NON-PALACE INTRIGUE, BUT IT'S ABOUT THE PALACE – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  There's an absolutely fascinating story making the rounds, although it's gotten stunningly little attention in the mainstream media.  But it may have implications for the future.

It involves General David Petraeus, the head of CENTCOM, and a man sometimes mentioned as a possible candidate for the presidency.  Petraeus has consistently said he isn't interested, and I have minimized the idea here...until now. 

Petraeus is a master politician, one of the most politically astute leaders in the military.  He is a declared Republican.  To run in 2012 he'd have to go up against his commander-in-chief, either by running in Republican primaries or by accepting a "draft."  There is also the possibility that he could accept a vice-presidential nod tendered by the Republican nominee. 

Possible?  Consider this story from the Jerusalem Post:

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the US Military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), telephoned IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi on Wednesday night to reassure Israel that comments attributed to him regarding supposed Israeli intransigence were spun out of context.

Last week, Petraeus testified before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee. A 56-page report that CENTCOM had submitted alongside Petraeus’s oral testimony caused a storm by claiming that Israeli intransigence was a problem for the US military and was fomenting conflict in the Middle East.

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests,” the CENTCOM report read. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the [Middle East] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

The above words, which appeared in the report but were not uttered by Petraeus in his oral testimony, were pounced upon by critics of Israel as confirmation of what many of them have said for years – that Israel is the source of instability in the region.

On Wednesday, though, Petraeus poured cold water on the written testimony. In an appearance at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, he told reporters that his testimony had been spun by bloggers.

And indeed it was.  The worst offender, the obnoxious Mark Perry, a former adviser to Yasir Arafat, spun the story at supersonic speed, and got some TV appearances out of it, including one with the groveling Rick Sanchez of CNN, who practically anointed Perry, a kind of jihadist groupie, a new god. 

But notice what Petraeus did:  On the very day that his commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, was humiliating the prime minister of Israel, Petraeus was going around the president and phoning his Israeli counterpart to give him assurance.  This is almost unheard of. 

What message was Petraeus sending?  I can only provide what I hope is informed speculation.  He may well have been setting out his independence from a president whose appeasement foreign policy is sinking.  He may well have been signaling the Republican Party that he's willing, eventually, to take on this shell of a president.  He may well have been signaling to the large pro-Israel community in America that he doesn't support the current Obama nuttiness. 

I stress that this is speculation.  I have no inside information.  But please notice where Petraeus is this week.  He's in New Hampshire.  Does that ring a political bell? 

You may be sure that this Chicago-educated White House noticed Petraeus's move.  Don't be shocked if you see some leaked stories in coming months downplaying Petraeus and his accomplishments, and possibly even hinting that the administration may be cooling toward him.  That's the way the game is played, especially by bullies.  If Petraeus makes any clear move toward politics, Obama will go after him.  This could get very interesting.

March 26, 2010