Did the scandal drive a craven Petraeus to tout the false White House line on Benghazi?
Many people, including some VFR readers, have suggested that the Petraeus scandal was, from the start, a complex conspiracy to bring down Petraeus. I have been utterly dismissive of that, as I always am of such theories. Are we supposed to believe that Paula Broadwell did not send intimidating e-mails to Jill Kelley, and that Jill Kelley, as the child of Lebanese immigrants, is really an Arab “plant” (people have said such things to me, and I haven’t posted them), and that the entire FBI investigation of the emails was some made-up complex script invented by the administration in order to destroy Petraus? That’s on the order of believing that Monica Lewinsky was the agent of a vast right-wing conspiracy, or that the 9/11 attack was planned by the Bush administration. There seems to be some primitive part of the human brain that specializes in coming up with such “theories” and that automatically kicks into action whenever a big scandal or some other significant event occurs.
However, Charles Krauthhammer has a more modest and more plausible theory of a connection between Petraeus-gate and Benghazi-gate. Petraeus, he says, knew by early September that the administration knew about the affair, and he wanted to keep his job and thought he could keep his job. And for that reason he echoed the false administration line on the Benghazi attack in his testimony to Congress on September 13.
Here from Newsbusters is the transcript of Krauthammer’s remarks on Fox yesterday:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.Now this is interesting. But where does Krauthammer get the information that Petraeus knew before September 13 that the White House was aware of the affair? According to the New York Times’ detailed account of the investigation which I posted in full yesterday as well as other accounts, Petraeus was not interviewed by the FBI until late October, at which time he admitted the affair, which makes it somewhat unlikely that he knew in early September that the White House was aware of the affair or even that the White House itself in early September was aware of the affair.
When looking for a motive to explain an action, the most obvious ones should be discounted first before going in more exotic directions.The most obvious is usually what confirms previous patterns of behavior. I think that all the motivation David Petraeus would need to support the Benghazi cover-up was that the organization demanded it. David Petraeus is an organization man. Since age 18 he has lived, worked, and breathed inside the Army with all its demands for conformity and group effort. For many the Army is a straightjacket of petty regulations and constant supervision, but none of this chafed Petraeus. On the positive side the U.S. Army does give a sense of purpose and a sense of belonging. This might be fine in wartime and real crises, but today the U.S. Army promotes bureaucratic performance and the ability to regurgitate PC ideology. In fact you don’t rise above the rank of colonel unless you are an enthusiastic supporter of PC. It was a very small step from actively administering the U.S. Army line of lies and evasions i.e., “Diversity is wonderful, women in the military are an asset, homosexuality is a respectable choice,” to actively taking a part in the Obama administration’s lies about the similarly politically correct, feel-good fantasy known as Arab Spring.LA replies:
The U.S. military is now so corrupted by the official liberal lies concerning race, women, homosexuality, and Islam that I don’t believe any high ranking officer can be an honorable man.Terry Morris writes:
Someone ought to check Petraeus’s back to see whether, in a drunken stupor, the whore-broad Broadwell tattood the words “Blackmail Me” on his back.LA replies:
I don’t see how your lesson of admitting to a lie is relevant here, since there’s no question of Petreaus dishonestly denying the affair. He admitted it as soon as the FBI approached him.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 14, 2012 08:00 AM | Send