An interesting rumor. As Moe Lane says, the president should have the General debunk this immediately.
And at what point does DCI Petraeus noisily resign? A run at the presidency as a Republican would survive a stint at the CIA under a Democrat, but it won’t survive complicity, or remaining silent, in a coverup.
[Update a while later]
DrewM over at Ace says it doesn’t hold water.
And then there is this:
Navy replaces admiral leading Mideast strike group
AP – WASHINGTON — “The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.
…………..
It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Navy did not reveal details of the allegations, citing only an accusation of “inappropriate leadership judgment” that arose during the strike group’s deployment to the Middle East.”
“inappropriate leadership judgment”
Zipper control failure?
“Zipper control failure”
That is what it sounds like. That is what it usually turns out to be when they use euphemisms like “inappropriate leadership judgment”.
Ya know, the islamists would have been *really* embarrassed to get their asses handed to ’em by a general named Ham- “Unclean, unclean!”
And doubly embarrassed by someone named Carter Ham…
“And at what point does DCI Petraeus noisily resign?”
When he perceives that the good he can do being free to speak outweighs the good he can do staying on the job.
Not sure Patraeus is looking at a Presidential run but I don’t really know.
Petraeus is no Napoleon but he would still be doing both himself and America a great service by not running.
Countries need to avoid turning to popular charismatic leaders, especially in times of crisis. It causes nothing but trouble. Give me a weak, fractious, and divided central government every time. Our solutions are not to be found in Washington, that’s where our problems come from.
Interesting rumor. 48 hour rule applies.
Ace of Spades says these things are unrelated:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334311.php
He’s probably right.
Petraus is going to throw the President under the bus. CIA denies that anyone told anyone to not help.
This is why Obama was so shaken during that 1st debate, he was AFRAID Mitt knew then and was about to spill the beans!
Forget about the 1st debate, what about the 2nd debate, where the President was barking orders at moderator Candy Crowley, “Go to the transcript! What does it say? Louder, please!”
Keep pushing, liberals.
Vivemos mejor con Franco.
Viva la Murete!
Putting on the conspiracy hat, was Benghazi an operation to find which military officers the regime could count on to follow orders contrary to defending the US? Or was the response simply fear of making a “provocative” reaction?
It’s hard to see how the media will keep the lid on this until the election.
What I find amazing is that the more I learn about this the more it seems to be closer to a Black Hawk Down situation. Initially it sounded like a small force of terrorists stormed the embassy and killed 4 folks, but what we are now learning is that something like 200 soldiers or so attacked the embassy and even though ambassador Stevens and another consulate staff were killed something like 20 other staff members were saved. And they were saved basically by civilians who just happened to be ex-SEALs who engaged in a tremendous firefight with the attackers, killing something like 60 of them before being killed themselves in a mortar attack. The most remarkable aspect of the failure to call for backup is that the administration wasn’t just writing off the lives of 4 folks who maybe couldn’t be saved in time but potentially they were writing off the lives of about 2 dozen individuals who managed to be saved by happenstance.
Imagine how different this story would be if 20 American consular staff had been killed instead? The administration got lucky here and if Obama wins reelection it will be because the media failed to cover this story and because of the valiant and selfless actions of those two ex-SEALs (Doherty and Woods).
My question to Obama: An American soldier died while disobeying an order not to attempt to rescue our Ambassador. To disobey an order either means our dead soldier was dishonorable, or the order given to him by his commander [in chief] was dishonorable.
Which is it, Mr. President?