What Do You Mean Petraeus Doesn’t Have To Testify?

President Barack Obama’s second term hasn’t even started and already he and his political allies are protecting him from a growing scandal.  In case you missed it, CIA Director David Petraeus, the decorated General, whose credits include leading the surge in Iraq and guiding our forces in Afghanistan, has tendered his resignation.  Petraeus is stepping down because of an extramarital affair, reportedly with his biographer.  He was slated to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee next week, on the botched Benghazi fiasco.  Now, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., says he won’t have to testify.

Say that again?  Won’t have to testify because of what?  Because he resigned?  That’s all the more reason he should have to testify.

The Benghazi affair, under reported by the media during the campaign, except for Fox News, has suddenly drawn everybody’s attention, now that the election is over.  And Petraeus is off the hook?  Listen, I respect the General’s decorated status and his service to our country, but that does not absolve him from what is a growing problem.  The administration’s failure to protect our ambassador and other officials deserves close scrutiny, and so does that of Petraeus during this time, especially since the CIA’s intelligence, leading up to and during the attack, is under question.

Many questions have been raised by the General’s admitted  “extremely poor judgement,” even though Feinstein was willing to give him a pass and said he should have stayed on the job.  For instance, what was Petraeus up to, during this period?  Did his promiscuous extra-curricular activities take him away from the job of coordinating and digesting sensitive intelligence?  Was he off somewhere, instead of managing the intelligence our military needed in order to thwart the Sept. 11 attack in Libya?

News reports also indicate the FBI has been investigating this affair for some time on the basis USA intelligence may have been compromised.  Did the President know about this investigation?  Was Petraeus allowed to stay on the job, if the President knew about this investigation?  Was this another matter buried by the administration, during a contentious campaign, while four people died in Benghazi?

On and on the questions are raised by Petraeus’ apparent divided attention.  And now we are told he doesn’t have to testify?  Furthermore, the President of the United States, who was informed of Petraeus’ intention to resign on Thursday, mentions nothing about it at his Friday speech?  Instead he starts talking about an election mandate?

Can you imagine if this were George W. Bush?   The double-standard continues.  And we are still more than two months away from inauguration day.

David Petraeus
David Petraeus

You may also like