Petraeus's Resignation

The timing of David Petraeus’s resignation seems very odd if it does not have to do with the Benghazi mess. Is it really probably that the FBI just happened to uncover something salacious in his private life just after the election and just before he was to testify before Congress? Indeed, is it really likely that the FBI would not spy on the head of the CIA continually simply as a matter of prudence? One does need to be sure that such officials are really on our side, after all…

The affair happened over a year ago. And apparently there were pretty well-known rumours among the press corps at the time that something was going on. So it seems far more likely that the affair itself has been known to people in the administration for some time.

We also know that it used to be the standard procedure for the FBI under Hoover to compile dossiers of dirt on various prominent people, which could be offered to the president if useful to strongarm someone.




It also seems, frankly, a bit unnecessary for him to resign over this. Granted, the affair makes him vulnerable to blackmail. The solution to this is to make it public, as he did, and then he is no longer vulnerable to blackmail. So resigning as well seems--well, unnecessary. Unless Obama wanted his resignation for other reasons.

The intent of bringing this out now cannot be to prevent Petraeus from testifying on Benghazi. He can still be made to testify, and Congress is now sure to subpoena him. The intent also cannot be to make him the scapegoat for the Benghazi affair. If that were the intent, it would have made far more sense to have him resign over Benghazi, and keep this affair a secret.

The most plausible scenario, as I see it, is this: note,  it is clear that someone behind the scenes has been carefully leaking Benghazi material to the press, day by day. The most likely source is the CIA. The administration might have threatened to release the information in order to force Petraeus to make this stop. They might also have wanted to be sure they can control his testimony before Congress.

And Petraeus said, like the great Wellington under similar circumstances, “publish and be damned.”

This seems to fit with everything we know about his past and his character. Their bluff called, they then had to publish, and force his resignation.

But if so, this could clearly backfire. He now is under no constraints of cabinet solidarity in any future testimony. He has given himself an absolutely free hand, no loyalties to betray, nothing to lose and everything to gain by breaking ranks and blowing whistles. He can say whatever he wants to say.

His testimony before Congress, accordingly, could be interesting.

It all sounds as though there is more to come out about Benghazi, and as though it is quite damaging to the administration.

The Ghosts--or Spooks--of Benghazi

Predator Drone.

I frankly have not been closely following the Benghazi attack story, because I thought nothing was likely to come of it.

But it does look as though Obama’s early attempts to blame the State Department and the intelligence community are coming home to haunt him. Someone’s been releasing a lot of information in the background. The kind we did not get on Watergate for many months.

You don’t want to scapegoat spies, especially not as a group. They have their techniques.

We have now heard that the administration had intelligence within hours, by email, that it was a terrorist attack.

We have now heard that the administration was able to see events in Benghazi as they unfolded, and had special forces and helicopters located one hour away, but did nothing to save the diplomats. And the two security personnel died six and a half hours into the attack.

We have now heard that Hillary Clinton ordered more security for Benghazi before the attack, but the request was denied. By whom? Who outranks the Secretary of State? Only two people…

Remarkable level of detail there… all coming out in what seems like daily drips, well-calculated to keep the matter in the news, and with the apparent guilt of the administration building day by day…?

For me, at least, it also now comes together into a plausible picture, a plausible narrative, that makes me believe that something really is amiss. It sounds as though Obama made a series of bad decisions for political reasons. He knew from the beginning, I imagine, what was happening in Benghazi, but did not want to risk sending help because

1. It would magnify the incident, indicating that al Qaeda was still very much alive, erasing Obama’s trump card on foreign affairs in the election;

2. It risked scaring a war-weary nation with the thought of a new foreign intervention;

3. It would have discredited the sunny interpretation of the “Arab Spring,” also damaging Obama’s reputation in foreign affairs;

4. It would have been an admission of his own previous error in not sending better security to Benghazi.

So he took the easy route of doing nothing and just hoping it would turn out okay.

When it did not, the urge to deny and cover up was made greater by the knowledge that he could have saved these people. That he was in a real sense personally responsible for the deaths. Hence the public insistence for two weeks, in the face of all the evidence, even when the claim seemed totally implausible, that this was a spontaneous demonstration. Hence his oddly extreme declaration of moral outrage at the second debate about any suggestion that he did not do everything he could to protect his diplomats, as if trying to pre-emptively shut down the issue.

It all sounds right—and paints an internally consistent picture of an immature, self-centred chief executive. Someone who is not good at accepting responsibility for his own action.

And the worst is the horrid possibility that Obama and his office knew what was happening, could have sent help, and did not. This image is a violation of the American mythos. The cavalry did not arrive.

If true, this alone is a compelling reason, leaving aside the economic record, why Obama should not be re-elected.

Blame Hillary

She used to be rather good-looking, but she totally lost me with the pantsuits.

I'm impressed, and surprised, that, rather than a feud between Obama and the Clintons over who was responsible for the Benghazi bungle, Hillary Clinton has publicly accepted full responsibility.

But perhaps I shouldn't have been.

Some commentators have said this hurts her prospects for 2016. Assuming she has any interest in her prospects in 2016, though, on reflection, I think this might have been the best thing for her to do.

Had she fought back hard now on Obama's attempt to scapegoat her, she might well have caused Obama  to lose the election. If Democrats came to blame her for that, her hopes for 2016 would be dead.

If, on the other hand, she kept mum until after the election, Obama would then have all the more reason to scapegoat her, since she could no longer effectively kick back by doing him any harm--he's not running again. She could have been left twisting in the wind, as the Nixon White House used to say, and her 2016 prospects would have been almost as badly damaged.

Having no other good choice, then, acting now like the good soldier and taking the hit for the team gives her some claim to favors later.

In a way, it even gets back at Obama. She's setting an example that makes him look weaselly by comparison.

In any case, it is entirely likely that she is now telling the truth--that it really was her decision, and Obama and Biden were not really in the loop. If so, she has every reason to expect that this would come out anyway.  Best to step up to it and get it behind her, if possible.

More Vindication

The Obama Administration now admits that the Benghazi Embassy attack was planned and premeditated, probably by al-Qaeda..

Who Really Made the Anti-Muslim Film?

According to Al Jazeera, the President of Libya believes the attack on the US compound in Benghazi was pre-planned and was the work of al-Qaeda. “"It's a dirty act of revenge that has nothing to do with religion." After all, the attackers seem to have had heavy weapons; they seem to have known where the Consulate’s secret “safe house” was located.

The Independent agrees, claiming their own confidential sources.

It does seem quite a coincidence, after all, that this whole thing about the anti-Muslim movie just happened to blow up on September 11th. Doesn’t that sound strange?

My Palestinian Arab officemate claims the man who played the lead in the controversial film is the son of a prominent official in Hamas. If true, doesn’t that sound strange?

Regardless of who really funded the film, who took the trouble to translate it into Arabic and then put it up on YouTube at this time? Who spread the world to look for it there?

And how did it get through the Saudi firewall? As of last night, it was still visible in Saudi Arabia, which normally blocks any web content hostile to Islam.