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s a moron.
MobileVideoEngineer on November 14, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Why does everybody keep saying this? Over and over, again… Huh. Makes me think that this could be about Benghazi. Just sayin’. It’s not like an election could have been affected by this or anything…
Fallon on November 14, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Krauthammer: White House ‘Held Affair Over Petraeus’s Head’ For Favorable Testimony On Benghazi
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/13/krauthammer-white-house-held-affair-over-petraeuss-head-favorable-tes#ixzz2CCRIbBuC
What’s happening to Patraeus is part of an Obama purge.
Axion on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM
There’s not enough coffee in the world to make that article make sense. Pretty sure Ambinder was offering up excuses for Obama, but what else is new?
BettyRuth on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM
Yeah, no evidence anywhere except that he lied for Obama’s political benefit last time he talked to Congress about it.
forest on November 14, 2012 at 9:23 AM
Seems to be following the Morsi/Erdoghan plan, yes?
slickwillie2001 on November 14, 2012 at 9:36 AM
There was nothing anywhere to support Obama’s assertion that Benghazi was a spontaneous protest about a bad video. Yet Petraeus supported it.
So if you want to argue that Obama didn’t hold the affair over Petraeus’s head, you have to explain why Petraeus held on to an obvious falsehood. You also have to explain why Obama has not yet answered questions about his own actions and words that night and in the following days. Obama wanted Petraeus to back him up, and Petraeus did. They are either two obviously dumb men, or one was giving the other terrible information.
But Petraeus didn’t resign because he gave POTUS bad intelligence, did he?
MayBee on November 14, 2012 at 9:37 AM
Thanks guys. Looks pretty clear in retrospect.
Dextrous on November 14, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Hard to know what the point of view of this article is. But let me add to it.
Something else we are not supposed to think:
(It is hard to phrase it that way, in the negative)
This is all about the femme fatale, all about sex, and not a plot by an enemy of the United States…or an enemy of Petreus…or an enemy of our Military…or our CIA…or to expose something covert for someone’s or some countries political purposes.
That is the main reason no secret liaisons are allowed, not because someone wants generals not to have any fun.
Only a year or two ago, we had that Russian Spy ring and seductive Anna Chapman? That was unbelievable too.
Fleuries on November 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM
The problem is that it’s going to be difficult to prove that Petraeus lied about Benghazi. It’s not as if he would ever admit that he lied, and it’s too easy for him to say that he tried to honest report his interpretation of the intelligence available at the time. And I’m sure Petraeus is too smart to allow himself to get backed into a corner by members of Congress during hearings.
So, how does this all play out? Obama is already elected, and the media is going to do its best to continue to run interference for him.
blink on November 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM
That’s why I’d like to know what Petraeus disclosed during his most recent lie detector test or clearance renewal application form. If he lied on/during them, then it’s quite possible that he was directly threatened with prosecution. That certainly would amp up the motive for lying about Benghazi.
blink on November 14, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Five things we’re not supposed to think about? I would have thought that the spurting of fluids, the comingling of short and curly hairs, the squeezing of nipples, the thrusting of groins, and the muffled squeaks of passionate release would have been on that list.
But I guess I would be wrong.
Lickmuffin on November 14, 2012 at 10:11 AM
This may be about MONEY, not sex – especially as concerns Natalie Khawam – Jill’s sister, and Grayson Wolfe.
reliapundit on November 14, 2012 at 10:29 AM
From the White House point of view, it doesn’t even matter anymore what he says. He has already been discredited.
munseym on November 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM
She was freakin’ HOT and, in my opinion – TOTALLY WORTH IT!
HondaV65 on November 14, 2012 at 12:15 PM
You’re incorrigible!
cam2 on November 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM