Election 2016: Keith Ellison: ‘I would love to see Elizabeth Warren’ run
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.