Geller Finds Real Reason for Petraeus Resignation

The sudden resignation of the CIA Director, Gen. David Petraeus, after reports of his affair with a journalist, has provoked lots of speculation, especially on the right, about the real reason he stepped down. Many have focused on an upcoming hearing about the attack in Benghazi at which he was supposed to testify. Pam Geller thinks that’s it, but has an amusing conspiracy theory:

I do not believe that the real reason was an extramarital affair. I believe it was Benghazi. He refused to be the fall guy. When did an affair ever stop a Democrat. If anything….

Perhaps one of Obama’s many Muslim Brotherhood advisors are on the shortlist to replace him.

Yes, of course. That must be it. Look, it would not surprise me at all if this was leaked on purpose or that Petraeus was essentially forced to resign; that kind of backstabbing and intrigue are routine in Washington, especially in the intelligence community. And it may well have had something to do with Benghazi (it’s clear now that the facility under attack there was not just a diplomatic outpost, it was also a secret CIA prison and interrogation facility). But the idea that this was done to put in place a CIA director that is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? That just fucking nuts.

27 comments on this post.
  1. Who Knows?:

    I don’t think that Geller has a clue about the military. General Petraeus had no choice but to resign once the affair was made public. In the military, affairs outside of marriage are a serious offense and if you are caught in one it’s the end of your career.

  2. Gregory in Seattle:

    Nevermind that Petraeus is testifying to Congress about the Benghazi attack.

    Facts don’t matter when you are in the midsts of a paranoid delusional episode.

  3. dmcclean:

    Since when is Petraeus a Democrat?

  4. DaveL:

    I don’t get the freakout over the Benghazi attack. It was a small U.S. installation in Libya, for goodness sake, a country just now emerging from a state of civil war. Security analysts can debate proper force levels, response protocols, etc. and offer valid criticism, but to treat it as some kind of bellwether for the whole administration is insane.

  5. Ace of Sevens:

    @3: He accepted a presidential appointment from a Democrat. QED.

  6. eric:

    As Gregory pointed out, he’s still testifying. Which makes perfect sense: you talk to the person who was in charge when the events happened, regardless of whether he’s in the same job now. If a break-in occurs at 2am and the police show up at 9am, they don’t question the guard on the 9-5 shift, that’s just stupid.

  7. thalwen:

    1. Scary stuff about Muslims and the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of gumbment – check
    2. Getting the vapours over Benghazi while pretending like embassy attacks never happen – check
    3. Democrats portrayed as immoral adulterous fiends – check.
    All that in an impressive few sentences. It’s almost like they have a generator that writes their articles for them.

  8. Michael Heath:

    Who Knows? writes:

    I don’t think that Geller has a clue about the military. General Petraeus had no choice but to resign once the affair was made public. In the military, affairs outside of marriage are a serious offense and if you are caught in one it’s the end of your career.

    David Petraeus retired from the U.S. Army Aug. 31, 2011. The only official pressure brought to light so far on having Mr. Petraeus resign from the CIA came from his boss, James Clapper. Mr. Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence.

  9. Trebuchet:

    @Ed:
    <blockquote cite=""(it’s clear now that the facility under attack there was not just a diplomatic outpost, it was also a secret CIA prison and interrogation facility).</blockquote cite=""

    I've seen this stated, and denied, in several places. Do you have any actual evidence for it?

  10. Trebuchet:

    Dang. Blockquote cut-n-paste fail. I think the meaning is clear.

  11. ArtK:

    @ DaveL

    The freakout is because this happened on Obama’s watch and they’re desperate to find something to make him look bad. Of course, the way to shut that down would be to start a Senate investigation of all fatal embassy attacks in the last couple of decades. That would include several under the Bushes. I’m not a fan of tu quoque, but I’ll relax my standards for this one.

  12. busterggi:

    I immediately wondered why Uri Geller would care about the Petraeus mess. Bet if he was asked he would give a saner answer.

  13. Didaktylos:

    @#12 – but equally stupid

  14. hypatiasdaughter:

    I really really try to understand this stuff but it makes my brain hurt.
    Obama was President in 2011. If Obama wanted a Muslim Brotherhood advisor in that position, why didn’t he appoint one in 2011 instead of Petraeus? Why appoint Petraeus, then manufacture a scandal a year later to force him out?

  15. baal:

    pointy thing blockquote close pointy thing put your text here
    pointy thing slash / blockquote close pointy thing

    The cite=”" part is not needed for blockquoting.

    Half the reason why that outpost was potentially under protected was Republican authored spending cuts to embassy defense. Also, while tragic, 4 deaths for a deliberate attach on a US holding is relatively minor. The USS Cole bombing killed 14 and wounded 39 others and despite being a more serious case, it got less noise than Bengazhy is getting. McCain now wants hearings in the Senate. Is Obama so miraculous that this is the best complaint they have to make hay with?

  16. rickdesper:

    @3 Since last Friday.

    You’re probably confused by the years of speculation that he would run for the Presidency as a Republican, or the speculation that he would be Romney’s running mate.

  17. iknklast:

    Since when is Petraeus a Democrat?

    Since he was discovered to have actually had a sexual scandal with a woman.

  18. geocatherder:

    A blogger at another site suggested that the purpose of the resignation was to remove the need for the FBI investigation. The suggestion was that Petraeus has a skeleton or two in his closet that make an affair seem tame by comparison.

  19. rickdesper:

    @4
    Yes, and this insinuation that the attack at Benghazi was somehow of a category entirely different than the hundreds of similar attacks in Iraq or Afganistan over the years is disingenuous.

    From the standpoint of “what’s going on here?” we’ve got nothing more profound than Republicans grasping at straws. It’s really sad to see McCain letting himself get dragged into this nonsense.

    This is literally the most that CNN could say about this “scandal” yesterday: why did Obama not refer to the attack as a “terrorist attack” within the first few days after it happened. In spite of the fact that he did so. The new line in the sand is that he didn’t do so often enough. After all, there were interviews where he didn’t call it a terrorist attack. Or some such nonsense.

    Meanwhile, 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, and anybody who dared ask why was called a traitor.

  20. morejello:

    It’s simple why he was asked to resign. Extramarital affairs are grounds for revocation of security clearances. While I’m sure that wasn’t a concern for him, if you let the boss get away with it and yank the underling’s clearance for the same thing, that opens up the organization to potential lawsuit for discriminatory practices.
    That’s my belief.

  21. Who Knows?:

    Michael Heath writes:

    David Petraeus retired from the U.S. Army Aug. 31, 2011

    I am aware of that.

    I believe that an officer like General Petraeus would have no choice but to follow the code of conduct he lived by for so long. Serving in a leadership position in the CIA is not much different than being a commanding officer and the CIA likely has a code of conduct that is very similar to the military.

    I doubt there was much need for any pressue, resigning was his only real option.

  22. Modusoperandi:

    ArtK “The freakout is because this happened on Obama’s watch and they’re desperate to find something to make him look bad. Of course, the way to shut that down would be to start a Senate investigation of all fatal embassy attacks in the last couple of decades.”
    Oh, please. Everybody knows that House investigations can’t deal with things older than Jan, 2009. And they have to be lead by Darrel Issa. It’s right there in the Constitution!

  23. caseloweraz:

    Baal wrote (#15): “Half the reason why that outpost was potentially under-protected was Republican authored spending cuts to embassy defense.”

    Would it be churlish or cynical to suppose those Republican-authorized cutbacks were related to the immense amounts spent on embassy facilities in Baghdad?

  24. caseloweraz:

    “When did an affair ever stop a Democrat? asks Pam Geller.

    Right — in contrast to the Republicans, who resign immediately when their indiscretions are discovered… <cough>

  25. iangould:

    I’m inclined to doubt the “secret prison” theory for a few reasons.

    1, The CIA has been running a network of secret prisons in other countries for years, why would they suddenly feel the need for anthoer one/

    2. It’s only been a matter of months since the US returned to Libya, there’s not a whoel hell of a lot of tiem to get a prison facility up and running.

    3. THere are dozens, literally, of militia groups in Libya running their own prisons – including militias aligned iweth pro-US factions. why not outsource their secret prison and torture needs to them? They’ve done similar things elsewhere.

  26. Noadi:

    My understanding is that the militants believed there was a CIA prison there which was part of the reason for the attack. I doubt the CIA is likely to come out and confirm it to the public if there was but there are some pretty practical reasons to believe the militants were working on false information.

  27. slc1:

    Re MH @ #8

    Even though he’s retired, General Patraeus is still technically subject to the military code of conduct.

    http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/11/david-petraeus-breaking-the-military-code–82047.html

Leave a comment

You must be