How is it the Democrats ever imagined that a man who was all but accused of "betrayal" in the Paper of Record by one of their main propaganda organizations could be relied upon to go all the way to the mat for their president? How is it that they thought he would sit in front of congress and the American people and engage in obfuscating-as-usual in a massive farce not of his making? In a scandal on par with others which have hollowed out the credibility of past administrations?
This, of course, presumes that Petraeus is being forced to resign, particularly at this time, for reasons other than his affair, but why would we think that? Why would we think that it seems a little strange that the party which worships Bill Clinton and JFK would view an extramarital affair as a career-ending problem for one of their top officials? I know what you're saying, "Clinton impeachment!" "Hypocrisy!" Well, point taken, except that there are more than a few on the Right (myself included) who think that impeaching Clinton for getting his knob polished in the Oval Office was, to use one of the inimitable King Shamus's favorite phrases, "a dick move". That hyperventilating over revelations of DC philandering is like being surprised and outraged when two dogs go at it in the front yard.
If the Democrats wanted a general at Langley who could be relied upon to faithfully defend Obama, they should have given the job to Colin Powell. More than once he's unabashedly proclaimed his fidelity to their Messiah and the Left has never made any bones about asserting that he is a consumate liar, to boot. You'd think they would see him as tailor-made for the Age of Benghazi.
Then again, we've all become very familiar how much Obama enjoys driving his bus over people, so maybe l'affaire Petraeus is, as they say, a preprogrammed feature, not a bug.
Two things in parting:
I've already heard more about the Petraeus affair from MSNBC/ABC/NBC, than I have about Benghazi. #Bias
— Heath Mayo (@HeathMayo) November 9, 2012
And: how long before we hear about some sort of malfeasance which forces Craig Fugate to resign and, totally by coincidence!, therefore, for some reason, makes it unnecessary for him to testify to a House committee investigating the Adminstration's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy?
Hey, I'm Just Asking Questions, here!
From Pete Hoekstra, who is supposed to know a thing or two:
Patreaus resignation will get worse. There's more here than meets the eye.
— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) November 10, 2012