Petraeus Resigns

[Kathianne]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/09/15054517-cia-director-david-petraeus-resigns-cites-extramarital-affair?lite

[Little-Acorn]

This is HIGHLY baffling.

Petraeus is saying he is resigning because he had an extramarital affair, and he considers such activity to be too improper for a general in the armed forces, or something along those lines.

Well, maybe that's so. But... why at this particular instant? He could have felt the same way last week, or last year. What prompted the resignation now, three days after the election?

And just a week or two before he is scheduled to testify before Congress about what went on in the attack in Benghazi?

SPECULATION:

I have no evidence that the following is what happened. But nothing hangs together to me, except this:

Petraeus, as head of the CIA, knew of course about the CIA compound near the consulate. Once the terrorist attack on the consulate began, the CIA soldiers and personnel requested several times for permission to go over the the consulate and help fight the attackers and/or rescue the American personnel there. And they were refused each time. Finally they disobeyed orders and went there anyway, and did what they could. (This much is documented to be true, and publicly disseminated)

Could Petraeus himself, be the one who refused them permission to help? And could he have done it only after being directly ordered by his Commander in Chief (Obama) to tell the CIA people to stand down? And could he have strongly protested to Obama, saying it would be disgraceful and deceitful to the CIA personnel, to order them to stand down instead of helping? And Obama ordered him to tell them to stand down anyway?

And later, when Petraeus was scheduled to testify to Congress, could Obama have directly ordered him not to say anything about certain subjects, including Obama's orders to him to stand down? And could Obama have given the excuse that such information was "classified", or otherwise harmful to American national security, and that's why he was ordering Petraeus to not talk about it? And Petraeus knew that was a complete crock, and knew that Obama was merely covering his *ss, Nixon-style?

And so Petraeus was faced with a dilemma: His duty as a general, to obey a direct order from his Commander in Chief... while he knew that order was based solely on scurrilous grounds, and possibly harmful in itself?

And, just maybe, a person from Chicago had a little meeting with him, and hinted that this little affair he'd been having with a woman not his wife, would be revealed in public if Petraeus talked too much about certain subjects? A person whose name rhymes with Saxelrod?

And Petraeus knew damned well the information he would give to Congress was neither "classified" nor harmful to National Security, but only harmful to Obama's political career, and SHOULD be revealed to the Congressional investigating committee. And he decided that the only way he could do the right thing, was to remove himself from the chain of command, and so NOT have to obey Obama's order to shut up any more. And Mr. Chicago-person's little talk pissed Petraeus off just a little too much, and backfired?

And maybe Petraeus at that point decided that Obama and his cohorts coudl just go f*ck themselves. And he called some reporters into his office, calmly told them he'd been having an affair, giving names and dates (thus removing Mr. Chicag-person's threats), and announced that he was resigning immediately (thus removing the duty to obey Obama's order).

And now he will testify to Congress soon, with nothing anyone can do to shut him up.

Well, that's purely speculation by me. I have no evidence that any of it happened - nothing but guesswork.

But nothing else makes even the remotest sense. Anybody else have any better ideas?

Just one more thing: Petraeus had better stay out of small aircraft between now and his testimony date. And stay far awy from Ft. Marcy Park.

[jimnyc]

Honestly, I liked Petreaus. I see on news stories and other boards that Dem supporters are talking greatly of him and supporting him. I guess they forget about "Petreaus Betrayed us" and all that other crap when he testified in hearings and supported objectives in Iraq.

[gabosaurus]

Honestly, I liked Petreaus. I see on news stories and other boards that Dem supporters are talking greatly of him and supporting him. I guess they forget about "Petreaus Betrayed us" and all that other crap when he testified in hearings and supported objectives in Iraq.

I liked Petreaus as well. He has made the best of a difficult situation in Iraq.
My guess is that he is one of several administration officials who will be falling on their swords about the Benghazi situation.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillary Clinton step down as well. If she hasn't already.

[aboutime]

Personally. I do believe Patreaus is just doing the REAL honorable thing.
Further. Based on the timing, and the Congressional Hearings slated for next week about Benghazi.
I believe the General wants to be TRUTHFUL in those hearings. But being under the control of Obama
prevented him from speaking out, and disclosing the TRUE FACTS.

I suspect. Mister Obama has tried to convince Patreaus that he must speak in behalf of OBAMA, and the Admin, per orders.
But...the General is above being a FALL GUY for Obama. And he would never place himself in a position of Perjury in Lying for Obama.

This is only the tip of the so-called ICEBERG called the OBAMA LIE FACTORY.

Of course. Based on past experience, and the ease that Obama had in fooling millions to vote for him again.
Obama probably believes the BENGHAZI lies will just be swept under the rug.
And the GENERAL isn't having any of the SWEEPING on His Watch.

ONE MORE NOTE: We should all be very suspicious IF...something happens to the General in the near future.
I place nothing ABOVE what the Obama gang will try to do to keep all of this QUIET.

As for Hillary. It was announced several days ago that she intends to leave her position shortly after the Inauguration.

[Thunderknuckles]

I'm wearing my tin foil hat with you Acorn :p
Something fishy about this happening right after the election and the Benghazi debacle.

[aboutime]

I'm wearing my tin foil hat with you Acorn :p
Something fishy about this happening right after the election and the Benghazi debacle.


Thunderknuckles. Here's Obama's....4042

[Anton Chigurh]

THIS is what is really odd, from the story linked in the OP:

Feinstein said she respects Obama’s decision to accept the Petraeus resignation, but wishes he hadn’t.

She also said Petraeus will not need to testify at hearings she is chairing next week into the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

Huh?

Why the hell not? Seems like the CIA director would be the first witness you would be calling.

[aboutime]

THIS is what is really odd, from the story linked in the OP:
Huh?

Why the hell not? Seems like the CIA director would be the first witness you would be calling.


Anton. This is what many normally refer to as CYA in political parlance, or military lingo.

But anyone who doesn't see the REAL INTENT behind Feinstein's statement. Is either Obama, or terribly stupid.

The General MAY NOT HAVE TO SHOW UP. But I tend to think. He will..on his own, after members of Congress invite him.

If he doesn't appear. That should be a RED FLAG every American with a Brain should see.

[Little-Acorn]

I guess they forget about "Petreaus Betrayed us" and all that other crap when he testified in hearings and supported objectives in Iraq.

You can be sure that Gen. Petraeus has not forgotten it.

[aboutime]

You can be sure that Gen. Petraeus has not forgotten it.


The General is, and always will be an Honest, Dedicated, Honorable American Veteran who may be gentle, kind, and considerate...ON THE SURFACE.
But. I am sure he also remembers how MOVEON. ORG called him General BETRAYUS.

And now. It's suddenly become his time for PAYBACKS. Directly at those who tried to destroy him.

LIFE'S A BEACH...when you are filled with LIBERAL HATRED.

[Anton Chigurh]

Anton. This is what many normally refer to as CYA in political parlance, or military lingo.

But anyone who doesn't see the REAL INTENT behind Feinstein's statement. Is either Obama, or terribly stupid.

The General MAY NOT HAVE TO SHOW UP. But I tend to think. He will..on his own, after members of Congress invite him.

If he doesn't appear. That should be a RED FLAG every American with a Brain should see.But, that's not what she said. She said will not need to testify. There was nothing at all said about showing up.

[Anton Chigurh]

Anyone here besides me NOT assuming the affair was with a female?

[Little-Acorn]

One thing that doesn't make sense to me (except in the speculation I outlined above) is, why did Petraeus feel the need to cite this affiar he had had, as the reason for his leaving? If he simply felt bad about it, he could have made this move any time in the last six months or a year, or however long the affair has been going on. But nobody ever heard a word about any such affair, until suddenly, three days after Obama wins re-election... and a week before Petraeus is to testify to Congress about Benghazi.

Immediately after a successful re-election, is a normal transition time for cabinet and other high officials in an administration. Lots of them leave, usually citing "We have had good success and now I want to spend more time with my family". Why didn't Petraeus simply say that... especially with an affair nobody has ever heard about?

Keep in mind that sexual affairs, salacious divorce problems, etc. have been an Obama specialty for many years. Most of his elections have been won after he - or people connected to him - have revealed lurid details of his opponents' marital problems, at conveniently timely occasions.

When he was running for U.S. Senator, he was losing to a strong opponent, Blair Hull. Then just a few weeks before the primary election, the Chicago Tribune (former employer of Obama's hit man David Axelrod) leaked information from sealed divorce records about Hull. Hull's campaign collapsed, and Obama won the primary easily. In the general election, Obama's opponent Jack Ryan had also been divorced, and had already released all his divorce records as well as tax records. But the Tribune again petitioned a judge to release sealed records about the custody of Ryan's children. Buried in them was a mention of Ryan taking his wife to a sex club. The judge finally released the custody case records, the minor story splashed all over the papers, and a week later Ryan dropped out, handing Obama the Senate seat.

Then during the Republican primary race in 2012 for President, several women suddenly and simultaneously decided to go public with revelations about sexual improprieties about one of the then-frontrunners, Herman Cain. Cain strongly and repeatedly denied any improprieties, and none of the women ever produced any evidence of these improprieties, but Cain eventually dropped out of the race, still denying them.

And now suddenly a key offical who is about to give testimony about CIA involvement in a highly questionable series of events during the terrorist attack on our consulate inn Benghazi, Libya, has abruptly relealed that he had had an affair, and resigned.

No, I don't recognize any pattern here. Nothing to see, move along, folks, move along. It's all just a series of coincidences. Trust Obama. Would he stoop so low?

[Abbey Marie]

If I was the General, I would remember Vince Foster and watch my back. I wouldn't trust this Administration.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

One thing that doesn't make sense to me (except in the speculation I outlined above) is, why did Petraeus feel the need to cite this affiar he had had, as the reason for his leaving? If he simply felt bad about it, he could have made this move any time in the last six months or a year, or however long the affair has been going on. But nobody ever heard a word about any such affair, until suddenly, three days after Obama wins re-election... and a week before Petraeus is to testify to Congress about Benghazi.

Immediately after a successful re-election, is a normal transition time for cabinet and other high officials in an administration. Lots of them leave, usually citing "We have had good success and now I want to spend more time with my family". Why didn't Petraeus simply say that... especially with an affair nobody has ever heard about?

Keep in mind that sexual affairs, salacious divorce problems, etc. have been an Obama specialty for many years. Most of his elections have been won after he - or people connected to him - have revealed lurid details of his opponents' marital problems, at conveniently timely occasions.

When he was running for U.S. Senator, he was losing to a strong opponent, Blair Hull. Then just a few weeks before the primary election, the Chicago Tribune (former employer of Obama's hit man David Axelrod) leaked information from sealed divorce records about Hull. Hull's campaign collapsed, and Obama won the primary easily. In the general election, Obama's opponent Jack Ryan had also been divorced, and had already released all his divorce records as well as tax records. But the Tribune again petitioned a judge to release sealed records about the custody of Ryan's children. Buried in them was a mention of Ryan taking his wife to a sex club. The judge finally released the custody case records, the minor story splashed all over the papers, and a week later Ryan dropped out, handing Obama the Senate seat.

Then during the Republican primary race in 2012 for President, several women suddenly and simultaneously decided to go public with revelations about sexual improprieties about one of the then-frontrunners, Herman Cain. Cain strongly and repeatedly denied any improprieties, and none of the women ever produced any evidence of these improprieties, but Cain eventually dropped out of the race, still denying them.

And now suddenly a key offical who is about to give testimony about CIA involvement in a highly questionable series of events during the terrorist attack on our consulate inn Benghazi, Libya, has abruptly relealed that he had had an affair, and resigned.

No, I don't recognize any pattern here. Nothing to see, move along, folks, move along. It's all just a series of coincidences. Trust Obama. Would he stoop so low?

Exactly , too convenient and the fact that he tossed out an excuse(the affair) to make sure obama's Libya fiasco had cover , timed with the coming investigations points to pure bullshit. No reason to name the affair except to give cover and a false reason why he was leaving IMHO. Some people are just too gullible!-Tyr

[aboutime]

If I was the General, I would remember Vince Foster and watch my back. I wouldn't trust this Administration.


Abbey. What I remember most. Other than the General's fine career, is how the Liberal, Left, Obama crowd like MOVEON.ORG called him General BETRAYUS.

He obviously has many dedicated people watching his back. And I totally agree with you. No trust for anyone in the Administration.

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/09/CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns

Bret Baier of Fox News just tweeted, "With Petraeus’ resignation effective immediately, he will not testify next week & lawmakers are said to be 'stunned' by the announcement."

------------------------------------

How convenient. I wonder what Petraeus would have said?

I guess now we'll never know.

[Anton Chigurh]

He was scheduled to testify. Now he's not. That's all I see.

[Abbey Marie]

More "transparency" from the Obama administration. Sickening.

[jimnyc]

That's insane, I don't understand why he shouldn't be compelled to testify about things that happened while he WAS in charge. His resigning doesn't change anything at all about what happened, and what he knows should certainly be a part of the testimony into this investigation. I can see already this being swept under the rug just like 'fast and furious'.

[Abbey Marie]

Anyone here besides me NOT assuming the affair was with a female?

It's reported- Paula Broadwell. Def a woman.

[Anton Chigurh]

That's insane, I don't understand why he shouldn't be compelled to testify about things that happened while he WAS in charge. His resigning doesn't change anything at all about what happened, and what he knows should certainly be a part of the testimony into this investigation. I can see already this being swept under the rug just like 'fast and furious'.That's why this reeks of coverup and extortion. To say the least.

[aboutime]

He was scheduled to testify. Now he's not. That's all I see.


Anton. As I said earlier. That announcement from Feinstein is a ​RED FLAG.

[Anton Chigurh]

Anton. As I said earlier. That announcement from Feinstein is a ​RED FLAG.That's why this reeks of coverup and extortion. To say the least.

[aboutime]

That's why this reeks of coverup and extortion. To say the least.


I totally agree. And because I believe I know the General's principles, and standards as a Veteran.

I suspect. He may ask to be interviewed. Despite the Obama demands that he do otherwise.

The American people need to learn the UNCENSORED, HIDDEN TRUTH, that the Obama admin has been hiding.

Anything less IS nothing less than Treasonous.

[Kathianne]

From what I've read the FBI 'stumbled' upon the affair:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/citing-affair-petraeus-resigns-as-cia-director.html?pagewanted=all


<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Petraeus Quits; Evidence of Affair Was Found by F.B.I.</nyt_headline><nyt_byline> By MICHAEL D. SHEAR (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/michael_d_shear/index.html) </nyt_byline> Published: November 9, 2012WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/david_h_petraeus/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and one of America’s most decorated four-star generals, resigned on Friday after an F.B.I. investigation uncovered evidence that he had been involved in an extramarital affair...

...
Government officials said that the F.B.I. began an investigation into a “potential criminal matter” several months ago that was not focused on Mr. Petraeus. In the course of their inquiry into whether a computer used by Mr. Petraeus had been compromised, agents discovered evidence of the relationship as well as other security concerns. About two weeks ago, F.B.I. agents met with Mr. Petraeus to discuss the investigation.


Administration and Congressional officials identified the woman as Paula Broadwell, the co-author of a biography of Mr. Petraeus. Her book, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” was published this year. Ms. Broadwell could not be reached for comment...



The FBI found Broadwell trying to access his email:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/09/15056607-petraeus-biographer-paula-broadwell-under-fbi-investigation-over-access-to-his-email-law-enforcement-officials-say


hours
ago
Petraeus' biographer Paula Broadwell under FBI investigation over access to his email, law enforcement officials say
By Richard Engel, NBC News
The biographer for resigning CIA Director David Petraeus is under FBI investigation for improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information, law enforcement officials told NBC News on Friday...

...

The law enforcement officials said they do not believe the FBI investigation will result in any criminal charges. They also stressed that Petraeus is not under investigation.


The CIA declined all comment on the case. Broadwell could not be reached for comment.
Broadwell's Twitter account describes her as a national security analyst and Army veteran. A biography on her website, which went offline Friday evening, said she is married to a radiologist and has two children, both boys. The family lives in Charlotte, N.C. The biography said she is a West Point graduate and a research associate at Harvard University's Center for Public Leadership and a doctoral candidate in the Department of War Studies at King's College London.

[Kathianne]

Then there's this; I'm just throwing it out there:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/petraeus-resigns-is-there-a-benghazi-connection.php


Posted on November 9, 2012 by Paul Mirengoff (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/author/paul) in Benghazigate (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/category/benghazigate), Obama Administration Scandals (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/category/obama-administration-scandals)
<!--GooglePanel end panel-id-0.0--> Petraeus resigns — is there a Benghazi connection? General Petraeus has resigned as CIA Director, citing an extramarital affair. “Such behavior,” he says, “is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.”
But the affair apparently took place some time ago. Petraeus says it happened “after 37 years marriage.” He has been married for more than 38 years. He became CIA director on June 30, a week before his 37th wedding anniversary.


Two weeks ago, Petraeus made it clear, in a public statement, that the Benghazi disaster was not on the CIA. Is his departure, three days after the election, related to that statement? Does it have to do with upcoming congressional hearings in which he would have testified as head of the CIA? Or does Petraeus simply not want to work any longer for a president who, quite possibly against Petraeus’ urging, declined to come to the aid of our beleaguered staff in Benghazi?
The kicker, of course, is Petraeus’ confession of the extramarital affair. Presumably, he could have resigned without the confession. So why did he offer it?


Two possible answers come to my mind. First, the confession could have been an attempt to preempt the theory that his resignation is Benghazigate related — it provides an alternative explanation. Second, the confession eliminates the opportunity for others (such as folks in the White House) to try to influence his future conduct, including potential statements and/or testimony about Benghazi (his departure from the CIA doesn’t preclude Congress from having him testify).


Petraeus’ statement that the affair took place some time ago tends to support the second answer more than the first. But these aren’t the only possible theories.


In any event, Benghazigate isn’t going away, regardless of whether Petraeus’ resignation turns out to represent a chapter or just a footnote.


JOHN adds: To make Paul’s theory #2 not just more explicit but more lurid, it is possible that the Obama administration has been blackmailing Petraeus to make him join in their deceptions about Benghazi. He may have announced the affair to eliminate any further possibility of blackmail, with the intention of telling the truth now that he has resigned from the administration. I think that is highly unlikely, but it seems to fit the facts that we know reasonably well.


<!--GooglePanel begin panel-id-1-->PAUL adds: Yes. Petraeus might have admitted publicly to the extramarital affair because he knew its existence would be revealed in any case. However, it’s unlikely that anyone who wanted him to resign would have revealed this information once he, in fact, resigned. Perhaps someone wanted him to remain as head of the CIA, but in a compromised position, and Petraeus was unwilling to do so.

[KarlMarx]

Benghazi

I think the administration's expectation that Petraeus continue with the narrative that "YouTube was responsible for what happened in Benghazi" was more than the General was willing to go with since he had to testify before Congress. No, I think it has less to do with skirts and more to do with the Administration.

Benghazi may become the Administration's Watergate (we can only hope... and too bad Obama wasn't impeached in his first term, because we wouldn't have to deal with the wrath that is to come... i.e. Obama's 2nd term)

Perhaps if there is a turn around in the mid term elections, maybe, just maybe we will get rid of him

[Kathianne]

From Watergate to David and Victor Hugo?

http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2012/11/09/david-and-bathsheba/


David and Bathsheba (http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2012/11/09/david-and-bathsheba/)

November 9, 2012 - 6:42 pm - by Michael Wals (http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/bio/)h

Ever since the September 11 attack on our consulate and CIA station in Benghazi, “the dog in the night-time” of the scandal the media did its best to bury during the election campaign has been David Petraeus, the Iraq War commander turned spook-in-almost-chief. Throughout the orgy of misinformation (http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2012/10/15/the-shores-of-tripoli/), disinformation, finger-pointing, blame-shifting and general confusion, Petraeus remained adamantly silent, a hostage to fortune somewhere within the bowels of the CIA building in Langley. The one man who could have cut through the administration’s fog machine said nothing substantive as ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were laid to rest.

And now, just a couple of days after the election that returned Barack Hussein Obama II to executive power in Washington, he’s gone — resigned in the wake of an affair that likely occurred more than a year ago, apparently with his biographer, Paula Broadwell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKZqb0Mp1gQ) — who herself is under FBI investigation (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/09/15056607-petraeus-biographer-paula-broadwell-under-fbi-investigation-over-access-to-his-email-law-enforcement-officials-say?lite), reportedly for trying to access the general’s classified emails. Further, Petraeus will now not testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee about Benghazi (http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2012/10/31/the-false-dmitri/) next week.

And that, if Congress acquiesces and does not immediately subpoena Petraeus and either compel him to testify or force the administration to again assert executive privilege (as it did with Attorney General Eric Holder in the Fast and Furious mess), will be that — we’ll never know, and Obama will do his best to completely bury, what happened in Benghazi.

More details no doubt will dribble out over the coming days and weeks, but here’s what we can reasonably surmise. Although the official story (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/citing-affair-petraeus-resigns-as-cia-director.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) is that the affair was uncovered by the FBI’s investigation into the emails, nevertheless it appears from the wording of Petraeus’s resignation letter that the affair began some time after July 2011; he became CIA director fourteen months ago. Therefore — unless he concealed that information from his vetters, which is highly unlikely given everything we know about the man — the Obama administration had to have known about the relationship from the start. Which means that, in effect, Petraeus confessed to his own “honey trap” and handed Valerie Jarrett, the Javert of Obama’s White House, a termination card, effective whenever she and the president cared to play it. And play it they did, right after the election and just before his testimony on the Hill. Well played, indeed.

On the other hand, if the affair began before Petraeus was being considered for the CIA post, and he didn’t reveal it, his reputation will never recover. As Ronald Kessler (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-resigns-cia-affair/2012/11/09/id/463573) notes:


The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan.

The woman who was having an affair with Petraeus is a journalist who had been writing about him.

Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.

Such a relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements and could have compromised Petraeus.

At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.


So, one way or the other, we can begin to understand the silence emanating from the Langley Home for Lost Boys over the past several months. Right from the start, the Agency was fingered by the White House and by Hillary Clinton’s State Department as the fall guy for the Benghazi fiasco (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html), especially once they understood that their “hateful video” legend wasn’t going to fly, and once leakers within the Agency began slipping the embarrassing details of what happened that night to their favorite journalist mouthpieces...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Then there's this; I'm just throwing it out there:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/petraeus-resigns-is-there-a-benghazi-connection.php

Petraeous could end up dead because he knows too much and is a big risk to obama and crew. Of course they'd make it look like an accident.--Tyr

[mundame]

Anyone here besides me NOT assuming the affair was with a female?


I suspected early on that the affair is with a man.

That's why the news accounts are so very vague and careful with the neutral pronouns.

That really would be a problem, and if it's so, no wonder he resigned.

[jimnyc]

I suspected early on that the affair is with a man.

That's why the news accounts are so very vague and careful with the neutral pronouns.

That really would be a problem, and if it's so, no wonder he resigned.

From the article Kath posted on page 2:

Administration and Congressional officials identified the woman as Paula Broadwell, the co-author of a biography of Mr. Petraeus.

[mundame]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/09/CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns

Bret Baier of Fox News just tweeted, "With Petraeus’ resignation effective immediately, he will not testify next week & lawmakers are said to be 'stunned' by the announcement."

------------------------------------

How convenient. I wonder what Petraeus would have said?

I guess now we'll never know.



Hmmmmmmmmmm...................if it's a woman he had the affair with, presumably this is some sort of coverup respecting Benghazi. Coverup of whom, for what purpose? It's not easy to understand, because if they blackmailed him --- well, his affair is publicized and so why not come testify? I don't understand what leverage anyone has over him once his affair is exposed.

It would not surprise me if he did this himself, refusing to be blackmailed (someone once told a group of young employees I was in --- "If you are ever blackmailed, IMMEDIATELY run don't walk to the police and tell all and charge the blackmailer. Secrets don't matter; blackmail does.") and may show up at the hearing after all..................

To the disadvantage of the administration.

[aboutime]

I suspected early on that the affair is with a man.

That's why the news accounts are so very vague and careful with the neutral pronouns.

That really would be a problem, and if it's so, no wonder he resigned.


mundame. Your statement above only tends to lead the rest of us to believe YOU are jealous for one, or two reasons. Enough to make yourself lower your intelligence to match your low mental state.
You are jealous of the Hypothetical Man...you wanted the General to have an affair with, OR,
you are jealous of the Woman who managed to ruin your Hate, Bigoted reasons for bringing this topic up for discussion.

Choose One. The option is yours.

[Kathianne]

I suspected early on that the affair is with a man.

That's why the news accounts are so very vague and careful with the neutral pronouns.

That really would be a problem, and if it's so, no wonder he resigned.

Well except those couple that named her as a co-biographer of him and posted her pictures. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Let's see. thus far they are saying that Petraeus need not testify because he had an affair and resigned, and now word is that Clinton won't be testifying due to a scheduling conflict. Seriously, how obvious can a cover up get before the American public cries outrage and a "real" investigation is done about this?


"This is a real loss for the country, a real loss for the CIA. We're going to lose the best man for the job, but again America is adaptable. Put it this way, anytime you lose David Petraeus, the country is not as safe as it could be," Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said on CNN's OutFront when asked about CIA Director General David Petraeus.

"Absolutely, to me, he's an absolutely necessary witness," King said when asked if Petraeus will testify.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/09/rep_peter_king_petraeus_absolutely_necessary_witne ss.html


LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: The timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration. Just as the administration claimed it was purely coincidence that our Benghazi consulate was attacked on the anniversary of September 11th. Now it’s purely coincidence that this affair -- extra-marital affair -- surfaces right after the election, not before, but right after, but before the intelligence chiefs go to Capitol Hill to get grilled. As an old intelligence analyst, Neil, the way I read this -- I could be totally wrong, this is my interpretation -- is that the administration was unhappy with Petraeus not playing ball 100% on their party-line story. I think it's getting cold feet about testifying under oath on their party-line story. And I suspect that these tough Chicago guys knew about this affair for a while, held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card.

I don't like conspiracy theories, I may be totally wrong, but the timing of this, again, right after the election and right before Petraeus is supposed to get grilled on Capitol Hill, it's really smells.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/09/lt_col_ralph_peters_on_petraeus_timing_is_just_too _perfect.html


Resignations over scandals often raise more questions than they answer, and that’s true of Gen. David Petraeus’s abrupt exit from the Central Intelligence Agency.

Some have already been put to rest: Paula Broadwell, the author of “All In: The Education of David Petraeus,” has been identified as the woman at the center of the FBI email probe that ultimately toppled him.

But many questions remain.

Here are POLITICO’s six most important:

1. Why resign now?

The Obama administration’s first sex scandal exploded just three days after the president was reelected at the end of a hard-fought campaign and just days before Petraeus was scheduled to appear at a congressional hearing about the attacks in Benghazi.

The White House says no one there knew about the Petraeus situation before Wednesday and the president himself was informed Thursday. But if the story had broken a week earlier, those headlines would have overtaken much of the president’s message about the middle class and his work in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Who made the decision to wait, and why, is going to be the subject of scrutiny as this scandal continues to unfold.

Petraeus’s departure now has also thrown a whole new pile of grist into the Benghazi controversy. Already, the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others was being called an intelligence failure — both the failure to anticipate it and the decision to identify it as a riot rather than a terrorist attack.

Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell, Petraeus’s deputy, will go to the Hill instead for Thursday’s hearing. But already, there’s a clear sense that going public with his affair and resigning from his job isn’t enough to get Petraeus off the hook.

“David Petraeus testifying has nothing to do with whether or not he’s still the CIA director, and I don’t see how the CIA can say he’s not going to testify,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) told CNN. “He was at the center of this and he has answers that only he has.”

2. What else was part of the FBI probe?

The FBI’s toppling of the CIA director seems like the ultimate in intelligence sibling rivalries. It didn’t start that way.

The Washington Post reported Saturday that the FBI investigation began because a woman close to Petraeus sought protection after receiving several threatening emails from Broadwell. After a deeper look at the general’s personal email account, there were initially questions about whether it had been hacked. But investigators soon concluded from the content of the emails that they were evidence of an affair between Petraeus and Broadwell. According to the Post, weeks of probing culminated Tuesday, when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was told that compromising material had been found. Clapper subsequently told Petraeus to resign.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83678.html


House asks Clinton to testify on Benghazi, but she declines due to scheduling conflictHouse investigators asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to testify next week about the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, but she declined citing a scheduling conflict.

“[Clinton] was asked to appear at House Foreign Affairs next week, and we have written back to the Chairman to say that she’ll be on travel next week,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters yesterday. “She has a commitment with the Secretary of Defense to the AUSMIN Ministerial.” Per AFP, “AUSMIN is the highest level forum for Australia and US consultation on foreign policy, defense and strategic issues.” The United States is reportedly concerned about Australia’s plan to cut their defense spending.

Clinton has not been asked to testify at any of the other hearings next week, Nuland said.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., has been frustrated with the State Department’s failure to provide information that she has requested.

“While I understand that investigations by the FBI and the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board are ongoing, it is imperative that this Committee, having direct oversight responsibility, be kept informed every step of the way of developments in the matter,” Ros-Lehtinen wrote to Clinton on November 7th. “[P]lease be prepared to present State Department officials to testify on these issues when Congress reconvenes later this month.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-asked-clinton-to-testify-on-benghazi-but-she-declines-due-to-scheduling-conflict/article/2513151#.UJ8Id4YQ40s

[mundame]

So Petraeus was perhaps forced out and Clinton shut up.........I'm not much liking this cover-up that looks to be going on.

[Robert A Whit]

That's insane, I don't understand why he shouldn't be compelled to testify about things that happened while he WAS in charge. His resigning doesn't change anything at all about what happened, and what he knows should certainly be a part of the testimony into this investigation. I can see already this being swept under the rug just like 'fast and furious'.

Issa will drag him front and center. What I am hearing is that married Army officer, Major Paula Broadwell got pissed at some woman and made threats against her. I don't know how that would up on Gen Petraeus computer system but the FBI found it. When was that? I believe well before the election. I can see Obama pleading with the Gen to hold off on his announcement till post election.

I can see Issa dragging both of them to testify. I wonder if either's marriage will survive?

What woman or man wants a cheating spouse.

I don't believe you can cure cheaters. Walk away.

[gabosaurus]

Does anyone else find it a bit humorous that Petraeus had an affair with a woman whose biography was titled.. "All In."
And that it was Broadwell's husband who reportedly blew the whistle on the affair.
I do, of course. :cool:

[Kathianne]

Politico is asking six questions regarding this, none of which good for Obama:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83678.html


6 lingering questions about the exit of Gen. David Petraeus
By: Edward-Isaac Dovere and Josh Gerstein
November 10, 2012 05:41 PM EST

The questions:

1. Why resign now?

2. What else was part of the FBI probe?

3. Did he think the story was about to leak?

4. Why weren’t Obama and the Hill committees told earlier?

5. What role, if any, did Benghazi play?

6. Did Petraeus make the situation worse?

[aboutime]

Politico is asking six questions regarding this, none of which good for Obama:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83678.html


Kathianne. Looks too much like Obama and company wanted to find a way to Silence the General, and it worked.

Problem is. And I can speak from actual experience here.

The General, and anyone else who is given access to Highly Classified Information. As he was, and as I was during my time in naval communications...sign an agreement upon being given the SECURITY CLEARANCES...to NOT DISCLOSE any information to ANYONE for any reason. That is why the President decides which Information should, and shouldn't be classified.

If the General does speak. It will have to be in a CLOSED, CLASSIFIED atmosphere, where only those with the PROPER Security clearances will be able to hear what he says.

It's a double-edged sword. If you speak. You are violating the agreement, and the law. If you don't speak. You are accused of Hiding information, and thereby...GUILTY until Proven Innocent.

That's how it works.

[mundame]

Does anyone else find it a bit humorous that Petraeus had an affair with a woman whose biography was titled.. "All In."
And that it was Broadwell's husband who reportedly blew the whistle on the affair.
I do, of course. :cool:



I only want to know one thing:

What was Broadwell email-harassing the other woman ABOUT???

Sounds like great dish.

We'll know by tomorrow, I suspect.

[mundame]

So apparently this Broadwell writer was emailing Kelley repeatedly, via proxy hidden email addresses, saying "I know what you are doing" and such.

Kelley went to the FBI because it was threats from who knows and she and her husband did know the Petraeuses. That was appropriate --- sounds like a terrorist threat, on the face of it.

But WHAT did Broadwell think Kelley was doing?

[red states rule]

Does anyone else find it a bit humorous that Petraeus had an affair with a woman whose biography was titled.. "All In."
And that it was Broadwell's husband who reportedly blew the whistle on the affair.
I do, of course. :cool:

I do not find anything humorous at all Gabby, We have 4 murdered Americans who were denied the security they requested. Were begging for help for HOURS during the terror attack. We have an administration that has been caught in many lies. I fail to find anything funny in all this.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I do not find anything humorous at all Gabby, We have 4 murdered Americans who were denied the security they requested. Were begging for help for HOURS during the terror attack. We have an administration that has been caught in many lies. I fail to find anything funny in all this.

My friend, Gabby finds it humorous because she is too stupid to understand whats REALLY going on.
Ignorance is bliss is filled to the brim in her cup. While we true Americans want honest answrs why those Americans were abandoned to die she laughs about Petraeus's sudden resignation and now his being not called to testify about that stand down order. Some few here are about as smart as a box of rocks. She tops the list with them IMHO.-Tyr

[mundame]

　


The person familiar with the investigation said Kelley initially approached a Florida field office of the FBI - not FBI headquarters - with a complaint of cyber-harassment. She had received numerous intimidating emails from a handful of different, opaque pseudonymous addresses.

The nature of the emails, according to the source, who was briefed on their contents, was "I know what you're doing" and similar suggestions that someone was onto Kelley. There was no explicit threat of violence.

Upon tracing them, the FBI found out that Paula Broadwell was behind them, this source said. They also found correspondence between Broadwell and Petraeus leading to the revelation of an affair between them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/12/us-usa-petraeus-idUSBRE8A81FP20121112
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/12/us-usa-petraeus-idUSBRE8A81FP20121112)

I want to know what in the world Broadwell supposed Kelley was "doing" or up to. It doesn't look as though Kelley knew who was sending these proxied emails -- but I wonder. Did they know each other? Did Kelley know about the affair and had she warned Broadwell off or warned Petraeus off?

I must know......I must know.........

[mundame]

As for the timing, it came right before the Benghazi hearings -----------------

but also DIRECTLY after the election.


Are we being distracted from the disappointment of seeing you-know-who re-elected?

Oh, yeah.

[red states rule]

My friend, Gabby finds it humorous because she is too stupid to understand whats REALLY going on.
Ignorance is bliss is filled to the brim in her cup. While we true Americans want honest answrs why those Americans were abandoned to die she laughs about Petraeus's sudden resignation and now his being not called to testify about that stand down order. Some few here are about as smart as a box of rocks. She tops the list with them IMHO.-Tyr

All that matters to Gabby is that this is another opportunity to shift attention away from the incompetence of Obama, and the cover up. Libs will talk about the sex aspect of this case, but they will not talk about how Obama screwed up and screwed over the four Americans who were begging for help and how their please were ignored by the White House

[gabosaurus]

The roots of the Petraeus scandal run a lot deeper than I thought. I wonder how many other scandals are embedded in the Pentagon hierarchy now, waiting to be discovered?

http://news.yahoo.com/holly-petraeus-beyond-furious-103804700.html;_ylt=AvVXI0WB7G3yFI0Ri78h8inNt.d_;_ ylu=X3oDMTVxcmlmbXNvBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2 lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3Mg Zm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDMjJjY2FhMTEtZm Y2Yy0zOGIyLThjMzMtNGRjYTU4MDc1YzgzBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNu ZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyA2E5MjZhMTYwLTJjZmYtMTFlMi1hZG E3LWU4MGE2ZThjNjY2Mg--;_ylg=X3oDMTM1c2F1NmU3BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMDZhNTE4ZGMtZjA1Yy0zOWQzLWE3MTAtN2NiMWEyYW ExOWM2BHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x0aGV0aWNrZXQEcHQDc3Rv cnlwYWdl;_ylv=3

[Kathianne]

The roots of the Petraeus scandal run a lot deeper than I thought. I wonder how many other scandals are embedded in the Pentagon hierarchy now, waiting to be discovered?

http://news.yahoo.com/holly-petraeus-beyond-furious-103804700.html;_ylt=AvVXI0WB7G3yFI0Ri78h8inNt.d_;_ ylu=X3oDMTVxcmlmbXNvBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2 lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3Mg Zm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDMjJjY2FhMTEtZm Y2Yy0zOGIyLThjMzMtNGRjYTU4MDc1YzgzBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNu ZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyA2E5MjZhMTYwLTJjZmYtMTFlMi1hZG E3LWU4MGE2ZThjNjY2Mg--;_ylg=X3oDMTM1c2F1NmU3BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMDZhNTE4ZGMtZjA1Yy0zOWQzLWE3MTAtN2NiMWEyYW ExOWM2BHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x0aGV0aWNrZXQEcHQDc3Rv cnlwYWdl;_ylv=3

Other than the wife being beyond furious, I don't think I'd put much stock in this or any of the reports. It's been one version after another, I'm waiting to find that some right wing group caused this mess due to a video.

Seriously, the timing is all over the place here, from when it happened, (irrelevant imo), to why the public disclosure after the election. Noticeably absent is the timing with Benghazi story.

[red states rule]

Other than the wife being beyond furious, I don't think I'd put much stock in this or any of the reports. It's been one version after another, I'm waiting to find that some right wing group caused this mess due to a video.

Seriously, the timing is all over the place here, from when it happened, (irrelevant imo), to why the public disclosure after the election. Noticeably absent is the timing with Benghazi story.

While I do not think it would have had any impact on the election, it is clear Congress was not told about this, and I suspect the WH thinks this takes Petraeus out of the equation. However, he can be called to testify and since he stepped down rather then sweep this under the rug - that might have Team Obama on edge

[Abbey Marie]

Other than the wife being beyond furious, I don't think I'd put much stock in this or any of the reports. It's been one version after another, I'm waiting to find that some right wing group caused this mess due to a video.

Seriously, the timing is all over the place here, from when it happened, (irrelevant imo), to why the public disclosure after the election. Noticeably absent is the timing with Benghazi story.


Bush did it!!

[Abbey Marie]

　

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/12/us-usa-petraeus-idUSBRE8A81FP20121112
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/12/us-usa-petraeus-idUSBRE8A81FP20121112)

I want to know what in the world Broadwell supposed Kelley was "doing" or up to. It doesn't look as though Kelley knew who was sending these proxied emails -- but I wonder. Did they know each other? Did Kelley know about the affair and had she warned Broadwell off or warned Petraeus off?

I must know......I must know.........


Don't you just LOVE it when the mistress gets all righteous and indignant because there is another woman?

:laugh:

[Kathianne]

Don't you just LOVE it when the mistress gets all righteous and indignant because there is another woman?

:laugh:

I was thinking just the same. "How dare you muscle into my territory! Forget his wife, my husband and kids, he's mine!" LOL! Talk about denial.

[Abbey Marie]

I was thinking just the same. "How dare you muscle into my territory! Forget his wife, my husband and kids, he's mine!" LOL! Talk about denial.


http://i45.tinypic.com/2jesex4.jpg

[jimnyc]

Don't you just LOVE it when the mistress gets all righteous and indignant because there is another woman?

:laugh:

Sure wish the ladies were fighting over me!! :) Also, not that I condone his actions, but I finally saw a picture of his wife today, compared to his mistress. Oh my!

His wife:
http://i.imgur.com/nMUQ4.jpg

His lady friend:
http://i.imgur.com/CWmBQ.jpg

[Kathianne]

Sure wish the ladies were fighting over me!! :) Also, not that I condone his actions, but I finally saw a picture of his wife today, compared to his mistress. Oh my!

His wife:
http://i.imgur.com/nMUQ4.jpg

His lady friend:
http://i.imgur.com/CWmBQ.jpg

Seriously, most of us past a certain age, realize that looks aren't all. However, he was ambitious from get go. She was the daughter of the superintendent of West Point when he attended. She's 50 something and cannot compete with barely out of 30's somethings physically. This just sucks.

[jimnyc]

Seriously, most of us past a certain age, realize that looks aren't all. However, he was ambitious from get go. She was the daughter of the superintendent of West Point when he attended. She's 50 something and cannot compete with barely out of 30's somethings physically. This just sucks.

Believe me, I know! I have to look in a mirror everyday and realize that the looks are fading. LOL

Just a tiny piece of me "understands" where such actions come from, but that doesn't mean I condone it.

[mundame]

Don't you just LOVE it when the mistress gets all righteous and indignant because there is another woman?

:laugh:


It has got to be something like that, but I'm hoping there really wasn't anything going on with Kelley, since she went to the FBI with the emails.....

That does seem to me a certain sign of innocence, when you go to the FBI. ;)


But I want to hear it ALL. Something got Broadwell completely wigged out if she was sending threatening emails to Kelley under a series of phoney email proxies. I definitely want to know what that is.......

Happily, they are giving us one or two big revelations a day, so that stretches it all out.

[mundame]

I looked up Petraeus' age --- he's 60. Well, I guess it's a sign of vigor, anyway!

Not that it matters now ---- he doesn't have any of the three women now, or a job, or a reputation.

[gabosaurus]

The dung pile keeps getting deeper. I think Petraeus is going to have to answer to the military for a ton of crap.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/did-petraeus-mistress-leak-classified-information-cia-fox-211834673.html

[mundame]

This is unraveling nicely, now.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Ex-CIA director David Petraeus has told friends he was shocked to find that his biographer and girlfriend, Paula Broadwell, was suspected of sending anonymous, threatening emails to a Petraeus friend she saw as a romantic rival.
A close Petraeus associate said Monday that FBI investigators told Petraeus that Broadwell sent anonymous emails to Jill Kelley, a Petraeus family friend from his time at Central Command in Tampa, warning her to stay away from him. The Petraeus associate spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential conversations with Petraeus. The CIA director resigned last week after confessing to the affair.
Petraeus was not shown the emails, but was told the tone and content seemed threatening to Kelley, prompting her to report them, the close Petraeus associate said. That triggered the investigation that led the FBI to Broadwell and evidence of her affair with Petraeus.


So, Broadwell WAS jealous of Kelley and was sending her threatening, anonymous letters. I guess she thought the US CIA and FBI couldn't possibly trace those emails........

Good. Now I'm satisfied.

I'm giving Kelley the benefit of the doubt that she was NOT having an affair with Petraeus: reporting all this to the FBI is sort of a convincing demonstration of innocence, IMO.

[Robert A Whit]

This is unraveling nicely, now.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Ex-CIA director David Petraeus has told friends he was shocked to find that his biographer and girlfriend, Paula Broadwell, was suspected of sending anonymous, threatening emails to a Petraeus friend she saw as a romantic rival.
A close Petraeus associate said Monday that FBI investigators told Petraeus that Broadwell sent anonymous emails to Jill Kelley, a Petraeus family friend from his time at Central Command in Tampa, warning her to stay away from him. The Petraeus associate spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential conversations with Petraeus. The CIA director resigned last week after confessing to the affair.
Petraeus was not shown the emails, but was told the tone and content seemed threatening to Kelley, prompting her to report them, the close Petraeus associate said. That triggered the investigation that led the FBI to Broadwell and evidence of her affair with Petraeus.


So, Broadwell WAS jealous of Kelley and was sending her threatening, anonymous letters. I guess she thought the US CIA and FBI couldn't possibly trace those emails........

Good. Now I'm satisfied.

I'm giving Kelley the benefit of the doubt that she was NOT having an affair with Petraeus: reporting all this to the FBI is sort of a convincing demonstration of innocence, IMO.

I use Yahoo news as my first provider of news and that is precisely what you find on Yahoo.

Were Gen. Petraeus still active duty, he broke army rules.

I am 99 percent certain that in the code of military justice, one breaks the law by having a relationship with a lower ranking person. Broadwell still is active duty and I expect her duty station will have things to say to her. She might get anything from unit punishment up to a court martial. Stay tuned to see what happens to her. Petraeus at age 60 is quite able to stun a younger woman with his sex ability. The error on young people's part is assuming that you bump into a age much younger than the real world where you quit sex.

I know a man in his 90s that enjoys it with his wife.

[Abbey Marie]

I looked up Petraeus' age --- he's 60. Well, I guess it's a sign of vigor, anyway!

Not that it matters now ---- he doesn't have any of the three women now, or a job, or a reputation.

You have some of the letters right: VIAGRA

[mundame]

You have some of the letters right: VIAGRA

Whatever it took, he does seem to have made quite an impression on Broadwell, if she is posing for a book photo all that sexy.

Broadwell has two school children and a husband; I wonder why she was running around Afghanistan writing a bio of Petraeus. And angrily writing anonymous threats to The Other Woman. I'm going to guess all this has come as quite a surprise to TWO husbands --- Petraeus and Mr. Broadwell.

Like that woman who chased her husband with a Jeep because he wouldn't vote --- I'm going to guess this could put a strain on the Broadwell marriage.

[Abbey Marie]

Whatever it took, he does seem to have made quite an impression on Broadwell, if she is posing for a book photo all that sexy.

Broadwell has two school children and a husband; I wonder why she was running around Afghanistan writing a bio of Petraeus. And angrily writing anonymous threats to The Other Woman. I'm going to guess all this has come as quite a surprise to TWO husbands --- Petraeus and Mr. Broadwell.

Like that woman who chased her husband with a Jeep because he wouldn't vote --- I'm going to guess this could put a strain on the Broadwell marriage.

You know what Kissinger said- power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

[SassyLady]

Now the news is that General Allen is having his emails read ... emails to the Kelly woman.


General John Allen, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, is under investigation for alleged "inappropriate communications" with Jill Kelley, the woman who is said to have received threatening emails from Paula Broadwell, the woman with whom former CIA Director David Petraeus (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-deemed-petraeus-affair-part-criminal-intel-probe/story?id=17696177) had an extramarital affair.

The FBI has uncovered "potentially inappropriate" emails between Allen and Kelly, according to a senior U.S. defense official who is traveling with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. The department is currently reviewing between 20,000 and 30,000 documents connected to this matter, the official said. The email exchanges between Kelley and Allen took place from 2010 to 2012.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gen-john-allen-investigation-connection-david-petraeus-scandal/story?id=17704438#.UKIImYdZWHw

[SassyLady]

Interesting information about Jill Kelly:


She's a Liaison to a Mysterious Counterterrorism Unit

Kelley is a "person of influence" in the Tampa community, according to a New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/us/petraeus-friend-jill-kelley-said-to-be-threats-target.html?_r=0) source, active in many charities and organizations. She's also an unpaid social liaison (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/jill_kelley_is_2nd_woman_in_da.html) to the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) (http://www.socom.mil/pages/jointspecialoperationscommand.aspx), one of the most mysterious components of the U.S. military. Based in Fort Bragg, N.C., the 30-year-old JSOC officially works to study and conduct “special operations requirements and techniques, ensure interoperability and equipment standardization, plan and conduct special operations exercises and training, and develop joint special operations tactics.” But it’s widely known (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-secret-america-a-look-at-the-militarys-joint-special-operations-command/2011/08/30/gIQAvYuAxJ_story.html) that the JSOC conducts top-secret counterterrorism missions, and encompasses such elite units as the Navy SEALs. The JSOC wasintegral (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/world/africa/us-said-to-be-preparing-potential-targets-tied-to-libya-attack.html?pagewanted=all) in helping the CIA and Pentagon in the investigation on the attack of the Benghazi compound, which means Kelley and Petraeus likely crossed paths in their work.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/11/jill-kelley-5-facts-about-the-petraeus-affair-s-mystery-woman.html

[red states rule]

Looks like Obama's plan is working. People are talking about the sex and not the murder of 4 US citizens who were begging for help during a terrorist attack. Oh well their deaths were just a bump in the road (according to Obama)

[Kathianne]

Looks like Obama's plan is working. People are talking about the sex and not the murder of 4 US citizens who were begging for help during a terrorist attack. Oh well their deaths were just a bump in the road (according to Obama)

This is one issue just after the election. Interesting that suddenly the UN is all aflutter about Iran now. Israeli advisers meet quietly at White House Monday:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/11/obama-security-adviser-consults-with-israeli-delegation-149328.html?hp=l8


By DONOVAN SLACK (http://www.politico.com/reporters/DonovanSlack.html) | <abbr class="published" title="2012-11-12T05:36">11/12/12 5:36 PM EST</abbr>
National security adviser Tom Donilon met with senior Israeli officials at the White House on Monday "for consultations on Iran, Syria, and a range of other regional security issues," according to National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.


"The Israeli delegation was headed by Major General (retired) Yaakov Amidror, Chairman of Israel’s National Security Council and National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu," Vietor said in a statement. "Today’s meetings were the latest in a series of regular, high-level consultations between the United States and Israel, consistent with our strong bilateral partnership, and part of our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security."


The consultations come as Israel fired shots into Syria for the second straight day in response to mortar rounds from Syria landing in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, the AP reported (http://news.yahoo.com/israel-fires-syria-2nd-straight-day-125101747.html).They also come as Iran on Monday began military exercises, US News reports (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/12/wargames-to-show-iran-at-high-state-of-readiness), and its leaders have been adamantly declaring they won't cave under international sanctions.



Sex sells.

[Kathianne]

As Sassy brought up the weird Allen angle, here's another twist:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-agent-petraeus-2012-11

FBI agent became 'obsessed' with case. Sent pics to Kelly of himself, shirtless. Feared cover-up of story.

[taft2012]

If the Director of the CIA creates a security risk by having an extra-martial relationship, to the point that word of such a relationship automatically triggers a criminal investigation...

... why doesn't that also apply to the CIA's Director's boss, the President of the United States, who is undoubtedly the possessor of an even greater deal of secure intelligence?

...and so why then are libs so supportive of launching Petraeus, but were so supportive of Bill Clinton's efforts to remain in office?

[mundame]

SassyLady already scooped this story, but I'll add the Reuters account of Kelley's involvement from this morning early --- not with Petraeus but with Allen. They were exchanging like 30 pages of emails every day for some two years................boring place, Afghanistan, of course.


11/13 (Reuters) - The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan (http://www.debatepolicy.com/places/afghanistan), General John Allen, is under investigation for alleged inappropriate communication with a woman at the center of the sex scandal involving former CIA Director David Petraeus, a senior U.S. defense official said on Tuesday.The shocking revelation threatens to fell another of the U.S. military's biggest names and suggests that the scandal involving Petraeus - a retired four-star general who had Allen's job in Afghanistan before moving to the CIA last year - could expand much further than previously imagined.
The U.S. official said the FBI uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of communications - mostly emails and spanning from 2010 to 2012 - between Allen and Jill Kelley, who has been identified as a long-time friend of the Petraeus family and a Tampa, Florida, volunteer social liaison with military families at MacDill Air Force Base.
It was Kelley's complaints about harassing emails from the woman with whom Petraeus had had an affair, Paula Broadwell, that prompted an FBI investigation, ultimately alerting authorities to Petraeus' involvement with Broadwell. Petraeus resigned from his job on Friday.
It was unclear how Allen knew Kelley, but he was stationed in Tampa as the deputy director of the U.S. military's Central Command for the three years until he took over in Afghanistan in 2011. Petraeus was head of the Tampa-based Central Command from 2008 to 2010.
Asked whether there was concern about the disclosure of classified information, the official, on condition of anonymity, said: "We are concerned about inappropriate communications. We are not going to speculate as to what is contained in these documents."
But even the sheer volume of communication alone could raise questions. Allen and Kelley were exchanging around 30 pages of communication per day, on average. Even if the notes were short, such intense interaction might have consumed a lot of Allen's time.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a statement given to reporters flying with him to Perth, Australia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/places/australia) that he had asked that Allen's nomination to be Commander of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe be delayed "and the president has agreed".
Allen, who is now in Washington, was due to face a Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday, as was his slated successor in Afghanistan, General Joseph Dunford.
************************************************** *

Well, now we really do have a problem. Allen was going to be head of all our forces in Europe, to be confirmed Thursday in the Senate......guess that won't happen. So now we're out both a CIA director and a major military commander because of plain alley-cat morals by both sexes.

Forget the sex morals for the moment. Doesn't anyone in this case, male or female, have ANY sense of duty? Like to their military responsibilities? Like to their children? Like to their spouses? Oh, no, forget the spouses, obviously no one cared about them. But to their children and their very responsible jobs safeguarding the nation? None of that mattered??

Various top businessmen are resigning one after the other these days, too, because of affairs with subordinates. Maybe we shouldn't care anymore about adultery, just view it as a private matter as the French do?

It seems to me at some point, though, you've got a character issue. Abandoning their attention to their children, their spouses, their jobs -- in the men's case important jobs -- to think about illicet sex and romance day in and out for hours and hours a day, apparently --------- I'm going to say there's a character issue here, and it's that all four of them have very bad characters. So no, they should be kicked out, out, out.

[taft2012]

Doesn't anyone in this case, male or female, have ANY sense of duty? Like to their military responsibilities? Like to their children? Like to their spouses? Oh, no, forget the spouses, obviously no one cared about them. But to their children and their very responsible jobs safeguarding the nation? None of that mattered??


Ask Bill Clinton.

He set the bar for tolerable sexual behaviro during Democrat administrations.

And this would still be tolerated... if Obama didn't need to cover up Benghazi in a hurry.

[mundame]

It certainly is becoming real, real, real clear why the FBI got involved in Kelley's threatening email problem, though. She was closely connected personally to two of the top military leaders in the USA.

She'd have done better to shut up about it all. If she thought the emails were foreign terrorism, okay. If she knew good and well they were probably from Broadwell, however, bad move.

Now Kelley's family bites the dust, and Allen's.

[Kathianne]

This NY Times piece pulls all together, at least until the next shoe drops:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/us/timeline-shows-fbi-discovered-petraeus-affair-in-summer.html

[mundame]

Ask Bill Clinton.

He set the bar for tolerable sexual behaviro during Democrat administrations.

And this would still be tolerated... if Obama didn't need to cover up Benghazi in a hurry.


You make an interesting point ---- Petraeus resigned immediately. I don't know whether Gen. Allen will do likewise, but the Clinton sex scandal was VERY lurid, as we all know, but Clinton did NOT offer to resign.


Hmmmm. I don't know what to make of all that.

Except I hope they vet Gen. Dunford carefully before he takes over in Afghanistan: does he have a pile of floozies on the side, too?

[mundame]

Here we go ----- from Reuters:


"The emails between the two women were of a "childish", jealous nature and showed some one-upmanship of trying to come across as being more important to Petraeus, the official said."



So Kelley DID know who the emails were from. They were anonymous, though, so she went to her FBI friend (who was just taken off the case because of the "personal relationship": did she have an affair with him, too??) and asked him to identify the sender as a way of one-upping Broadwell. "I can blow your cover, see?!"

Ho, boy. Bad move.

[mundame]

My Wall Street Journal just came.

And yep, a lead story is that the FBI agent "friend" of Kelley's, whom she went to about the harassing emails, was taken off the case because of personal involvement on two problematic planes:

1) When he was blocked from the case he went to a member of Congress and Told All. This is frowned upon in the Agency.

2) Before all this started, this FBI agent sent, ahem, shirtless photos, plural, of himself to "one of the women later involved in the case," presumably Kelley.


We're just lucky that they weren't Weiner-type photos.

These must be some women --- they missed their calling, they'd have both made good Mata Haris.



Wait, maybe that's what they are. Is this a coup against high military officials?

[Abbey Marie]

As all the shameful details unfold, I have some thougths:

1. I think I understand now why Muslim men cover their women up so much. That desert air must really be some aphrodisiac. :eek:

2. The Internet and other technology continue to make it very easy for people without integrity to cheat and destroy marriages.

3. Nothing, and I really mean nothing, beats the power of a woman's... (I'll leave that one blank so as not to be crude).

[mundame]

a woman's

.....smile........

[Abbey Marie]

a woman's

.....smile........


Sure, that's it. ;)

[Dilloduck]

Hormones---people have been underestimating them for years.

[mundame]

Hormones---people have been underestimating them for years.


How wonderful Petraeus is so fit and well exercised that he can do all that illicit sex, even though he's 60!!

Boy, that health and exercise regime sure did him a lot of good.

[Dilloduck]

How wonderful Petraeus is so fit and well exercised that he can do all that illicit sex, even though he's 60!!

Boy, that health and exercise regime sure did him a lot of good.

Apparently the women didn't do too badly either. I think it still takes two to tango. :laugh:

[mundame]

Apparently the women didn't do too badly either. I think it still takes two to tango. :laugh:


Well, she was just turned 40.


Trophy floozy.

[Dilloduck]

Well, she was just turned 40.


Trophy floozy.

Age matters ?

[mundame]

Age matters ?

Oh, I'm sure not.

No doubt if he was 40 and she was 60 it would have all happened just the same.

[Dilloduck]

Oh, I'm sure not.

No doubt if he was 40 and she was 60 it would have all happened just the same.

Powerful stuff---everyone outta get swept off their feet at least once.

[mundame]

Powerful stuff---everyone outta get swept off their feet at least once.



Good idea, especially when they are married and have children and a very responsible government military job at the top of the Free World. What they definitely need in that case is a floozy 20 years younger. They can probably hide it from the CIA, after all. I mean, hey, they run the CIA, right? So no problem.

[tailfins]

Rush is lamenting Generals taking orders from their privates.

[Little-Acorn]

Rush is lamenting Generals taking orders from their privates.

He also mentioned that the FBI went to Broadwell's apartment and searched it. They spent more time and interest in Broadell's apartment than they did in the Benghazi compound, investigating that after the terrorist attacks. :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Powerful stuff---everyone outta get swept off their feet at least once.

So you assume that Petraeus was never swept off his feet by the woman he chose to marry.
Or do you want to revise your statement to say that everyone ought to be swept off their feet twice? Thrice? Or perhaps as many times as they want?

[Abbey Marie]

Good idea, especially when they are married and have children and a very responsible government military job at the top of the Free World. What they definitely need in that case is a floozy 20 years younger. They can probably hide it from the CIA, after all. I mean, hey, they run the CIA, right? So no problem.

:clap: :amen:

[Kathianne]

At the heart of this still seems to be diversion from Benghazi.

[red states rule]

At the heart of this still seems to be diversion from Benghazi.

Of course. Does anyone really think the liberal media, the White House, or the Dems actually give a damn about the 4 Americans who were murdered? The liberal media stuck with the lie the video was the cause. Obama went to fundraiser and hit the campaign trail the DAY of the attack. and most Dems have been ignoring the lies as they have been exposed by the few reporters actually doing their job. Seems the above mentioned folks are more interested in who Petraeus is screwing then the 4 US citizens Obama allowed to be murdered by terrorists without lifting a finger to help

[Kathianne]

Well then, seems there should be more discussion of Benghazi than calls for knowing more the ways of trysts.

Oh, I think we should pay attention to what the media is feeding us, then way, "Hey, what about Benghazi?" That's what I've been doing on articles that allow for comments. ;)

[red states rule]

Well then, seems there should be more discussion of Benghazi than calls for knowing more the ways of trysts.

Oh, I think we should pay attention to what the media is feeding us, then way, "Hey, what about Benghazi?" That's what I've been doing on articles that allow for comments. ;)

At least some libs are open about their lack of concern of the murder of the 4 Americans Kat. The OWNER of this board posted this
i don't give a rat's ass on what day Obama disclosed the full details of an isolated attack on a few American's in Libya when American's are still being killed every day in Afghan and its been going on for over 10 year's without you complaining about that. the Benghazi "thing" was an election gimmick, but you didn't get the memo that the election is over http://progressivesonline.com/showthread.php?t=3200&page=2
I am always amazed how liberals are willing to chalk up their fellow Americans as sacrificial lambs in the name of the Dem party

[Kathianne]

Ok, getting weirder. Twin sister of Jill now bringing Democrats, including John Kerry into this mess:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/battle_john_allen_also_helped_jill_YjkEYUNY2INC4sm BMEYqUI?utm_source=SFnewyorkpost&#38;utm_medium=SFnewy orkpost

Gen. John Allen also helped Jill Kelley's sister during custody battle (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/battle_john_allen_also_helped_jill_YjkEYUNY2INC4sm BMEYqUI)

By GEOFF EARLE and DAN MANGAN
Last Updated: 3:48 PM, November 13, 2012
Posted: 10:46 AM, November 13, 2012

Both Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen intervened in the same nasty child custody battle involving Natalie Khawam, the “psychologically unstable” twin sister of Jill Kelley, whose bombshell claims of being threatened by Petraeus' lover led to the top spy’s resignation last week, the Post has learned...

And in court documents filed by Kelley's sister Natalie Khawam, she name-drops both Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island -- who both have ties to a Providence, RI, lawyer/Democratic fundraiser who loaned a whopping $300,000 to Khawam...

[mundame]

Rush is lamenting Generals taking orders from their privates.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

I haven't seen so many conspiracy theories since the Sept. 11 attacks.

[Kathianne]

I haven't seen so many conspiracy theories since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Where's the conspiracies? Oh you mean 'diversion?' Well step right up on that one.

[gabosaurus]

You are still stuck on the idea that the Patraeus scandal is a diversion. Which, in itself, is a conspiracy theory.

[mundame]

You are still stuck on the idea that the Patraeus scandal is a diversion. Which, in itself, is a conspiracy theory.


Well, the scandal was clearly held for several days till right after the election.

So now we're all distracted, from the yucky election, from Benghazi, all of it. A sex scandal trumps ALL, could have been 40 Americans died in Libya, it still would distract everyone from Benghazi.

I don't suppose it isn't real, though, in the sense that they were all getting up to stuff. How many now? Now we've got twin sex pots? Oh, good, it only lacked that.

[gabosaurus]

Rush is lamenting Generals taking orders from their privates.

Judging from Rush's love of Viagra, I would say that he takes orders from his privates quite often. :rolleyes:

[mundame]

Here's a good headline from the National Journal:

Two Generals, Two Women and the FBI: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/two-generals-two-women-and-the-fbi-what-could-possibly-go-wrong--20121113)

[Robert A Whit]

You have some of the letters right: VIAGRA

The market for Viagra does not confirm that Petraeus to get it up and keep it up uses said product or similar products.

[Robert A Whit]

Judging from Rush's love of Viagra, I would say that he takes orders from his privates quite often. :rolleyes:

I am assuming you are joking about Rush. Has he at any time stated he uses that product?

[mundame]

The market for Viagra does not confirm that Petraeus to get it up and keep it up uses said product or similar products.


Oh, no, he's been in Afghanistan; Petraeus was probably able to get rhinoceros horn.

[Kathianne]

You are still stuck on the idea that the Patraeus scandal is a diversion. Which, in itself, is a conspiracy theory.

Benghazi was a fact. That CIA and State and Defense are at the heart of the crisis, this 'scandal' at this time after the election, lends to questions. Such as diversion.

[mundame]

I am assuming you are joking about Rush. Has he at any time stated he uses that product?

The FBI caught him at the airport in Florida a few years ago with a lot of oxycontin and a perfectly fabulous amount of Viagra; he was going to or coming from some South American country. Ah, those nights in Rio.

[Kathianne]

From sex to Rush back to Benghazi. Enhanced interrogations? CIA cites Obama's EO regarding such:

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/35686628830/is-the-obama-administration-covering-up-enhanced


Is the Obama administration covering up “enhanced interrogation” in Benghazi? (http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/35686628830/is-the-obama-administration-covering-up-enhanced)

While the media drools all over itself about a sex scandal, let’s not forget that beneath the sensationalism lies a deeper, more important story: Benghazi. One of the most intriguing new details that has surfaced since General Petraeus’s sudden resignation was Paula Broadwell’s comment claiming that the CIA had several Libyan militiamen held captive at the compound in Benghazi (http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/35540509750/petraeuss-mistress-cia-was-operating-a-secret-prison):

“Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”
Naturally, the Obama administration promptly came out with a denial of any such prison’s existence. In its denial, the CIA is actually cited President Obama’s executive order from January 2009 (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/cia-denies-claim-from-petraeus-girlfriend-that-benghazi-annex-held-libyan-prisoners/) banning the agency from operating detention centers:

the CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless. Obama’s executive order was put in place specifically to end the Bush-era controversy over “enhanced interrogation” (i.e. torture) at secret CIA detention centers. This is from a 2007 Washington Post article about secret CIA prisons and the interrogation methods that went on there (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060800985_pf.html):..


Fox News, which has been one of the only news organizations actively pursuing the Benghazi scandal, checked Paula Broadwell’s claims against their sources, and they cast serious doubt on the CIA’s denial:

In the original Oct. 26 Fox News report, sources at the annex said that the CIA’s Global Response Staff had handed over three Libyan militia members to the Libyan authorities who came to rescue the 30 Americans in the early hours of Sept. 12.
A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.
According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.
The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.
If the Fox News sources check out and the CIA/Obama administration’s denial ends up being debunked, the next question is why the Obama administration was allowing the CIA to operate a detention facility in Benghazi, and what kind of interrogation tactics were being used there.
“Enhanced interrogation” would certainly explain the level of secrecy and coverup by the Obama administration surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attacks. It would also perhaps explain why Benghazi was so important that General Petraeus went to Libya and personally inspected the CIA facility after the attack (http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/35640519661/petraeus-personally-investigated-benghazi). A scandal of this magnitude would have been the biggest “October surprise” any election season has ever seen...

[Kathianne]

Drip, drip, drip. So it maybe that the sex scandal actually brings a policy debacle out in the open:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324735104578117152449022528.html




BEST OF THE WEB TODAY (http://online.wsj.com/public/search?article-doc-type=%7BBest+of+the+Web+Today%7D&HEADER_TEXT=best+of+the+web+today)
November 13, 2012

<!-- ID: SB10001424127887324735104578117152449022528 --> <!-- TYPE: Best of the Web Today --> <!-- DISPLAY-NAME: Best of the Web Today --> <!-- PUBLICATION: The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition --> <!-- DATE: 2012-11-13 00:01 --> <!-- COPYRIGHT: Dow Jones & Company, Inc. --> <!-- ORIGINAL-ID: --> <!-- article start --> <!-- CODE=DJII-COMPANY SYMBOL=hrwny CODE=DJII-COMPANY SYMBOL=inenag CODE=DJII-COMPANY SYMBOL=onlnfr CODE=DJII-COMPANY SYMBOL=twnit CODE=DJII-COMPANY SYMBOL=uscia CODE=DJII-COMPANY SYMBOL=usnsa CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=FB CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/CDJ CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/INT CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/PLT CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/AF CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/NME CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/SOM CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/US CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=TWEET.XX CODE=DJII-ORGTYPE SYMBOL=gov CODE=DJII-ORGTYPE SYMBOL=govx CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=africaz CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=dvpcoz CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=eafrz CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=namz CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=somal CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=usa CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gcat CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gcia CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gcns CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gcom CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gdef CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=ghum CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=ginda CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gpir CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gpol CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gspy CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gtortu CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=ncat CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=nedc CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=nfact CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=nfcpex CODE=STATISTIC SYMBOL=FREE CODE=SUBJECT SYMBOL=OPIN --> The Somali ConnectionFurther questions about Obama's interrogation and detention policies.



smaller (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324735104578117152449022528.html#)
Larger (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324735104578117152449022528.html#)


<!-- http://www.wallstreetjournal.de http://online.wsj.com --> By JAMES TARANTO (http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=JAMES+TARANTO&bylinesearch=true)To what extent is the CIA still involved in detaining and interrogating terrorist enemy combatants? Yesterday we noted (http://bit.ly/SQHch8) that past Petraeus paramour Paula Broadwell had claimed on Oct. 26 that the agency was holding three Libyan detainees in Benghazi at the time of the 9/11 attacks there. Fox News Channel's Jennifer Griffin (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/) mentioned the three detainees in a report the same day. Yesterday Griffin added (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/12/petraeus-mistress-may-have-revealed-classified-information-at-denver-speech/) that according to her sources, "other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East" had also been held there, though "most . . . had been moved two weeks earlier."


The agency issued a categorical denial: "The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless."...


But it turns out Benghazi isn't the only place where the CIA has been reported to have acted in contravention of Executive Order 13491. In July 2011, The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia?page=full), a hard-left magazine, reported that the CIA "uses a secret prison buried in the basement of Somalia's National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters" in Mogadishu. There, according to the magazine, detainees from Al Shabab, "an Islamic militant group with close ties to Al Qaeda," are held and interrogated.


"While the underground prison is officially run by the Somali NSA," The Nation reported, "US intelligence personnel pay the salaries of intelligence agents and also directly interrogate prisoners." The following month, the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/world/africa/11somalia.html?pagewanted=all) published a substantively similar report, in which it added the detail that some Somalis call the detention facility " 'Guantánamo' for its ties to the United States."


These reports--published, we should note, before David Petraeus became CIA director--prompted a letter from Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/09/20/letter-president-obama-clarify-alleged-cia-role-detention-and-interrogation-somalia) to President Obama, dated Sept. 6 (the day Petraeus was sworn in): "These allegations, if true, would raise serious questions regarding whether the United States is acting in compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 13491 and other legal obligations."


Fourteen months later, Human Rights Watch tells Best of the Web Today that the letter went unanswered.


Assuming that these reports are accurate--that the CIA is involved in detention and interrogation in Mogadishu, Benghazi and perhaps elsewhere--the Petraeus sex scandal has drawn attention to a policy scandal. Obama sold Americans a complete bill of goods when it comes to counterterror policy.


In 2008 he promised to reverse Bush policies that raised the hackles of Europeans and left-leaning human-rights types. In area after area--Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, surveillance--he failed to do so. He even stepped up the use of lethal drones against terrorists, including U.S. citizens. Detention and interrogation policy was supposed to be the one case in which the policy had actually changed...

[Kathianne]

Hmmm, questions proposed for debate:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/263321-beyond-benghazi-questions-for-the-foreign-policy-debate


Beyond Benghazi: Questions for the foreign policy debate
By Elisa Massimino, president and CEO, Human Rights First. - 10/22/12 12:30 PM ET

Two debates down. One -- on foreign policy – to go.

Last Tuesday night the candidates sparred over the tragic attack in Benghazi. The question of how the United States should engage Libya and the region is important, but let’s hope tonight that the conversation around terrorism extends beyond questions about consular security and who knew – and said -- what, when.



<script language="JavaScript"> GA_googleFillSlot("CongressBlog_Square1_300x250"); </script><script src="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?correlator=3511047027161305&output=json_html&callback=GA_googleSetAdContentsBySlotForSync&impl=s&pstok=JiHbYNuqhDIKDQoLCLnr9RMQgcfZ5EUKDQoLCJnUnQMQ wfv0wDAKAAoNCgsI-anUAhCJspCSGQoNCgsI-anUAhCRsZCSGQ&client=ca-pub-5456982649231368&slotname=CongressBlog_Square1_300x250&page_slots=CongressBlog_Leaderboard_728x90%2CLeftE ar_184x90%2CPushdown_970x66_expandable%2CHouseTest _HPButton87x83%2CHouseTest_HPButton87x83_2%2CCongr essBlog_Square1_300x250&cust_params=Section%3D8%26Category%3D122%26Article %3D263321&cookie=ID%3D80696f5c93d1a489%3AT%3D1346078644%3AS% 3DALNI_MZxlHMkJRFZ_iR7QNimfsj5ae3uXw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fcongress-blog%2Fpresidential-campaign%2F263321-beyond-benghazi-questions-for-the-foreign-policy-debate&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26r ct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dnewssearch%26c d%3D2%26ved%3D0CDEQqQIoADAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F %252Fthehill.com%252Fblogs%252Fcongress-blog%252Fpresidential-campaign%252F263321-beyond-benghazi-questions-for-the-foreign-policy-debate%26ei%3DyVijUNLsDfDUyQH13YGADA%26usg%3DAFQjC NH6q-t1SuNwUkn12UY6iC6s5Ql3fQ%26sig2%3DG0jeMbed0f1SIvmU 9p-SdA&lmt=1352882387&dt=1352882406943&cc=100&biw=990&bih=431&adk=318944821&adx=141&ady=749&ifi=6&oid=3&u_tz=-360&u_his=29&u_java=true&u_h=640&u_w=1024&u_ah=614&u_aw=1024&u_cd=24&u_nplug=9&u_nmime=99&flash=10.3.183&gads=v2&ga_vid=379401753.1346078640&ga_sid=1352882391&ga_hid=582461746&ga_fc=true"></script>




All in all, this presidential race has featured little substantive discussion of the issue that has dominated American foreign policy for more than a decade: how the United States best protects itself against terrorism. And nowhere has the gap between our nation’s values and our actions been greater than in our counter-terror policies.
In the name of combating terrorism, the United States has made mistakes that have damaged our moral standing, our relationships with other countries, and our ability to back those fighting for freedom around the world. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to bring human rights and democracy activists from 27 countries to the White House. They told the president that the most important thing he could do to support them would be to reform the so-called war on terror; our government was providing cover to their oppressors every time we took an expedient, illegal short-cut.

With a view toward moving from a conversation about American exceptionalism to one about the ideals that make this country exceptional, here are a few questions that moderator Bob Schieffer should ask tonight as he sits down with the candidates in Florida.

For Governor Romney: Would you revoke the executive order banning torture?

On his second day in office, President Obama signed an order restricting interrogation tactics to those in the Army Field Manual. Recently in the New York Times, Charlie Savage reported that Romney advisors are urging him to “rescind and replace President Obama’s executive order” to allow “enhanced interrogation techniques against high-value detainees that are safe, legal and effective in generating intelligence to save American lives.” But “enhanced interrogation” isn’t safe, legal, or effective. It’s torture. Americans need to know if he plans to make it official policy again...




Wouldn't it have been interesting if this story were out there then?

[Robert A Whit]

How wonderful Petraeus is so fit and well exercised that he can do all that illicit sex, even though he's 60!!

Boy, that health and exercise regime sure did him a lot of good.

You know, when I was 14, I hoped some day to get me some sex.

When I was 24, I was in the Army and had plenty.

When I was 34, I just knew somebody over 40 was out of luck.

When I was 44, I knew better so I figured that by 54 I could no longer F ...--- er, luck out.

Of course it seemed to me as if I was still 24.

Then I figured at 64, too old for that stuff.

But I was wrong.

At 74, the drive is alive.

No pills.

Just power. I hope at 84 I still feel the same.

[Kathianne]

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-real-questions-are-still-about-benghazi-not-the-petraeus-sex-scandal/


The REAL Questions Are Still About Benghazi, NOT the Petraeus Sex Scandal

Posted on November 13, 2012 at 2:41pm

The sex scandal is merely the diversion. Of course, everyone is fascinated by the salacious details and intriguing personalities involved in the latest scandal involving sex. In this case, people are riveted by the extramarital affair between America’s once-golden General, David Petraeus, and his biographer, Paula Broadwell. Since that story exploded last Friday afternoon, there has been a steady drip-drip-drip of new allegations involving another woman (Jill Kelley), an FBI agent who was reportedly thrown off the original case for “growing obsessed” with Kelley and sending her “shirtless” photos of himself to her, and the Commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, General John Allen, who reportedly sent Kelley tens of thousands of “potentially inappropriate” emails. He is now under investigation as well.
Wonder why we’re getting a drip-drip-drip of wild new details every day? To keep us distracted. The sex scandal is a mess, but it’s not the mess that matters.


What matters is what happened in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including two Navy SEALS, a longtime foreign service officer, and the personal representative of the President of the United States, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Here are a few of the critical questions that REALLY matter:


1. As has been reported by Aaron Klein and others, the U.S. compound in Benghazi was NOT a consulate. It was a “mission” of some sort, and it looks increasingly likely that the CIA was running the show there. What was the CIA doing in Benghazi?


2. What were Stevens and the others doing at that CIA mission late into the evening?



3. Before he was killed that fateful night, Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods rescued scores of Americans from the compound. Who were they? What were they doing in Benghazi?


4. Woods sprung into action to try to save the Ambassador and others despite being given the order to “stand down.” Who gave the “stand down” order? Did Obama approve it?


5. Who repeatedly denied their requests for help as they were under attack? Who was watching the attack unfold in real time back in Washington?


6. Who dreamt up the fiction that the attack was inspired by some obscure video? And who sent out top administration officials, including U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and CIA Director David Petraeus, among others, to spin and perpetuate the fiction—for weeks?


7. MOST IMPORTANTLY: What is this administration REALLY covering up?

...

[revelarts]

Benghazi's a black box of troubles: FBI, CIA, Sex, interrogations, secret rescues, secret attacks cover-ups. wheels withen wheels here. I've heard tell of elements of CIA and the State dept that answer to practically no one. No easy way to find out who's zooming who.

And could some one tell me why we are in Libya again?

[mundame]

You know, when I was 14, I hoped some day to get me some sex.

When I was 24, I was in the Army and had plenty.

When I was 34, I just knew somebody over 40 was out of luck.

When I was 44, I knew better so I figured that by 54 I could no longer F ...--- er, luck out.

Of course it seemed to me as if I was still 24.

Then I figured at 64, too old for that stuff.

But I was wrong.

At 74, the drive is alive.

No pills.

Just power. I hope at 84 I still feel the same.



Good heavens. And good for you!

[mundame]

And could some one tell me why we are in Libya again?



No..........I don't think anyone could tell you that.


God alone knows why we're in Libya.

Or Afghanistan, for that matter.

Apply to Him for particulars.

[tailfins]

Benghazi's a black box of troubles: FBI, CIA, Sex, interrogations, secret rescues, secret attacks cover-ups. wheels withen wheels here. I've heard tell of elements of CIA and the State dept that answer to practically no one. No easy way to find out who's zooming who.

And could some one tell me why we are in Libya again?

The scandal started because Petraeus confused defending the COTUS with defending the COITUS when he took his oath.

[jimnyc]

Benghazi's a black box of troubles: FBI, CIA, Sex, interrogations, secret rescues, secret attacks cover-ups. wheels withen wheels here. I've heard tell of elements of CIA and the State dept that answer to practically no one. No easy way to find out who's zooming who.

And could some one tell me why we are in Libya again?

Pertaining to this issue, because we have an embassy there. :)

[Kathianne]

Pertaining to this issue, because we have an embassy there. :)

Even if the annex is a prison where extraordinary methods are being deployed. Agreed.

At the same time, Obama should be nailed for violating his own EO.

[red states rule]

The Obama defense team shows what they are really worried about. Their client
<iframe width="475" height="267" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/118373" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>