Is Gen. Petraeus affair a coverup of Benghazi coverup?

News  (NBC post-election) (FOX) (CNBC pre-election) and more, about General Petraeus’ affair and resignation is coming out now. Why now? The perfect timing of this story is sounding very strange and does not add up. It is strange that the story brewing in the media right now is about Petraeus and not Benghazzi. What does an affair have to do with getting information about Benghazzi to the Obama Administration?! Most affairs, especially those involving non-political figures, stay underground. This is an ordinary affair. There’s no Security breach. Gen. Petraeus has been in more trouble than this so why is this affair such a big deal in the media today? He has a reputation as a great leader, and a bright man. Whether he had an affair is one story, but there’s a bigger story at stake–Benghazi cover up. Reasons for this fishy story’s existence raises more questions.

Is this affair just a tactic to distract the real news about the Benghazi cover up? Are the Democrats attempting to cover up their cover up, in order to protect President Obama’s chances of re-election? If the 2012 Presidential election had happened some other time, would this story about Petraeus’ affair even become a story?

Is this news just a distraction from the real news? Is it a Democratic ploy used to excuse and explain why the news about Benghazi did not reach President Obama until after Nov. 8, 2012 (2 days after the national Presidential election)?

Is Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) play-up of this story distracting from the Benghazi coverup? If so, is General Petraeus being used as a fall guy for Obama’s re-election?

Things are getting very fishy. The “balloon” is getting bigger.  When it really blows up, could this blow up and become, what some might call, Benghazi-gate?

3 thoughts on “Is Gen. Petraeus affair a coverup of Benghazi coverup?

  1. As one presumes innocence, one also needs to look at both sides. Congratulations to Kevin for including both liberal and semi-conservative news links. should we think we know what happened until we hear the other side? History tells us no.


  2. I understand that we need to presume one’s innocence before we receive evidence. But the evidence that is already out there in the public which the media has in their hands seems strong. I hope there is no coverup but it’s looking more like there could be one. Both Democrats and Republicans are looking for answers, and I hope the truth comes out.


  3. I am, by nature, cautious in arriving at conclusions. Therefore, if I err in judgment, I do so on the side of generosity. One factor which leads me to this approach is the study of history, which reveals the slow pace at which certain details come to light. For example. the full picture of the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) was not available until the early 1990s. Some details even surprised former Secretary of Defense McNamara in the early 1990s. (See “The Fog of War” for full details.) And, out of both civic principle and personal experience, I value the presumption of innocence. I think of Raymond Donovan, who, acquitted, stood on the courthouse steps and asked in the 1980s where he could go to get his good reputation back.

    So I will wait for the details to emerge and extend everyone involved the presumption of innocence, lest I commit the sin of bearing false witness.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s