11-14-2012, 05:01 PM
(11-14-2012, 02:41 PM)username Wrote: I'm trying to figure out how discrediting Petraeus would benefit the current administration in the Benghazi hearings. That only seems helpful if they expected him to say things that are damning to them. Besides the affair was supposedly over by 9/11.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit though if there was some effort to keep this information quiet until after election day though. Romney would have had a field day with all this crap.
I don't know if this is anything other than a juicy very high-level scandal that just happened to break right after elections and before the Benghazi hearing or not.
But, if there was some administration involvement in Petraeus's house of cards falling, the only benefit I can imagine is a wagging of the dog.
I haven't read any of the conspiracy theories outside this thread, but a dog wag in this case would mean timing the scandal purposely to divert attention from what would otherwise be of greater importance, to something/someone else of lesser significance. The lesser-significant event/person then being catapulted into the limelight, and overshadowing public attention on what/who was originally at the crux of the more important issue (or shifting focus from the very highest post down the ladder a bit to someone who was perhaps seen as about to cook his own goose anyway?).
Add: Looks like Obama is gonna stand by Rice all the way. I wonder if he really will nominate her next term?