Gen. Petraeus, Susan Rice, and Obama Tweets

There is an ongoing discussion on whether Gen. Petraeus should, or should not, have resigned.  Then there is the back and forth on Susan Rice, who Obama would like to see confirmed as Sec of State, and now we have the "fiscal cliff."  These subjects are really much simpler to diagnose than all the talk we've been hearing.

Gen. Petraeus:  Since he is no longer in military service, the service code of conduct no longer applies. There is really no chargeable offense.  Doing something stupid is not a crime.  Having an affair does make a CIA head susceptible to blackmail.  But, fortunately no such attempt was ever made.

So, should Petraeus have resigned?  That call can only be made by one man, his boss, and his boss was Obama.  Word has it that Petraeus and Obama were never that close.  For Obama to have dumped him comes as no great surprise.  And, that's how that goes.

Susan Rice as a candidate for appointment to the position of Secretary of State:  I have very little idea as to whether Ms. Rice is up to the job or not.  But clearly the Benghazi affair with the death of four fine Americans in Libya does present a problem for this appointment.

The Benghazi affair presents us with several issues, but the one most relevant to the Rice appointment is her misleading statement made immediately after the assassination of our ambassador to Libya.  She announced that his death resulted from a demonstration by Libyans incensed over a film produced in the United States about the life of Muhammad.  This was false.  The CIA knew almost immediately that this was an assassination by al Qaida.

So why did she give out the false story?  As I understand it, based on what is being presented to the American public, the CIA passed the information up the line.  Somewhere (up the line) there is a group whose function it is to take such confidential information and create talking points for dissemination to the public.   It is here that we run into our first problem.  If the administration didn't want to reveal that they knew it was a planned assassination, why not simply say that they were not in possession of all the facts, but that they would provide the facts as soon as they became available?  (That should have given them as much time as they should have reasonably needed.)

It is suspected that they made up the story about the demonstration simply to keep Obama's reputation as the one who had finished off al Qaida's from being tarnished.  In short, Ms. Rice gave out a story that was known to be false simply to further the political advantage of the Obama administration at the time of an election.

There is another possibility; namely, that the assassination attempt on our ambassador succeeded only because of the ineptitude on the part of either our state department or our security forces.  But that too would have reflected poorly on the Obama administration.

Okay, perhaps the culpability for devious behavior lies elsewhere in the administration.  But, at the very least, this makes Ms. Rice little more than a courier for others.  Is that what Americans want as secretary of state? ..... a courier?

The rapidly approaching fiscal cliff:  If Congress does not respond to the fiscal mess we're in, it will get much uglier.  The Republicans don't want to see taxes go up in a vain attempt to contain runaway entitlements.  Democrats don't want any reduction in entitlements. Unless this issue is resolved the national debt will continue to balloon.  A solution can only come through compromise.

Compromise means Republicans and Democrats negotiating.  Such negotiations will require the full participation of the president.  But how is this to be done if the president won't roll up his sleeves and get busy negotiating with the Republican legislators?  Can tweeting with  the American public serve as a substitute to negotiating?  I don't think so.