Petraeus, part 2
The Petraeus thing is taking shape. Let's review:
When the general was serving in Afg, virtually everyone on his base had to have known about his affair with Ms. Broadwell. As I noted in my last post, on an unaccompanied base there are almost no secrets, and particularly for commanders.
If everyone knew, then Obama's minions also knew of the affair, before Obama appointed the general to head the CIA.
Appointing a compromised person to head your nation's counterintel agency is begging to have that agency neutralized by blackmail of its chief by a foreign power, so it normally wouldn't make sense to do that. But if you want to own a man's loyalty, let him know you know his secret and appoint him anyway. He knows that the tiniest failure to do your bidding will destroy his career and reputation.
It now seems that the most likely explanation regarding Petraeus is that the Obama administration instructed the general to give them cover about the events surrounding the deaths of the American ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi--specifically, to falsely claim that the CIA "knew" that the attack arose from a spontaneous demonstration triggered by the anti-Mohammed video, when in fact the CIA had no such information.
The general was willing to lie for Obama because Obama (and/or Obama's deputies/handlers) told him his affair with Broadwell would be revealed unless he provided cover for Obama about Benghazi.
Now consider: With Petraeus having carried out his orders, why would the news of the affair be released *then*? One would think that would simply enable the general--who would now seem to have nothing more to lose--to tell congress the truth, thus damaging the man who ordered his firing. So it doesn't seem to make sense.
Unless...the adminstration has more dirt on the general that they've threatened to release if he comes clean.
But why fire him and risk him having a come-to-Jesus moment? Ah, grasshopper, it is part of a well-tested plan of destroying the credibility of a man who has information that can hurt you. And it's worked, as most of the public is focused on what lousy judgment the general had, and poor self-control, and such huge hypocrisy, and such poor regard for his wife and kids, and on and on... Leaking the affair will neutralize anything the guy says against Obama.
Caligula's Rome had nothing on the bunch in the White House. A typical comment: "The Petraeus thing is just a sideshow--ultimately he's just an old general who followed his dick after all those years supposedly of discipline. He threw away his career over a piece of tail."
The proof of this theory will be if Petraeus--having been fired and his career ended--still refuses to testify before congress. Or makes a nominal move to testify and congressional Democrats block any revealing questions.
Shall we hide and watch?
When the general was serving in Afg, virtually everyone on his base had to have known about his affair with Ms. Broadwell. As I noted in my last post, on an unaccompanied base there are almost no secrets, and particularly for commanders.
If everyone knew, then Obama's minions also knew of the affair, before Obama appointed the general to head the CIA.
Appointing a compromised person to head your nation's counterintel agency is begging to have that agency neutralized by blackmail of its chief by a foreign power, so it normally wouldn't make sense to do that. But if you want to own a man's loyalty, let him know you know his secret and appoint him anyway. He knows that the tiniest failure to do your bidding will destroy his career and reputation.
It now seems that the most likely explanation regarding Petraeus is that the Obama administration instructed the general to give them cover about the events surrounding the deaths of the American ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi--specifically, to falsely claim that the CIA "knew" that the attack arose from a spontaneous demonstration triggered by the anti-Mohammed video, when in fact the CIA had no such information.
The general was willing to lie for Obama because Obama (and/or Obama's deputies/handlers) told him his affair with Broadwell would be revealed unless he provided cover for Obama about Benghazi.
Now consider: With Petraeus having carried out his orders, why would the news of the affair be released *then*? One would think that would simply enable the general--who would now seem to have nothing more to lose--to tell congress the truth, thus damaging the man who ordered his firing. So it doesn't seem to make sense.
Unless...the adminstration has more dirt on the general that they've threatened to release if he comes clean.
But why fire him and risk him having a come-to-Jesus moment? Ah, grasshopper, it is part of a well-tested plan of destroying the credibility of a man who has information that can hurt you. And it's worked, as most of the public is focused on what lousy judgment the general had, and poor self-control, and such huge hypocrisy, and such poor regard for his wife and kids, and on and on... Leaking the affair will neutralize anything the guy says against Obama.
Caligula's Rome had nothing on the bunch in the White House. A typical comment: "The Petraeus thing is just a sideshow--ultimately he's just an old general who followed his dick after all those years supposedly of discipline. He threw away his career over a piece of tail."
The proof of this theory will be if Petraeus--having been fired and his career ended--still refuses to testify before congress. Or makes a nominal move to testify and congressional Democrats block any revealing questions.
Shall we hide and watch?
posted by SF at
9:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home