Here from FrontPage is my take on the very strange resignation of CIA director Petraeus:
Apparently
overcome with guilt over an extramarital affair, General David Petraeus
abruptly resigned as director of the CIA Thursday. A suddenly socially
conservative Barack Obama accepted his resignation Friday, as Petraeus
explained in a statement made public Friday afternoon (the time when all
stories that the administration wants to bury are released). But
Petraeus”s statement simply didn’t hold water “” not only because it
assumed an Obama as strait-laced as Pat Robertson, but also because it
comes just after the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked him to
testify in its investigation of the Benghazi jihad attack and subsequent
Obama administration cover-up.“Yesterday afternoon,” Petraeus wrote,
“I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for
personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA. After being
married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging
in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a
husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This
afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.”Parson Obama, that well-known moral crusader who praised Ted Kennedy
as an “extraordinary leader” and Barney Frank as “a fierce advocate for
the people of Massachusetts and Americans everywhere who needed a
voice,” may indeed have been so indignant over Petraeus”s affair that he
accepted his resignation with alacrity. On the other hand, maybe his
willingness to see the last of Petraeus had something to do with the
statement that the CIA issued on October 26: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”This came after Fox News had reported
that same day that “sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an
urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack
on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the
annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command “” who also told the
CIA operators twice to “˜stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s
team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on
Sept. 11.”But if it wasn’t Petraeus who ordered that no help be given to
Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff when jihadists attacked the
embassy, the order would have had to come from someone who outranked
even the director of the agency. Thus Petraeus”s denial that the order
had come from him pointed the finger directly at Barack Obama. And while
the mainstream media buried that fact before the election, probably the
House Foreign Affairs Committee would have asked Petraeus just who did
give the order.For surely it was just a coincidence that Petraeus resigned on Thursday, the very same day that Fox News reported
that the Foreign Affairs Committee was planning to call him to testify
at their Benghazi hearings, along with Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper and Matt Olsen, the director of the National
Counterterrorism Center. Surely that had nothing to do with Petraeus”s
decision to submit his resignation. This couldn’t have had anything to
do with his quitting. It is much more likely indeed that suddenly, just
as the news that he was going to be summoned to testify came in to his
office, Petraeus was overcome with remorse over his affair, and decided —
although apparently the affair began some time ago, since there were rumors about it while he was still in Afghanistan — that Thursday was the day, right then and there, to come clean and resign his position.