Bill Kristol suggests that it had to be a decision by Obama himself not to help the Americans under siege in Benghazi and that David Petraeus is signaling exactly that with the CIA’s emphatic denial that the decision came from his shop. If that’s true, at what point does Petraeus have to speak out? If the reports are true, I think you can make the case that Petraeus should resign in protest. But that’s based somewhat on speculation about what I think happened. I don’t know for sure. Petraeus does.
Meanwhile, the politics are less important than the merits of this scandal. But merits aside, if Petraeus wants to run for president some day (presumably as a Republican), working for Obama is a surmountable problem. Being part of a cover-up of this kind of scandal in the October before an election? Not so much.
The one and only.