In which the Charlotte Observer covers for Obama on the #Petraeus affair scandal

Posted by: ST on November 13, 2012 at 9:06 am

So predictable. They write this under the guise of wanting “questions to be answered” as to who knew what and when, but in the process take the giant leap of asserting without question that Obama was never told that his CIA director was under investigation. From the editorial page (bolded emphasis added by me):

“Men in general judge more from appearances than from reality,” Machiavelli said, and so theories behind David Petraeus’ resignation as CIA director abound.

Was news of his extramarital affair kept secret until last week so as not to harm President Obama’s reelection chances? Is Petraeus’ resignation a way for him to avoid answering questions about the killings in Benghazi, Libya?

The apparent failure of the FBI and the Department of Justice to tell anyone about the investigation for several months naturally raises these sorts of questions and many others. The first strikes us as far more legitimate than the second.

The FBI began investigating the case early last summer, and by late summer knew Petraeus was involved. And yet no one told Petraeus’ boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, until months later – at 5 p.m. on Election Day, to be precise. The FBI says it was investigating whether national security had been compromised but never briefed leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees. And, apparently, Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller III, who meet with Obama regularly, knew what was going on with one of the most important individuals in the administration but did not tell the president.

The law requires that both Congress and the director of national intelligence be informed “in a timely manner” about “significant intelligence activities.” What is “significant,” however, is left to the discretion of an agency’s director (in this case Mueller).

[….]

Given that fact, this bombshell dropping hours after the presidential election raises suspicions, fairly or not.

The idea that Petraeus’ resignation is designed to avoid testifying before Congress about Benghazi is a stretch. Congress can still order him to appear, and should do so.

FBI and CIA leaders will meet with congressional intelligence committee leaders on Wednesday. It’s about time, and about time for some answers.

So in the process of “demanding answers”, the Observer helpfully provides “answers” of their own for their readers so they, you know, don’t have to think for themselves (surprise). They assert: 1) Obama “apparently” knew nothing. Really? How do they know this? Details are still sketchy about who knew what and when and how far up the chain the alleged failure to share information went. Yet the Observer declares without hesitation that the President didn’t know one of the highest ranking officials in his administration was under investigation? 2) “It’s a stretch” to think Petraeus resigned to avoid having to testify on the issue. Oh? Which would make you feel compelled to testify more? Being a high-ranking member of an administration or being a private citizen? Even more to the point, which looks worse? Would it be your unwillingness as a public servant to answer to the people on issues of national importance or your unwillingness to do so as a private citizen?

Like the Observer, I want questions answered as well, but unlike the Observer, I won’t pretend I have all the answers. Let the inquires begin as soon as possible before this administration gets the chance to muddy the waters as they did on Benghazi with so much deliberate misinformation and lies that it is hard to know what the truth actually is. I look forward to finding out more information by listening to the key players involved in the months-long investigation – who most assuredly be called to testify, rather than swallowing whole the “answers” the Charlotte Observer pretends to have but in reality does not.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

11 Responses to “In which the Charlotte Observer covers for Obama on the #Petraeus affair scandal”

Comments

  1. Garey Wheatley says:

    To testify as CIA leader requires the answers to be made or he is in contempt of Congress. As a private citizen, he can be represented and may plead the 5th. That is the difference.

  2. Carlos says:

    The answer to that, then, Garey, is to have him formally charged with…(?)? Seems to me that in an administration as like a sieve as this one is with “secrets,” with a little pushing by investigators someone would spill the beans about who and when.

    One has to remember, this entire farce of an administration was designed specifically to allow “plausible deniability” in every situation because they knew from the outset that many of their illegal activities would be “misunderstood” by the yokel turnips out here.

  3. EBL says:

    L?ve Shack Baby!

    The idea that Obama did not know of this and it was all disclosed the day after the election is insane.

  4. Perry says:

    The idea that Obama did not know of this and it was all disclosed the day after the election is insane.

    So stated this, with no documentation whatsoever, therefore next to meaningless opinion.

  5. Carlos says:

    Yep, Perry. Kinda like all of ussuns jumping to conclusions about F&F, too. And ’bout Benghazi to begin with. And at least a dozen other “non-stories” that have not been covered by those esteemed and inquisitive journalists we have been waiting patiently for over four years to tell us exactly who our president is and why he won’t release his academic records (especially since he’s supposed to be the smartest man in the world.)

    Doesn’t wash, Bud. Sometimes, one is forced to make assumptions based upon the history of the person one is viewing, and the people he/she surrounds himself/herself with.

  6. Drew the Infidel says:

    The media has already shown itself to be a symptom instead of a solution and this is just fuel for the fire. Consider they would not even cover a terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound and the concomitant murder of four innocent Americans unless it was tied to a sex scandal.
    Other examples: They ignore Pearl Harbor Day but go overboard two days later on John Lennon’s birthday; they mourn the passing of Michael Jackson ignoring the death of Farrah Fawcett-Majors the same day; on the eve of invading Iraq the country and the media were more engrossed with the Kobe Bryant sex scandal. You get the picture.

  7. BBHunter says:

    So stated this, with no documentation whatsoever, therefore next to meaningless opinion.

    - So, after 10+ weeks, and a half a dozen diffetrent versions of the “truths” about Benghazi, all of which have been contradicted by various governement agencies, or modified, or walked back with weasle wording obfuscation, but you insist on missing the irony of your statement.

    - Good luck with that sport.

  8. BBHunter says:

    - Look Mr. Perry, if you’re not a bird brauned head-in-the-clouds illiberal member of the Progressive cult of Jug ears, you’re doing a masterful job of imitating one.

    - Here’s a little ideological “truthiness” for you.

    - Obama has turned out to be an Uber vain glorious war hawk that makes Bush/Cheney look like Sunday school teachers, and the Left simply does not know what the hell to do about it. They’re running around like a gaggle of chickens, along with the whore media, trying desperately to give the dear leader cover.

    - I’m suprised you could even type the words “creditable press” without throwing up on your keyboard. If we HAD a creditable press, which we do not, just maybe you would have heard about the daily protests in front of the White house, and all the Lefties that have chained themselves to the front fence.

    - The Commander-in-drones has completely double crossed his failthful starry eyed base, and they’re caught in a political whipsaw they can’t even begin to deal with.

    - But don’t worry, the Pravda on the Hudson press will labor on gamely shoveling eveerything they can under the rug.

  9. Dara says:

    @BBHunter

    Thanks, I could never have said it that well..!

  10. Kate says:

    So the truth turns into a game of chess….strategies to alter timelines, protocols and such! I am totally in agreement with BBHunter…this is a massacre of the truth. You will not get it from the Obama administration and playing nice in Washington now is NOT what is required from Congress. The FBI is tripping over itself to hide information, the CIA is stubbing it’s toes over infidelities…underneath all this soap opera antics we have the death of four people. Blood is on the hands of Obama and his State Department. They must be held accountable for it.

  11. Steve Skubinna says:

    So, Perry, you really believe that the FBI discovered that the Director of the CIA was compromised, and didn’t bother to mention it to anyone? Okay, that’s your opinion.

    It’s also a massively huge level of stupidity. We’re talking weapons grade stupidity here. You, my lad, are a black hole of stupidity, so dense that no coherent thought can escape.

    Sure, why would the FBI mention that the CIA director was vulnerable to blackmail? Nobody’s business, right? Unless they put it into one of those intelligence briefings Obama never goes to because he’s too smart to have people tell him stuff.

    It must be dreadfully wearying, having to carry around that solid lump of depleted uranium you call a skull.