, liWhat if Mittens’VP nominee had instead been PETREUS and not Ryan?
Then instead we would have heard of all this in the week BEFORE the election and not after:
I’m sure that as soon as soon as speculation mounted that the choice might end up as Petreus, that very millisecond every info rat and honeypot in Chicago went onto a full war footing.
Given recent political history I find it highly implausible that the original reason why the FBI launched down this sensitive path was because a “jealous and possessive female” tried to scare away a RIVAL.
That notion stinks to high heaven of the ole vaguely Arkanasas, “nuts and sluts” defense.
Even here at FR today people are swallowing that bait hook
She’s hot, but the sex angle is a red-herring:
The real story is Bengazi, MANPADS, and Al Qaeda.
Look Nation of Islam was openly returned for his re-election —that’s two times, now.
We do NOT know what dirt the muzzies have on this gay man, but we do know how much it would benefit them to put a Salafist into the White House —we might have that, now.
I like sex, but THAT IS NOT REALLY THE POINT OF THIS STORY.
That’s a very good point. Obama evidently believed at one point just before the GOP convention that Romney was going to ask Petraeus to be his VP, so this was probably going to be the classic Obama-style October Surprise (always something sleazy and personal).
However, it was a win-win for Obama, because he probably now feels that this discredits Petraeus and anything he might say about Benghazi. That said, I think people here are seriously overestimating Petraeus. He’s a military man, and thus loyal to whoever is in charge. Right now, that’s Obama.
I don’t think Petraeus’ civilian status as CIA director and now as just plain civilian is going to change his loyalty to Obama.
But it would be nice to be proved wrong.