Friday, November 09, 2012


You know about this:
CIA Director David Petraeus resigned Friday, citing an extramarital affair and "extremely poor judgment."
Wonkette responds:
Reaction from the wingnut press has been muted so far, although readers of the Stupidest Man On the Internet were quick to speculate that Barack Obama knew of the affair and blackmailed Petraeus to do nothing to save the lives of the Benghazi consulate staff. We await further thoughtful analysis from Pam Geller and Jerome Corsi.
But you don't have to go to Gateway Pundit or Jerome Corsi for that sort of speculation -- here's Mark Halperin with his own cryptic, garbled, but unmistakable hint that political operatives in the Obama White House were blackmailing Petraeus. Go to about 1:29 in this video:

HALPERIN: Whenever there's tension -- behind the scenes for the most part -- between the executive branch, the political part of the executive branch, and the CIA and the intelligence community, you see a lot of high-stakes pressure back and forth. Sometimes there are threats. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case affecting his resignation, but there's no question that the political pressure on the State Department, on the White House, over the facts and circumstances of the tragedy in Benghazi was creating tension, has created tension, with the intelligence community and the CIA, and so, at a minimum, the context of General Petraeus's resignation is a time of pretty heightened pressure on him with some very tough political actors who have had the tension over the way Benghazi's been handled, both before and after the tragedy.
"Sometimes there are threats." And those threats -- if they exist! -- may have come from "some very tough political actors." So this idea doesn't even have to worm its way up from the right-wing sewers to the "respectable" press -- it's already there.

It doesn't matter what the truth is -- it's now an open question which will come first, the inauguration or the House vote on articles of impeachment.


Victor said...

Maybe these feckin' morons think that Ben Gahzi's the person he had an afair with!

The Conservatives are SOOOOO feckin' stooooooopid, that there's literally NOTHING I could think that they couldn't surmise.

Hell, if the Son of many Erick's, can call a sitting SC Justice a 'goat-fucker,' and STILL get a job at CNN, then, where, exactly, is the boundry is the Mason-Insane line?

Victor said...

Red State POV:
We just had another thought!
Hillary Clinton is also stepping down - does that mean that SHE also had an affair?

And who with?

20 years ago she killed Vince Foster, right?

If it was Petraeus that she had an affair with, will he also be found dead, apparently of a suicide?

That evil witch is still at it!


Danp said...

"I'm not saying that's what happened..."

but modern day journalism requires me to speculate?

Kathy said...

Um, what? These people really believe Obama wanted the people in Benghazi to die. I would ask why, but it's pointless.

BTW, Victor, people on the right (and some on the left, for that matter) have long believed Hillary is a lesbian. These days, she's supposed to be having an affair with Huma Abedin, who's spilling state secrets to the Muslim brotherhood. Or some sh*t like that.

Victor said...

Yeah, I remember that.
And even back then, their claim that the lesbian FLOTUS killed her male lover, never registered as cognivite dissonance.
Just like nowaday's, with Obama - which is he, Conservatives?
Maniacal Fascist Muslim madman, hell-bent on bringing Sharia law to the US?
Or cringing Communist wimp, hell-bent on bringing European Socialism to these shores?

He can't be both, can he?
Yes, in Conservative Bizzaro-World, it is.
Oh, and I forgot - he's also a Mau-mauing Kenyan Maoist, deternimed to make Muslim Voodoo the national religion.

Davis X. Machina said...

...but modern day journalism requires me to speculate?

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Kathy said...

Victor, he's also a secretly gay coke snorter, who has had some of his gay lovers killed. Is there no end to the depths of right-wingers imaginations?

BH said...

Somehow, this time around and unlike during the Lewinsky circus, I don't see impeachment being seriously pursued. Oh sure, a Louie Gohmert or Joe Wilson may try to drum up such an effort, but even in the GOP-debased House I don't think there'll be any significant support for it - assuming that nothing else much comes out. Remember, too, that the Clinton-era version of the Tea Party was still a relatively new phenomenon, still full of righteous delusions and demonic energy. Now, I think the hysteria seems pretty old hat to most folks in and out of Congress - and irrelevant, considering we're still clawing back from the Great Recession (quite unlike the zeitgeist of Clinton's 2nd term).