Why did Petraeus resign?

  • Follow Letters

David Petraeus may have had an affair, but that likely was not the reason why he resigned. Try this scenario.

Petraeus was a general of great talent and wide respect who disagreed with the White House over strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but whom the White House could not afford to ignore. After Afghanistan, he was thought likely to be the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – but, wary of his popularity, media acceptance and possible political stature, he was passed over by the White House and sent to a low profile and secret corner of the administration. Being the good soldier, Petraeus took the demoted position of director of the CIA.

After Benghazi, Petraeus, as director of the CIA, became a point of focus as a possible fall guy for the deaths of the four Americans. When their bodies were returned to Andrews Air Force Base amid the pomp provided by the president and secretaries of state and defense, Petraeus was noticeably absent. That has never been explained. But that, as well as other aspects of the Benghazi debacle, were scheduled to be addressed in his coming testimony to congressional committees. As the designated fall guy, he is likely to have been fed a script by the White House that he didn’t like and refused to accept.

Then came the revelation of an affair that, if it existed some months if not years ago, was just now “discovered” by the FBI. You mean that he wasn’t vetted by the FBI before he took over the CIA, and the White House didn’t know? If they were doing their jobs, the FBI knew and the White House knew. So with an uncooperative fall guy, who might speak honestly and unfavorably of the White House and State Department at the coming congressional hearing, it became expedient to draw the “affair card” and ask Petraeus for his resignation. He, being the good soldier, would and did comply. And besides, because of the “affair” now exposed, he would be destroyed as a possible political opponent. A clean sweep!

Is this far-fetched? No – not with this White House, whose mantra has been to know of and destroy the integrity of its opponents, and to play with the truth to a gullible and agreeable media.

Welcome to the new world of accepted dishonesty and of alternative facts.

James Wetzel

Aiken, S.C.

Comments (57) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 11/15/12 - 04:46 pm
1
4
Dirty Politics........Probably

Thank you Mr. Wetzel, for putting into words, this "situation". From the moment I heard of the General's resignation, I knew something was not quite right. I don't know much about politics or the military, but I do know when something STINKS! And let me tell you, this whole thing stinks to high heaven. I only hope when Gen.Petraeus testifies, his "moral compass" is pointing "true"!

harley_52
42705
Points
harley_52 11/15/12 - 05:05 pm
1
4
"Of course, if it did commence while he was on active duty....

....(and then if some military higher-up wants to pursue it), he would probably be subject to recall and potential prosecution"

You do understand, don't you, that the President is the Commander In Chief and, by definition and position, "some military higher up?"

The threat of prosecution and all the associated penalties COULD be used as a hammer to entice him to lie when he testifies. But, by all accounts, Petraeus is a better man than that and would tell the truth (even in spite of his initial support for the Administration lies).

It will be interesting to watch and, I reiterate, potentially VERY dangerous for Petraeus.

Remember Vince Foster?

allhans
25545
Points
allhans 11/15/12 - 05:21 pm
3
1
I try not to listen or read

I try not to listen or read anything on this subject. It upsets me greatly. Gen. Petraeus is a fine man...a mistake, yes. A big mistake, yes. But enough to end a fabulous career, NO WAY.

harley_52
42705
Points
harley_52 11/15/12 - 05:42 pm
3
4
I Agree, Allhans....

A terrible end to a great career. A man to whom America owes a great debt. And to have it end like this is one of the greatest travesties I've ever witnessed.

I believe he had an affair. Stupid, foolish, for sure. But lots of people have affairs and survive them with minor damage. I seem to remember a couple of democrat Presidents who did so, and lots of Congressmen. I think the Administration learned of Petraeus' affair a long time ago and used it as a tool to, ultimately, ruin his legacy, his marriage, and his life.

As is often the case, he should have admitted it up front and been done with it. I think the bigger mistake was to conspire with the Administration in hopes it would remain a secret. There was no way that would happen.

A real pity.

seenitB4
174580
Points
seenitB4 11/15/12 - 06:53 pm
2
2
Petraeus

I can see it now....H Clinton running against Petraeus in 2016.....

harley_52
42705
Points
harley_52 11/15/12 - 06:59 pm
3
4
"I can see it now..H Clinton running against Petraeus in 2016."

Don't think that will happen. Petraeus is thought to be a Republican and is, therefore, political history.

When Republicans get involved with sex scandals, they're dead politically. When democrats do, they get reelected, or elected to higher office.

Jake
41671
Points
Jake 11/15/12 - 07:15 pm
3
0
Moral compass

Well, I can assure you that when (ret) General Petraeus was with Paula Broadwell, I know which direction his "moral compass" was pointing.

seenitB4
174580
Points
seenitB4 11/15/12 - 07:15 pm
1
4
harley

The only way they can win against Petraeus is the other side runs a black latino...hahahh

allhans
25545
Points
allhans 11/15/12 - 10:26 pm
1
3
Hillary against Petraeus

Hillary against Petraeus wouldn't be a bad thing. Hillary 'stand by your man' would have little or no ammunition to use against him.

harley_52
42705
Points
harley_52 11/15/12 - 09:31 pm
2
4
"Hillary against Petraeus wouldn't be a bad thing."

Perhaps not, but I maintain it would be an impossible thing. The only way Petraeus could be elected President would be if he ran as a democrat. As an admitted philanderer and, therefore, dishonest and cruel to his wife, he couldn't possibly get the Republican nomination.

Democrat.....that's another story. They just elected a woman who dishonestly claimed to be an Indian in order to get special treatment at Harvard and Jesse Jackson Jr. who's in all kinds of hot water for dishonesty, hasn't been to work in months, has very serious mental issues, and who claims he won't leave office until he's guaranteed disability pay. I mean on top of the charges he tried to buy a Senate seat in Illinois.

Then there's the entire Ted Kennedy story.......

Jake
41671
Points
Jake 11/15/12 - 10:17 pm
3
2
Republicans

Yes, we all know that they are all faithful, true, loyal and have no wrongs. Why do not people see this?

harley_52
42705
Points
harley_52 11/15/12 - 10:32 pm
1
3
"Yes, we all know that they are all....

....faithful, true, loyal and have no wrongs."

Is that your belief, Jake, or are you just mocking mine?

I certainly did not make that claim. Republicans have their own problems too. The difference is that Republicans almost always resign and leave in disgrace. Democrats usually get praised, celebrated, and re-elected.

Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson Jr.....there are plenty of examples.

Young Fred
29166
Points
Young Fred 11/15/12 - 10:50 pm
1
3
harley

I'm afraid you're making a very uncomfortable point that Jake doesn't want to address. Or at least he's still searching for a suitably pithy response.

harley_52
42705
Points
harley_52 11/15/12 - 10:59 pm
1
3
Oh, sorry...

I thought it was pretty well known and out in the open.

I didn't mean to make any exclusive revelations, or spring new information on anybody....

Jake
41671
Points
Jake 11/15/12 - 11:36 pm
3
1
Yes, they all resign

Or the party they represent gets kicked to the curb. Either way, they leave office and go home. Tough ain't it?
Maybe staunch Democrats and people who are somewhat like minded are more pragmatic and realistic. Folks make mistakes, the list is very long for each party, the current General scandal included. To say one party is "purer" than the other reminds one of Aryanism.

Jake
41671
Points
Jake 11/15/12 - 11:26 pm
3
1
Mocking

harley, why would I mock you? You seem to present yourself for all to see like we all try to do.

Young Fred
29166
Points
Young Fred 11/15/12 - 11:33 pm
1
3
Jake

"Either way, they leave office and go home"

If only it were so! Some hang around looking for accolades like a pathetic fungus, withering on an old used up stump. Let's see, out of the last 5 presidents or so, which two seek the limelight disproportionately to the other three?

Jake
41671
Points
Jake 11/15/12 - 11:41 pm
3
1
Fungus

Some of them are ashamed to show their face. Had to be a Democrat.
Dubya's address at the Republican Convention was riveting as was his Dad's. Only Carter and Clinton are left so I am not seeing the five you mention.

Young Fred
29166
Points
Young Fred 11/15/12 - 11:48 pm
1
3
Haha Jake, I figured you'd

Haha Jake, I figured you'd have that reaction. I see it as more of a quite dignity. Only someone that has a deep seeded shame of their performance would continue to seek confirmation beyond their relevance.

Of the presidents in my lifetime, the Reps have retired into dignity, while the Dems insert themselves into any and all situations that will garner air time.

Which brings up another major point. Rabid Dems claim to be activist, seeking to right oh, so many wrongs. When in reality they are powermongers. The whole reason they inserted themselves into politics in the first place was to take their “rightful place” at the top of those whom know what's best for all, thus insulating themselves from losing the very freedoms they wish to deny others. And of course, leaving a proper “legacy” for future statist to fawn over.

Jake
41671
Points
Jake 11/15/12 - 11:53 pm
3
1
Pithy

Actually, I prefer pithy to insipid.

Young Fred
29166
Points
Young Fred 11/15/12 - 11:56 pm
3
2
Touche' Haaaaaaha, that's

Touche'

Haaaaaaha, that's funny, I don't care who you are!

Young Fred
29166
Points
Young Fred 11/15/12 - 11:59 pm
3
2
Nothing like a “little pithy”

Nothing like a “little pithy” to redirect from serious. What the heck was I thinking? Dang, I forgot, “all the world's a stage”!

Jake
41671
Points
Jake 11/16/12 - 12:03 am
2
0
Quite or Quiet?

I didn't quite understand your first sentence.
I don't know how involved the other Presidents are in community activities. I do know that President Carter is involved in Habitat For Humanity and various other causes. Some of those you may or not agree with. Anyway, he has used his office of Presidency to be able to reach out to other people in a positive way. Helping to eradicate the Guinea Worm in Africa is one example.
So what is Bush I or II doing for the public or worldwide good?

Young Fred
29166
Points
Young Fred 11/16/12 - 01:06 am
0
3
Quite or Quiet?

Come, come Jake, my fingers outran my brain (not an uncommon happening on these here posts).

Yes Carter is involved in Habitat, and other causes. As are the Bushes, the Regans, etc. they just don't seek media attention to “confirm” their charity.

No, I was more referring to Carter's continual insertion on behalf of dictators and terrorist. Such as his 2008 Hamas tour. (reminds me of his Anwar Sadat apology tour) (reminds me of our current pres.). Who can forget Carter's fake treaty with North Korea that made President Clinton shudder? Yes Carter has one of the best claims to fame of being an ex-president that made both parties shudder.

But hey, I'm sure Obama strives to be the very best in the history of his party. I'm betting before all is said and done he'll outdo Carter ON ALL fronts.

Jake
41671
Points
Jake 11/16/12 - 01:56 am
1
0
Yes

I totally agree with your last paragraph. Obama will have to go some to be as good as Carter. Using the office of the Presidency for a charitable good is much better than using it for personal gain, again, in my opinion
Clinton is involved as well. He is the number one fundraiser and supporter of JSA (Jobless Strippers of America). If it wasn't for his efforts then these ladies would have no place to go.
What specific charities or community involvement are the Bush's or Reagan's involved in? I guess I will have to Google it myself if you don't know since you did not site a specific cause.

Young Fred
29166
Points
Young Fred 11/16/12 - 07:00 am
0
2
Google away oh mustached one!

Google away oh mustached one!

This is a perfect illustration of charity versus charitSeeMe.

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 11/17/12 - 12:22 pm
0
0
Dishonesty knows no line

If you don't honor your oath to the person you love I certainly won't expect you to be able to honor your oath to the country.

You can't do dishonorable things and expect me to think of you as an honorable person.

KSL
255776
Points
KSL 11/17/12 - 05:29 pm
0
2
Jake

Just for you. Just because you don't see either Bush flaunting their charitable work, it doesn't mean they don't do for others.

http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/george-w-bush

Back to Top
 
loading...
Search Augusta jobs