If Napolitano is correct, then by outing himself Petraeus refused to be blackmailed.
The counterpoint to that is that Petraeus took the CIA job even though he knew he was lying down with dogs. That gave the impression he just might be one of the dogs.
Napolitano’s article notwithstanding, Petraeus could still be taking one for the Obama team. There’s no real way to know.
So, when he testifies before Congress is he playing misdirection for Obama, is he playing honest broker, is he playing CYOA....what?
What I do know is that a man who truly did have the credentials to make a presidential run has been ruined. He’s also one who could have given Hillary Clinton hell.
There are layers upon layers to this. I’d be careful with any information gained from anyone with connections to the administration.
Well said, xzins. We may never know unless Gen Petraeus spills it all.
...nomination was preceded by a two-month FBI-conducted background check...
Think of J. Edgar Hoover and his private files and how they were a resource for various administrations: Joseph Kennedy and his Nazi sympathies, MLK and his sexual indiscretions, JFK and his dalliances with known Soviet spies. This list is endless and fascinating.
The vetting of candidates for high positions by the FBI is thorough and intense. To suggest that the administration knew nothing of this is absurd. Unfortunately, as the last election has proven, half the electorate is criminally stupid.
You are corrct. There are many layers to this, and while history may or may not repeat itself, it certainly rhymes...