David Petraeus was scheduled to testify today about the Benghazi massacre and Administration cover-up. But now he is not going to. Allegedly he got naked with someone other than his wife. He confessed to this affair in a letter of resignation he submitted to President Obama on Thursday (the same day Fox News reported Congress would call on him to testify), asking to resign “for personal reasons.” Yesterday, President Obama accepted his resignation. He is suddenly no longer director of the CIA.
But if he was the director at the time of the Benghazi incident, and if he has been briefed up until now, why shouldn’t he be the one to testify? Does Congress’ summons not apply to him if his job title changes?
An added factor is that, at this stage in the reporting, we are told that Petraeus volunteered the information about his affair, but we are also told that it was uncovered by others:
“CIA Director David Petraeus resigned Friday after admitting to an extramarital affair — an affair with his biographer that was revealed over the course of an FBI investigation, Fox News has learned. The FBI had been investigating an unrelated and much broader case before stumbling on the affair. Fox News has learned that during the course of this investigation, the name of biographer Paula Broadwell came up. The FBI followed that lead and in doing so, uncovered his affair with her. The FBI for some time was concerned that perhaps Petraeus was some sort of victim, but there has been no evidence discovered to back up such concerns.”
On its face, this is a naked cover-up. Why would the FBI expose Petraeus? I realize that there are good security reasons (as well as moral ones) to forbid people involved in national security to have affairs. But does anyone think those rules are actually applied to people with real power? I have a hard time believing that.
And would Obama think this was a reason Petraeus would have to resign? Supposedly, Petraeus has a deep sense of honor that makes him do this. But if that sense of honor didn’t keep him from the affair, why would it make him resign afterward?
The timing of this is just too perfect. Nothing is discovered until after the election but before testimony is given to Congress. One theory is that the Obama Administration is behind the revelation that Petraeus was having an extra-marital affair because they were angered that he said things about Benghazi that cast doubt on their story. But if that is the case, why wouldn’t Congress still want to hear Petraeus’ testimony? What is to keep them from calling him to testify even if he is no longer the Director of Central Intelligence?
I have to wonder if the Obama Administration is telling Petraeus that he had better keep his story in line with theirs or else his lover is going to be charged with espionage. Thus:
“Meanwhile, law enforcement sources told NBC News that the FBI is currently investigating Petraeus’ biographer, who had extensive access to the general, for improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information. The sources emphasized that Petraeus was not under investigation and added that they did not believe the investigation into author Paula Broadwell would result in criminal charges.”
Of course, the other possibility is that Petraeus doesn’t really want to testify. Maybe he has some involvement he doesn’t want to come to light.
There is no way of knowing yet what is true, but all this strongly indicates that what happened in Benghazi is extremely important and that the White House is vulnerable. It is very hard to believe this resignation is a naked coincidence.