I feel for the families that lost their loved ones in Libya. Another casualty of politics today and not only a failed administration but a failed MSM. I wonder if they have figured out why they continue to go into bankruptcy or become online only media. The director of the CIA resigns. Why?
No one but Petraeus knows — and in about two weeks probably no one will
care. He may have felt that some in the White House were massaging his
analyses, perhaps emboldened by knowledge of his private affairs, and he
may therefore have thought that his tenure at the CIA was fatally
compromised, leading him to resign, but only after the election, in a
manner that should not appear political. Or, then again and more
ominously, the White House may have felt that after the election,
Petraeus’s personal problems, and possible intelligence dissents, had
become liabilities and thus he should be forced to resign. We still do
not know whether Petraeus willingly resigned in order to ensure that his
analyses could not be tainted by political massaging, or whether he
desperately wished to stay at the CIA, but was booted out as soon as
Barack Obama was safely reelected, when any subsequent testimony that
might contradict what was earlier released would fortunately only muddy
the waters.
Unlike in the cases of Watergate and Iran-Contra,
there is no investigative press, given the media’s worry about
endangering the second-term agenda of a progressive president. There is
no special prosecutor salivating after a government official, as there
was with Scooter Libby. “The fog of war” and accusations of “Conspiracy
theory!” should be enough to bury the scandal and discredit those who
seek the truth. Modifying a CIA analysis for political purposes is
probably no crime. Quid pro quos are simply the polite, everyday — and
legal — Washington version of blackmail. In the end, the only casualties
in this sordid tale were the sterling career of David Petraeus — and
four murdered Americans whose deaths were preventable.
The WH-controlled departments of the CIA and the FBI (and DOD, I guess) hold all the evidence, other than what people offer up in testimony, and emails. I think you're right, this will be scoffed at as a verwick, even though it was put forth as being caused by a video days after it was known otherwise, and yet, the administration did NOT mislead (?). No one has asked the administration, as far as I know, why they didn't simply say 'we're looking into it', instead of the Rice comments. But then, duh, it would leave the 'GM alive, bin Laden dead, AQ decimated and on the run' declaration hanging out there for all to ponder, yes?
ReplyDeleteWhere's a caveman when you want one, so he can explain this to us?
Jean
The real question, why did we have a consulate in Benghazi in the first place?????
DeletePatraeus did the honorable thing, because he is an honorable man. If he had been a politician he would have denied any involvement and bribed the woman to keep her quiet.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, it's the honorable thing to do. What does that say about Bill Clinton???
DeleteMick,
DeletePetraeus's highly touted record aside, the creep did not keep his word to his spouse. That makes him a creep. I wouldn't be too quick to label him as honorable. It doesn't seem like a one-night dalliance where his thinking was done with something besides his brain. He is no more nor less than the male version of the label that is attributed to the woman, married woman, with whom he had this affair. Anyone can be honorable and trustworthy when there are no adverse conditions or temptations at hand.
And who says he resigned for honor?
Jean
The worst thing about conservatism is that it is never practiced by conservatives. Lou asks a legitimate question, why did we have a consulate in Benghazi in the first place? The answer of course is that we had a consulate there because we saw Libya as another piece of empire. True conservatives, loathe empire and the waste of blood and treasure spent defending it. Republicans, in contrast to conservatives, go apeshit against the media when they are not in power only to turn around and happily manipulate it when there is some piece of empire (Iraq) they wish to acquire.
ReplyDeleteMy gut feeling is that the CIA or some other shadow military group was using that site as a toe hold. Even if not, I still believe the reason it was so weakly defended had to do with not wanting to put troops there. I'm not defending having a consulate there, but the reality is that having one there was a no win situation. If we had 200 Marines guarding it, the accusation would be that Obama is starting a buildup of troops there. If we leave it undefended, suddenly the four people who died demand a rage that surpasses that of 9/11.
It's being said that in the new congress, John McCain will have exhausted his term limits for the committees that he is on and that wanting to spearhead an investigation into this is a chance to keep staying relevant. It makes as much sense as any other speculation.
I agree Max. The reason that many Repubs dislike the Tea Party so much is that they fear their views concerning empire.
DeleteWhatever was going on in Benghazi is sure being clouded by the coverup and all this other romantic nonsense.
A true robust energy program here at home will enable us to withdraw our lives and fortune from these Godforsaken places.
1773-2009
"The reason that many Repubs dislike the Tea Party so much is that they fear their views concerning empire."
DeleteMeh, I'm not so sure about that William. Republicans, like Democrats, want to hang on to their power in Washington and the Tea Party has diluted that by running candidates that freak people out. I get their appeal, but they do not have main stream support, just as Nader didn't for the left. They say plenty that a lot of people can agree with. And then they go and say the things that Murdouch, Aiken and Walsh said.
What does a robust energy program look like? Something besides just digging or drilling for more fossil fuels?