This morning’s Wall Street Journal sheds light on why the FBI’s discovery of David Petraeus’s affair may have been enough to lead to his downfall:
In David Petraeus’s final days at the helm of the Central Intelligence Agency, his relations with chiefs of other U.S. agencies, including his boss, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, took a contentious turn. …
Mr. Petraeus wanted his aides to push back hard and release their own timeline of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and a nearby CIA safe house, seeking to set the record straight and paint the CIA’s role in a more favorable light. Mr. Clapper and agencies including the Pentagon objected, but Mr. Petraeus told his aides to proceed, said the senior officials.
By all accounts, the driving force behind Mr. Petraeus’s departure last Friday was the revelation about his extramarital affair with his biographer. But new details about Mr. Petraeus’s last days at the CIA show the extent to which the Benghazi attacks created a climate of interagency finger-pointing. That undercut the retired four-star general’s backing within the Obama administration as he struggled with the decision to resign.
This makes a lot more sense. The internal discovery of Petraeus’s affair by the FBI could have been handled two ways: quietly or not quietly. The administration may have decided to go the second route–asking Petraeus to submit his resignation–because of the extent to which he was clashing with officials like Clapper and Panetta in his final month.
It also explains why this very favorable profile of Petraeus, which his office clearly cooperated with, turned up in the New York Times just a week before his resignation. The article quoted friends of Petraeus defending him from criticism over his Benghazi response, praising his management style, and playing up his supposedly warm relationship with President Obama. Petraeus, being the smart media operator that he is, may have been trying to rehabilitate his name through the press. But it wasn’t enough to save his job one week later.
It is not believable that a lapsed love affair, over and done with months ago, forced Petraeus’s resignation. That everyone knew all about it removed the bullets in the revolver of any would be blackmailer and made the affair a non-security matter.
Ike was known for an adulterous affair with his female driver through much of WWII. That did not make him a security risk or undermine confidence in his judgment and disqualify him from leading the Allied armies, not in the eyes of General Marshall or FDR who himself had girl friends, or of the press corps. It did not even morally disqualify Ike, from occupying the Oval Office. Nor for that matter JFK, LBJ and Clinton.
This is all rubbish. There has got to be much more to this story.
Or is it pay back by thosewho insisted Iraq was militarily unwinnable and the surge would only make our fiasco worse, against the general who proved them wrong? They opposed ejecting the mass murdering Saddam. They protested the replacement of the fascist Baath by an elected govt. They demanded the US withdraw in the face of an insurgency that crashed exploding cars into civilian crowds and denounced democracy, freedom of speech and religious toleration, hateful to God. Not since the Nazis hanged democrats from meathooks had America’s fundamental principles been so nakedly challenged. Yet they, Barack Obama loud in their midst, insisted the US flee that battlefield.
She did not withdraw. Instead she won that fight and General Betrayus is most identified with winning it. Now he is being pummeled for a peccadillo. Occam’s razor suggests that that is a much better explanation for this inexplicable turn of events.
Why is my comment, submitted hours ago, not posted?
There may be several reasons why Pr. O lied to the American people. He knew the affair of Petraeus, nand used it to override CIA position (on Benghazi) in order to keep alive a false narrative on his ME policy. Another reason may be about weapons in the ME. Lots of very dangerous weapons are circulating and may be in extremist's hands. This may have catastrophic consequences for the West.
I say again, he was told to play ball and instead resigned, and Team Obama hoped he was bluffing and learned he wasn't. The affair just a convenient excuse, nothing more.
Is everyone's historical memory less than a few months? Recall that, days prior to his disclosure and resignation, Petraeus appeared before a congressional committee and repeated the administration lies about the event being a spontaneous reaction to a video which ridiculed Mohammad. Nothing that we know of in Petraeus' past behavior suggests that he would consent to being an administration lackey. I do not believe Petraeus would have done that unless he was essentially being blackmailed.His resignation freed him from that pressure and allowed him to return to Congress and testify truthfully. Blackmail is part of this administration's MO. Petraeus is not the first victim nor the last.