Through my eyes: Are we watching 'the great betrayal?'

As you know, you and I talk things over every week. If you are like me, you are weary of post-election "Monday morning quarterbacking," so we will not go there, unless the election rears its ugly head in our discussion, and if it does, it does so only residually.

What we have to talk about is the incredible incident in Benghazi, Libya, that of course took the lives of four Americans at our consulate there. We all know the details, so we don't have to go over them, but the focal point of any argument is that our people - at our consulate, sent there by our government, in danger - called for help and protection, and the call went unanswered, except for a handful of heroes led by a former Navy Seal, and sadly we have to add them to the list of those that died there. You and I know, now, that this was a terrorist attack, not a demonstration against a video unflattering to Muslims and Mohammed that was obscurely circulated. To add weight to this argument, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on a couple of TV shows after the attack, giving this fabrication as the reason. I think we have to give Rice the benefit of the doubt, because it seems she was only relaying the information she had been given.

Now, be that as it may, does it not smell to high heaven that something is wrong here? Former Gen. David Petraeus, then head of the CIA, testifying before a congressional investigation under oath, said that his original assessment, which he sent on to other agencies, was that it was a terrorist attack, and he does not know who or what agency changed his report to designate the Muslim video as the cause. My question to you is: should this not have been dealt with immediately? Why the order to stand down, not send military aid to the consulate right away, and where did that order come from?

More questions: it was decided to wait until after the presidential election to investigate this atrocity. Whose order was that? We all know that Petraeus stepped down two days after the election, after a meeting with President Obama, with the reason being an illicit sexual affair he was having with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. Here is a man, Petraeus, who has had nothing but success as a military man, starting with his entry at West Point, known to be not only brilliant militarily but honest.

Having said that, I know what you are thinking: "if he was all that, why did he have the affair," and I in no way seek to justify that, but bear with me for a moment. Does it not seem strange that a man of his reported caliber would choose to give as his reason for stepping down as his adultery, and thereby embarrass his wife of some 30-odd years? Some people in the CIA and the FBI apparently knew of the affair, but you and I did not, and neither did the rest of our country, so why not just give as your reason for stepping down, that you were weary of your long service and thought it was time to retire and thus avoid the horrendous tragedy for your wife. Could it be that the affair was held over his head to prevent any statements he might make about who and what agencies had been informed that this attack was indeed a well-planned act of terrorism?

The final question, I have for you is a repeat of the title - are we, the American people, being fed on a daily basis falsehoods that are designed only to enhance reelections and not for the "transparent, do what is right" ideals that we look for in our government? The next time we talk, perhaps there will be some believable explanations that will come out of the on going Congressional investigation into this. I hope so. Until next time!