I wonder if we could call in Nate Silver to determine what is the probability that this resignation is pure happenstance?
In fact, why would Petraeus, were he resigning, publicly state the reason as having had an affair other than to just say, "personal reasons" or "I want to spend more time with my family"? This is a time, right after the election, where any person who wants to resign can do so with little or no explanation and certainly with no need to provide specificity as to an extramarital affair.
This stinks to high heaven.
LT. COL. RALPH PETERS:
"The timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration. Just as the administration claimed it was purely coincidence that our Benghazi consulate was attacked on the anniversary of September 11th. Now it’s purely coincidence that this affair -- extra-marital affair -- surfaces right after the election, not before, but right after, but before the intelligence chiefs go to Capitol Hill to get grilled. As an old intelligence analyst, Neil, the way I read this -- I could be totally wrong, this is my interpretation -- is that the administration was unhappy with Petraeus not playing ball 100% on their party-line story. I think it's getting cold feet about testifying under oath on their party-line story. And I suspect that these tough Chicago guys knew about this affair for a while, held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card."
...
"... the director of the CIA, with a long and proud career, does not own his own initiative, on impulse, stroll over to the White House and say, 'Mr. President, here's my letter of resignation, I had an affair, I feel real bad about it.' Somebody raised it with him." |
