Just Who's Blackmailing Petraeus

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Nov 12, 2012.

  1. pspr


    1) We know Holder, and probably Obama, knew of the affair for months.
    2) We know Petraeus briefed Congress on Benghazi with a story that defied the facts known by the CIA.
    3) We know Petraeus could face a court martial if the affair began during his service in Afghanistan and that became known.
    4) We know Obama needed the CIA to play ball on the Benghazi story they were spinning

    An affair that was known to the FBI for months and kept from congressional oversight committees might explain his complicity in a false narrative of the Benghazi terrorist attack and the order to "stand down."

    The addition of sex to Benghazigate adds a dimension sure to keep the scandal going and one that does indeed make Watergate seem like a third-rate burglary. The affair admitted to by Gen. David Petraeus, now our former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, might have attached blackmail or the potential for blackmail to a scandal we have already called a case of criminal negligence.

    But blackmail by whom?

    Petraeus isn't the first general to have an affair while in uniform. But as CIA director, Petraeus' knowledge of the nation's secrets was unparalleled, as was his knowledge of what happened and when regarding the assault on our consulate in Libya.

    The timing of his resignation is most curious — just days after the presidential election and days before he was scheduled to testify before Congress, under oath, regarding the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell is expected to testify in his place. But lawmakers want to hear from Petraeus, and so do we.

    As we've noted, just two days after the attack on our Benghazi consulate, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an al-Qaida or al-Qaida-affiliated attack.

    The FBI and NCTC also briefed that there were several al-Qaida training camps just outside Benghazi. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant Ansar al-Sharia as well as al-Qaida in North Africa.

    So why, as we asked then, did Petraeus, whom we said "has to have known otherwise," tell lawmakers the opposite a day after — that the attack was more consistent with a flash mob, where militants showed up spontaneously with rocket-propelled grenades? Petraeus downplayed to lawmakers the skill needed to fire mortars, as if it were something every spontaneous demonstrator knows how to do. Why?

    The FBI knew, as early as May, of the harassing emails sent by Petraeus' paramour Paula Broadwell to social planner Jill Kelley, event coordinator at MacDill Air Force Base, where Central Command, which Petraeus headed, is based. The probe commenced at that point and led to full knowledge of the affair by late summer.

    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder knew about the email links to Petraeus at that time, it's been reported. Maybe he didn't read the memos just as he claimed not to read the memos about Fast and Furious.

    "We received no advanced notice. It was like a lightning bolt," Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday." She said her committee will demand an explanation as to why it wasn't told the CIA director was being investigated for an affair that subjected him to potential blackmail. We'd like to hear it.

    If Petraeus carried on the affair while serving in the Army, he could still face charges, according to Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which reprimands conduct "of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Was that being held over his head by his own government to force his compliance with a false Benghazi narrative? What was the reason for secrecy until after the election?

    Only Petraeus can tell us and end the speculation and the secrecy about both the affair and the Benghazi terrorist attack. He should be subpoenaed if necessary and the truth should be demanded.

  2. The administration is saying Obama didn't know until after the election. Really? Let's look at the facts.
    We know the investigation was concluded 4 days before the election. That means somebody made the decision not to tell Obama until after the election. Who was that person and why would that person think the president shouldn't know his CIA Director had been under investigation, and what the findings were?
    We also know that the investigation was being held months before the election. Top people knew of the investigation. Why would a president, any president, not want to know his CIA Director was under investigation? Who would assume that? Why would they assume that?
    Another story line that just doesn't add up.

  3. Even liberals have to admit Something's wrong when obama's best defense is "Hey I'm incompetent" .
  4. And there's another. No wonder there was no help for Benghazi. These guys were too busy e-mailing their girlfriends.
    This adminstration has completly lost control.

    PERTH, Australia (AP) — In a new twist to the Gen. David Petraeus sex scandal, the Pentagon said Tuesday that the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, is under investigation for alleged "inappropriate communications" with a woman who is said to have received threatening emails from Paula Broadwell, the woman with whom Petraeus had an extramarital affair.

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a written statement issued to reporters aboard his aircraft, en route from Honolulu to Perth, Australia, that the FBI referred the matter to the Pentagon on Sunday.

    Panetta said that he ordered a Pentagon investigation of Allen on Monday.
  5. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...barded-whistleblower-emails-article-1.1201051

    There are numerous articles out today. Some basic questions were answered, but many others raised.

    One question was how did the FBI get involved in the first place? You call your local field office and try to get them to investigate some harrassing emails and see how long it takes them to blow you off. But if you are a knockout hootie who happens to be friends with an agent, it seems the system works somewhat better. This Kelley woman, who is beginning to crowd out Broadwell at the center of this scandal, seems to have had quite a few of the boys at the Tampa air base at her command, not just Petraeus.

    Anyway, the FBI agent who got it started realized there was more to it than he suspected, a lot more. He became concerned that it would be swept under the rug to protect higher ups, a logical assumption given how corrupt and incompetent the FBi adn CIA seem to be. He was ordered to stay away from the investigation on the grounds that he was too close to Kelley. Apparently he had sent her some emails, including shirtless pics, before the investigation started. OK... Maybe he wanted to get into the Secret Service.

    So he goes to a congressman, who alerts Eric Cantor. Cantor apparently does nothing. Typical.

    Now it turns out that the guy who replaced Petraeus, a Marine General named Allen, somehow had also sent numerous emails to the Kelley woman. The story said the FBI is looking at 20-30,000 pages of documents, although obviously they are not all emails. WTF.

    Just to thicken the plot, the Kelley woman is the daughter of Lebanese immigrants. I suppose it is inevitable that this whole circus gets crazier. Stay tuned.
  6. One additional detail. I said Cantor did nothing. Incorrect. In fact, he might have brought the whole thing down. Supposedly, he called the director of the FBI and said we have this agent who is concerned there is a national security breach being hushed up. The Director went to Clapper then with the details and Petraeus was history.

    It's interesting that the WashPost story kind of hints that it was the whistleblowing agent and Cantor's fault that this turned into a scandal. The agent clearly is going to be fucked for sure. He should be praised for preventing an epic coverup.
  7. jem


    Its amazing we have to be grateful there are a few people left who are willing the right thing... the corruption must be almost crushing.

  8. Typical??

    That is an offhand remark considering a report says he got the info BEFORE the election.


    "The FBI agent who sent the shirtless photos of himself to the woman called Congress two weeks ago and leaked news of the investigation to House majority leader Eric Cantor."

    So if Cantor knew beforehand - why did he not make it known more broadly so it could be brought up before the election??

    Whom did he want to win? :confused:
  9. And was the name of the FBI guy sending shirtless pics of himself Anthony Weiner? :D
  10. What kind of leadship is this? Either Obama was told and is lying about it, or he has chosen to remain willfully ignorant about anything that is, or can be construed as bad news. The only way to to that is to give a direct order to your subordinates saying, I don't want to know about anything bad that might be happening. It's that or his subordinates are willfully negligent in their duties of advising him on the issues of the day.
    So which is it Mr. Obama? Are you lying, or have you chosen to remain ignorant of events taking place within your administration?
    #10     Nov 13, 2012