It’s tough to keep his “troop surge” in two places at once.
The last bit of speculation I heard was that reporters found out and were preparing to break the story.
Maybe I’ll check in an hour or so and see what new speculation there is to supercede that speculation.
Oh my fucking god.
I went to Fox’s website (felt a great deal of shame for doing so, especially considering they have a headline in huge read text citing a BIAS ALERT for another network) and these people are seriously linking this to the Benghazi disaster. I just… I can’t even… I just can’t.
he put his sword in the wrong sheath.
I’m completely serious. The Fox News program running right now is “Your World With Neil Cavuto.” It began at 4PM EST, and it led off with an interview with “Lt Col Ralph Peters (Ret), Fox News Strategic Analyst.” I quote the colonel’s first words:
“Well, the timing is just too perfect. The Obama administration – just as the administration claimed that it was purely coincidence that our Benghazi consulate was attacked on the anniversary of Sep 11, now it’s* purely coincidence* that this extramarital affair surfaces right after the election – not before but right after — but before the intelligence chiefs go to Capitol Hill to get grilled.”
Sorry I cannot adequately convey the sarcasm dripping from the way he said “purely coincidence.”
On Fox’s website right now. My head is goddamn exploding. They are pushing this Benghazi cover up angle hard. Seriously, head exploding. God…
Well I wanted whackjob theories, and I got it.
As a good rule of thumb, anyone that puts a heavily sarcastic tone when they say “purely coincidence” is almost always describing something that is, in fact, purely coincidence.
I was going to say the conspiracy theory thing makes no sense, but then, they never do and it never matters. This wouldn’t stop the House from calling Petraus or calling his deputy director, who will replace him. Yes, it does make you wonder if he was being blackmailed or something else, and I think it’s sensible to conclude that he quit because this was going to become public anyway. If only he’d dressed in drag instead.
Update: former UN Ambassador John Bolton just assured Cavuto that Petraeus can and will be called to testify, whether or not he’s the CIA director. He said maybe it won’t be in the immediately upcoming hearing, but it will certainly happen at some point.
It’s bad enough that John Fucking Bolton sounds like the Voice of Reason next to a Fox News anchor, but what followed blew my mind.
The Fair and Balanced Neil Cavuto responded, “Then the issue is what he will say when he testifies, right? I mean, will he be beholden to his Commander in Chief?”
There you have it, folks, super-patriot Neil Cavuto implying that Petraeus might lie to protect Obama, even after he’s no longer working for him.
The journalist was my first guess, too. Or would something like that trigger a security clearance review (for one as high as his must be, doesn’t your behavior have to be impeccable)? Maybe he just wanted to stay a step ahead of being asked to “resign or be fired?”
Who is going to break the news to Curtis?
So let me get this straight.
It “seems bizarre” to you that Petraeus would step down for the stated reason, but yet when people make note of the fact that it has now been announced that Mike Morell is going to testify in Petraeus’s place and wonder “Hm, I wonder if that has something to do with this” that’s totally wacko?
Am I convinced that the reason has something to do with Benghazi? No, we really don’t know what’s going on here. However, I don’t blame people for wondering about the timing of this and wanting to figure out if there is something behind it. It seems crazy to me to take the stance some of you seem to be taking: “Oh no, the government couldn’t possibly have any sort of ulterior motive with this! We should just trust and assume that the government is being 100% transparent with us”.
Well then just go to FoxNews if you want fishy. Or “Just asking questions” Or making shit up…
Right. Romney also asserts that his election loss is unrelated to the Lizard people refusing to fix the voting machines.
ETA: Nija’ed. Should have known.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that even if Petraeus did hold this back until after the election; that was the honarable thing to do.
Besides, there’s nothing stopping them from subpoenaing him.
This is where this stuff becomes annoying: this has nothing to do with trusting the government. The problem is that there’s no actual evidence for a coverup and the concept doesn’t make much sense.
Cite please.
They just said so on Fox news.
Sen. Feinstein says his testimony won’t be needed because of his resignation. So that may be right.
Well it was surprising, yes, to see he had so suddenly resigned. The idea that some journalist, or even more likely, the other woman was threatening to go public makes sense. Cobbling together conspiracy theories about coverups the second the story breaks, however, does not. I don’t have this silly blind trust in all things government that you’re suggesting I have, but put away the tin foil hats, people.
And the thing of it is, Petraeus has absolutely no motive to protect Obama, *particularly *after resigning.
My bet on the affair is that it was with someone in the military or intelligence community, making it a much bigger deal and more understandably resignation-worthy.