The reason for General David Petraeus’ sudden, forced resignation is as plain as the rear-end on a goat. Barack Obama wanted to discredit Petraeus, prejudice the American public against him, and effectively intimidate the general into silence lest he spill the beans to Congress about the Regime’s criminal activities of providing arms, fighters, and support to Syrian terror groups from the Chris Stevens-managed Benghazi mission.
Advertisement-content continues below
Of course, Obama also didn’t want anyone “in-the-know” testifying about his treacherous betrayal of Stevens and 3 other Americans as he deliberately offered them up to al Qaeda killers. A dead Regime operative can never testify against his boss about gun-running to terrorists, can he Mr. President?
Stevens’ base of operations in Benghazi was NOT a consulate; it was a mission which “…served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East…” And “among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”
Of course, such goings on at the Benghazi mission would have caused no small amount of political “embarrassment” for Barack Obama had they become widely known. For “U.S. officials [had] stated the White House [was] providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels,” not arms. And lest the American public forget, “…Congress [had] appropriated money, at the behest of Obama, for humanitarian aid, not weapons” and certainly not for al Qaeda linked, Islamic jihadist fighters “…recruited by Saudi Arabia…”
Obama knew of Petraeus’ indiscretions with Paula Broadwell months before the election. But had the president “outed” the general before Election Day, it might have raised questions about Obama’s dealings in Benghazi to which even the Obama-owned media might have had to request answers as the new media would certainly have run with the story.
Advertisement-content continues below
So when a CIA spokesman clearly heaped blame for the mission deaths on the president by saying, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate,” Obama could do nothing but bide his time and depend upon the liberal media to bury the story of his having betrayed Stevens and the Benghazi dead (which of course it did.)
But with the election finally over, Obama swiftly introduced the General to countless others he has placed beneath the Regime bus. And now the question becomes: What kind of man is David Petraeus? He knows it was Obama’s decision alone to betray 4 Americans to their death. He knows assistance could have been provided, the terrorists killed or dispersed, and the mission staff rescued. And as CIA director, Petraeus must also have known what was going on at the mission: that is, of the weaponry being secretly provided to al Qaeda-connected fighters in direct opposition to the wishes and understanding of Congress.
But will Petraeus testify to all of this (and more), or will he quietly sneak away like so many cowards who have graced the ranks of the Obama Regime? Obama has already worked to destroy the General’s credibility and reputation. And Petraeus has undoubtedly been threatened with consequences far more chilling than a revelation of marital infidelity should he testify before Congress about the president’s criminal dealings.
Therefore, like so many American soldiers before him, David Petraeus must choose between acting with valour or cowardice against his country’s enemies.
We’ll soon discover whether the General chooses to honor or disgrace both his uniform and himself.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.