The Petraeus Espionage File
I may have awakened him. The late James Jesus Angleton, once the chief of CIA counterintelligence, sounded kinda groggy to me after I got him–loud and clear!–on my famously untrustworthy ouija board. Of course I have no idea whether he gets to sleep at all. I don’t quite know exactly “where” he is, after all, and he doesn’t answer direct questions on the subject. Anyway, there he was, and I started right in.
ML: So what am I supposed to think about Petraeus?
JJA: That you’re living in a country where espionage is rampant.
ML: Huh?
JJA: Have you read those stories about the “software breakdowns” in the Romney get-out-the-vote program “Orca”?
ML: Sure, it didn’t work, passwords didn’t work, it was a gigantic snafu.
JJA: Uh huh. And has anyone raised the possibility that the Romney organization was penetrated in order to introduce “fatal errors” in their computers?
ML: Actually I don’t believe I’ve seen that in print, although I’m sure somebody must have thought of it.
JJA: I mean, the Obama people know all about Stuxnet, right?
ML: Yes, the killer worm that was fed into the computers that run the centrifuges in the Iranian nuclear program.
JJA: So if politics is war by other means, why shouldn’t they use similar methods in the election?
ML: Haven’t you inverted that? Didn’t Clausewitz say that “war is the continuation of politics by different means”? You’re the literary expert, but still…
JJA: I expected you’d like the inversion. Anyway, “Orca” is a good case for espionage, don’t you think?
ML: Ok, I’ll buy that. But what does it have to do with the Petraeus story?
JJA: Everything. Both are potential espionage stories. On Petraeus, for starters, we’re told that the FBI was investigating some “broader” thing, and they just happened to come across emails between him and her. As if the bureau weren’t running an investigation into Petraeus all along.
ML: Why would they do that?
JJA: Jeez, nobody knows anything any more! (coughing again, he’d probably lit up a Camel). It’s routine. The FBI always monitors the top levels of CIA, especially the director, any time there is reason for them to worry about a national security counterintelligence matter. Everybody in the business knows that. And all they need to open one of those investigations is a complaint, or a tip, from anybody. You can’t imagine how many hours are devoted to checking out anonymous leads. I can give you lots of recent stories about promotions and nominations being held up because some fabulist sent a little whisper across the transom of an inspector general’s office…
ML: And the CIA guys know that? Petraeus knew that?
JJA: Of course. And he also knew what any moderate geek knows, namely that gmail is an open book. Any skilled nerd can read most anybody’s emails. We don’t ever use email here.
ML: You’ve got computers?
JJA: Indeed. What do you think that “cloud” thing is all about anyway? We control it.
ML: I should have known! So Petraeus knew that people were reading, or at least could read, all his passionate emails to his lover.
JJA: Yes. And he knew enough about such matters to realize that when the counterintel people became aware of the affair, the bureau would instantly worry that he could be blackmailed. So they would go back through all his emails, and all hers as well, to everyone.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the “biographer” was recruited by Mr. Putin’s GRU.
It would certainly “look” that way. After seeing photos of Ms. Broadwell in her rather flaunting attire, I was reminded of that Russian spy caught in the U.S. a few years ago, Anna Chapman.
No damn kidding! It would be great if we could find it was a false flag op.
IMO every freaking Democrat should be forced to register as an agent of a foreign power. Dante didn’t think of a circle of hell suitable for most of ‘em. We need to invent one.
Yes, he did. Antenora. You can look it up.
I don’t think I agree with Walt. However, it is most instructive to contrast the behaviors of two individuals caught in adultery. Consider William Jefferson Clinton vs George Petraeus.
Petraeus accepts responsibility and instantly resigns. Though Clinton’s job is above Patraeus’s in responsibility, national security, etc., Clinton denies having an affair on TV, he and his Demunist supporters attempt to redefine oral sex as not being a sexual act at all, a judge finds Clinton guilty of perjury, Clinton stays in office and successfully fights impeachment with the aid of all [Read that? ALL] Senate Demunists voting him Not Guilty, even though each of them had signed an oath to be impartial in the case.
O tempora. O mores.
What is the reason for this difference between the actions of Petraeus and Clinton, Ladies and gentlemen? Please consider the question, I beg of you.
One must bear in mind that just like any bureaucracy, there are the nefarious and the political and the “don’t-make-wave” types. Or, a combination of all three. Such is the case in the upper echelons of the military and I’ve seen it firsthand. They become politicians and get to a point where they figure their cleverness has gotten them this far, so why not be even more clever?
Anyone’s mind can become corrupted through rationalization. And, it’s more common than you might think.
Petraeus, without actually knowing him, is most likely the career-minded type who was groomed as a junior officer by senior officers of a certain brand; Those who were already politically connected and who “knew how it all works”. By that, I mean it in its most negative connotation.
This is the tutelage of Petraeus. It served him well throughout his career.
Not being an elected official, the general then becomes aware of the fact that he’s not treated well by the former. His ego isn’t satisfied with the mere carrying out of orders by people too stupid to recognize their folly. But he does so because the politics of it is in his DNA now and he can’t defy it.
Meanwhile, he gets involved with things, not so much to be involved but in order to maintain the “mover/shaker” appearance that he believes he is. In reality and to to witness it, it’s probably pretty pathetic.
But please, don’t automatically assume a guy with a bunch of fruit salad on his chest is above reproach and is automatically a bastion of good character. The military is FULL of not-so-clean political types who would love for the nation to be fully socialist. Military people who love it so often don’t do well in anything other than a highly structured bureaucracy where they can clearly see the “target”(the one they must impress the most by being a dweeby little sycophant) and thus get promoted into the “club”.
It’s Rome, really. Always has been that way. The officers in the military who don’t join in the political fun are ostracized and shunned. I’m quite proud of it in my own case. I don’t desire to impress anyone with anything other than my ability to do a great job. I cannot see myself ever sucking up to higher-ups and any compliment I give them is sincere, if they warrant it.
But Petraeus is the sterling example, in my opinion of someone who has cast his lot with the power and must therefore take the consequences of his actions.
As a mustang officer and 28 year veteran of the USN, I could not agree with your assessment more. Thanks.
The top spy in the US, ex four star general, making out with chicks using gmail.
Suddenly I don’t feel safe any more. Where’s Col. Nathan R Jessup?
There is a good reason that the Spooks are not allowed to operate
in the US, against opponents of the administration; Perhaps an FBI
agent will be the third to resign in protest over the practice.
Gee, M., perhaps I am confused. I have always been under the impression that the “spooks” were the CIA, whose original charter was to collect intel from outside the U.S. about our known or suspected enemies. (I don’t know how or when their responsibilities grew into fighting in battles.) The charter of the FBI is to investigate federal-level crimes inside our country. They were sent to Libya because a Consulate is considered U.S. territory.
Thank you for the correction, sir; The FBI are not Spooks,
but they did object, on grounds of security, to Obama not
acting on their report until after the election.
It is not clear to me that a President has the right or need
to know _why_ a Security Clearance is revoked; It is not his
call, and the information can easily be used to pressure the
individual involved, as likely happened in this case.
It may not be his call but it isindicative of the insular nature of this regime. Just like any third-world crony rampant mafia, Obama divvies out the graces and scoldings. Petraeus was one to be protected, for a time, in order to not make the regime look bad in order to appease the military fans.
Thus, he’s a meddler. Also a micro-manager of the worst kind, attending to those things that he finds to his interest while ignoring others that demand a president’s attention.
Rome. The bad version.
Re the ORCA tech thing…. I had already considered this and without delving into to any vast conspiracy, sabotage either by its creators or a 3rd party is very, very plausible.
In politics you assume that because people are making the right noises, they’re on side, but ultimately you can’t verify a person’s true leanings. It would be easy for someone to work their way into a position of use inside a campaign and “flip some switches” (low-tech reference here) to cause trouble.
I’m 24 and have grown up surrounded and involved in “nerd” culture on all the popular nerd websites I visit, the members are 90-95% hard-core leftists and any conservative thought, no matter how rational and articulate is quickly demonised. Now maybe it’s meaningless, but these people are the same ones building websites/programming apps/working at MS/Google/Apple/Facebook/Twitter etc and the whole politics is warfare thing is something they’re completely down with. If the opportunity arose (to cause mayhem) they would take it in an instant, all part of the cause.
This is not to say Conservatives should shun tech, it’s a necessary tool, but always be aware of the limitations and flaws of what your are dealing with and have a back up low-tech alternative ready to go.
Trust, but verify.
(and I appreciate these columns Mr. Ledeen, one of my favourite parts of PJMedia)
On a related note, what the article said about gmail isn’t quite true. Gmail itself is quite secure. The problem with it is that it involves a third party (Google) who has access to everything in the system. So if gmail was leaked to the administration, it was most likely due to Google collaboration. Which gets down to the same thing: Google, both corporately and culturally, is highly likely to give the Obama admin whatever it wants (as long as it can do so secretly).
Never trust Google. Or Microsoft, or or Apple, or anybody else in that business, or any other business. They’re all rats.
Especially not Google. It was founded and is run by hard-corp leftists. The only thing Obama would need to do is ask, and they would do his bidding. No court order needed.
Oh, and by the way, what’s to stop someone from unleashing Stuxnet-like worms into the various systems of voting machines themselves, or into the computer networks that tabulate the data from those voting machines?
Just askin’!
There’s actually a good answer to that. Stuxnet never infected the Siemens controllers. They’re not infectable. What it did was infect windows computers that were attached to the Siemens controllers, and made the windows boxes send screwy things to the Siemens controllers.
The voting machines don’t have attached windows boxes, so that can’t happen. However, once the votes are transferred to the machines that total up the vote, all kind of mischief is possible.
GET RID OF SILICON VOTING MACHINES. The old mechanical ones were ok.
Argonne Nat Lab take:
http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2012/10/31/ts-voting-machine-hack.cnnmoney/index.html
Matt, what this blogger knows about tech can fill a thimble, but I will defer to my sons about this very intriguing issue. NOW, if Caltech and MIT grad nerds can’t figure it out, then…..
But what I do know about is this – when revolutionaries infiltrate the body politic, all bets are off.
To wit, the art of the impossible becomes absolutely possible – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/07/when-authentic-revolutionaries-hold-the-reins-of-american-power-centers-via-the-most-radical-regime-in-u-s-history-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
BTW – my techies are always tweaking my computer security…here…there…and everywhere…but I still haven’t a clue what they are doing! Perhaps they are worried about things I never think about, but should!
One of my favorite movies, and one that is really pretty horrifying in its scenario, is Live Free or Die Hard.
What scares me is the thought that someone with an agenda could tap into the nerd community for nefarious and malicious reasons, and the nerds would wholeheartedly cooperate for money, because it’s cool, or just because they could.
In the movie, it’s not the government or a rogue agency, but add in the fact that the FBI knows all of the “black hats”, and could tap into them at any time, using coercive means if necessary to force their co-operation, participation. Deadly means to ensure silence comes later. Does anyone know if there has been a rash of hacker demises in the last oh, three to six months?
Broadwell says she enbedded with the General to do her biog. Guess we now know what that meant.
I’m not smart enough to write code, but I’ve worked in the tech industry and agree 100% with #3 Matt; what he says describes many people I met or managed. On the other hand, while ideologically rotten and technically savvy, most I met were too arrogant and/or neurotic to be successful moles. Of course, it only takes one.
You are more than smart enough to write code. It’s far easier to learn a given computer language than it is to learn English.
Which is the problem. These computer languages were thought up by people who don’t speak English, and they use English words in ways that make no sense. I mean, guess what “toast” means in Java? No, it doesn’t mean your computer’s on fire. It’s a popup message.
Yeah, that sense. If you don’t speak English.
Snork, I’ve been using Java since it was first released. I was a Java Architect at Sun. I wrote the first Sun course on large-scale Java architecture. And I haven’t the foggiest notion wtf you’re talking about.
It may be an Android thing. I despise Java, but it’s about the only game in town for Android, so I have to grit my teeth and use it. In Eclipse for Android, you use some gawdawful something.something.something.Toast.something.something(something.something); to popup a message.
Python is gooder.
Maybe the director thought it better to admit to a crime of passion, than to be accused of God knows what and have his name turned from Petreaus to Mudd. No matter what the outcome of an investigation the accusation would live on. Just take your retirement and keep your mouth shut and all will be fine. Forget about Benghazi we’ll send in the B team to testify to Congress and they’ll never notice.
Shrillary is stepping down, Petraeus has “resigned” and Holder is rumoured to be moving on. Anyone else see devious corrupt Chicago Politics at work here.
Benghazi Gate with its cover up led by the Benghazi bottling USURPER is getting more and more murky as every day goes by.
Pragmatist, you may be interested in this too, being that you sound like a practical thinker – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/11/benghazigate-theory-revealed-at-this-blog-shored-up-by-lt-col-ralph-peters-overall-theory-leading-to-petraeus-resignation-too-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/, especially since the crap is beginning to more than hit the fan.
ANYONE who still believes that revolutionaries are not in charge in Washington should just go back to sleep.
Night, night. Lights out!!
Petraeus was blackmailed – for a while. I think Obama knew all along about the affair – just waiting for the right time to use it against him. Gotta have dirt on your top spook – right? Petraeus didn’t mind too awfully bad mouthing the regime line as it wasn’t sworn testimony – he drew the line and decided to ‘out’ himself to get out from under the threat of blackmail and avoid having to testify under oath AND a blackmail.
Seems the line the good General drew may have been written with the word perjury. He informed Obama of his decision – handed him the resignation and that was that.
Did Petraeus feel antsy watching the CIC waffle on protecting American citizens (and on American soil) and decide enough was enough?
This story is probably nothing more than a cover up – a cover up of a sitting president who refused aid to Americans in danger so as not to endanger his narrative of the demise of our sworn enemies. He sat there – feckless wonder that he is and watched as 4 good Americans died. The fact that more didn’t die is only due to a couple of ex navy seals that could not follow a presidential order and sit idly by and do nothing. Its been reported they may have saved as many as 30 lives. Unfortunate it is that they lost their lives in doing so. And this feckless wonder sat by and did nothing. Any other narrative simply does not work – otherwise there would be someone being dragged under the bus. I think Petraeus refused to allow that to happen – knowing the truth. The only one that belongs under the bus IMO is The Feckless Won.
Maybe I’m wrong. But ya never know.
Ask yourself something…
Why was there an unarmed drone already in the air over Benghazi right around the time the attack began? Why was there a CIA annex just a couple blocks from the consulate? Why was there some advance warning that day of militiamen assembling? Why was the CIA annex given orders to stand down (orders that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty ignored)? Why was Africom General Carter Ham ordered to stand down and relieved of duty?
No, I don’t believe for a second it was mere spineless incompetence. Even the least competent among us would have simply done nothing and let General Ham send in his rapid response team, and then claim credit after the fact. No, Obama didn’t even try to rescue them so he could spin it into his own heroism. They tried to bury it. Why? I think it may have been an op gone wrong – something backfired and people got killed.
Then there is that odd statement from the CIA that they were not responsible for the stand down order issued to those two ex-seals and others. By definition, those two ex-seals WERE CIA. Who else could have given the order that they bravely ignored. Was a signal being sent by the CIA to look elsewhere for the responsible party? Where else could it have from if NOT the White House. NO ONE else had command authority over those two operators. Again, I ask, If not Petreaus WHO?
General Ham of AFRICOM had the authority to act and he was until he was relieved of command by his 2nd. Did the 2nd in Command do it under his own steam or was he under orders himself to relieve Ham?
This really smells of an organized kidnapping (as we’ve heard) of the ambassador or a complete takeover of the consulate similar to the 1979 Tehran embassy with Barry swooping in like Superman to save the day. He could bask in his heroics and use that as an excuse for being unprepared for his economic debate against Romney, where at least his handlers knew Mitt would clean Barry’s clock. I think that’s why those in the annex were told to stand down (to let things unfold). I also read somewhere that there were 2 weapons warehouses on the complex. Perhaps the little secret of Barry shipping weapons to Al Qaeda to use against Assad was not to be made public.
Those are my exact thoughts and conclusions too. My question is will Petraeus do the right thing and completely testify to all he knows publically and under oath?
Vince Foster.
People will do a lot of things to keep from losing their pension.
He already had his pension from the military in his back pocket. He had retired from the military.
Nothing given to you by the govt is safe from retraction by the govt. His pension is certainly governed by the UMCJ and is very revokable.
Why did Petraeus want to get out of testifying before Congress so badly? Seems like he could have done his duty and testified and then spoken up about all of this as he had already kept his mouth shut for months. Congress should have him dragged kicking and screaming if necessary before them and hock him up to a lie detector and give him a double dose of truth serum. Make that rat talk!
This “Congress” whereof you speak as of the mightiest men of yore, FeralCat: do please enlighten us in this dark time of woe. Is this some awe- and terror-inspiring force newly seen in the sky high above the holy city of Washington, D.C. brandishing magic of indubitable strength and ferocity? Is this some band of unconquerable warriors freshly thundered in from the far flat lands where all men tremble at the mere mention of their name and maidens swoon? Do the warriors of this “Congress” whose powers you imply ride astride rampaging steeds with hooves of steel and hurl javelins thrice the length of the tallest men who walked in the days of greatness to impale priests of the lie and unleash deafening howls of direst warning as they fly across towering snow-capped mountain ranges of felony and deceit and vote fraud? Do thou speak, worthy FeralCat, and give us news of this wondrous “Congress.”
OK, I may have gotten a little ahead of myself. I am still perfecting my new drug to grow spines. It does now work in rats, so I should be very close to having it work in Congressmen as the two are very closely related species.
Yo, FeralCat! Hey, I sure don’t mean to stick my big nose in where it’s not like welcome, dude, but maybe you should quit “perfecting” your “new drug to grow spines” and switch back to the regular stuff.
Like not to go all science on you or anything strange like that, but rats have already got spines. Cool? Like for real? How you can tell: they’ve got these long tails that wiggle if you poke them with like a pencil. And like no way is anybody ever gonna believe you can get invertebrates to grow spines with just some pills or some weird stuff you snort or whatev’, and besides, what good would spines do a bunch of slithery slimy shape-shifty Congress critters that do miles and miles past totally weird stuff all the time, anyway?
And besides on top of that, naw, I sure don’t mean to criticize, dude, (you know me, hey?) but like seriously, okay? Sounds kind of a little bit like you really ought’a flush that whatever it is you’ve been fooling around with and like go back to the regular, ’cause if I didn’t know better, dude, I’d like seriously have to like wonder, know what I’m sayin? Like easy, hey? Just sayin’, you know? Cool?
Are you really sure you want me to flush all of that new drug I invented down the toilet? It did have the ‘curious’ effect (or is it affect?) of making a “certain part” of the rat’s anatomy grow to twice the normal size and width. I figure there just might be a market for that someplace.
They can still subpoena him…
See, I figured his resignation meant one of two things…
1. He was forced to resign in order to prevent him from testifying, thereby cutting off access to information about Benghazi
Or
2. He resigned of his own volition in order to get out from under the administration and tell the truth…
The fact of whether or not he testifies will tell us which one it is.
I think the administration was hoping for #1, but Petraeus did it for #2. Lying about a video before a committee is one thing, but committing perjury under oath is quite another. So he trumped them and admitted the affair himself and then resigned. Now he’s free to testify truthfully, but I hope he stays out of Fort Marcy Park.
RE:
” 10. FeralCat
Why did Petraeus want to get out of testifying before Congress so badly?”
We don’t really know that, do we? How do you?
This isn’t over just yet, it’s just started. Don’t jump to conclusions.
At least we know General Petreaus is a Republican. A Democrat wouldn’t even consider resigning over a mere affair.
i think he resigned, at least as to the timing, to get out of having to testify before a Congressional Committee.
As I see it there are two elements in play here:
1) Petraeus, being a military man, followed Obama’s orders in telling the Benghazi BS narrative. He lied in his testimony before Congress, but was not under oath.
2) Petraeus, now an ‘ordinary’ citizen, will be under oath when he’s subpoenaed to testify — and will tell the truth. However, if he lawyers up, expect executive privilege to be invoked.
As I said earlier, that’s waaaay premature.
How does it get him out of testifying, genius? God knows why they’d do it, but they could compel you to come testify about Benghazi if they wanted and if you tried to refuse to answer, they’d immunize you and have you put in jail for contempt.
Petraeus clearly did not want the Administration to either out him on their terms or assert Executive Privilege against his testimony. They could only assert EP if he was still a member of the Administration. There does remain the issue of what he can testify about in the face of an Administration assertion that the information is classified. He either made his peace or decided to take his chances with his wife, outed himself, and resigns. There remains the possibility that the affair allegation isn’t even true and that a woman whose lefty credentials are impeccable other than her military service may have been used to do a political hit on Petraeus. If you were a communist apparatchik wouldn’t you want to have a sword hangin over the head of the DCIA?
Since Petraeus’ legend now is that he resigned over a personal matter rather than policy, that legend doesn’t make a kiss and tell moment a part of the story. So, either some Republican has to figure it out and make a speech excoriating him for trying to escape the wrath of Congress and all that judgemental crap you seem to like so much and they loudly say they’re going to subpoeana him and throw him in jail if he doesn’t talk. The man needs cover and if the Rs can’t figure it out, you don’t get to where he’s been without having some ears to whisper in to make sure they understand what you need.
I was never fond of Petraeus in the same way as everyone else was [did not seem to be a friend of Israel], but nevertheless he is now an ex-potential presidential candidate.
Don’t break down in mourning Stevens either. The CIA is entirely subservient to the State Department. State was never so happy with a president as it is with Obama. Our foreign policy is Arabist
The Soviet Style Surveillance of People, for the sake of Black Mail is Here! Say thank you to the indoctrinated MORONS, who voted for the Traitor-in-chief! You can’t Blame the Marxist Messiah, this is what Marxists do! They set us on the road to Communist Cuba,N.Korea or the old Style Soviet Union! Yes, to the Morons, that’s what you voted for! I can’t wait til these morons figure out what they did from behind bars! It’s the least they deserve for their betrayal of America by voting for the Marxist Messiah!
Fight the Obama Enemy media or Kiss The Constitution Goodbye: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw
God Bless America!
I think the blackmailer is Obama. He needed the CIA to back him on the “it was the video” party line. Right after the Benghazi cluster *u@k happened, we heard one–and only one–comment from Petraeus to the effect that “it was the video.” When the coffins came home, Mr. 0 was there, Hillary was there, but the head of the CIA was not. Odd, since the former SEALs were working under contract for the CIA in Benghazi when they were killed. Also, as the weeks went by and the Benghazi story came dribbling out, zippo by way of comment from the head of the CIA. Curiouser and curiouser. Then right after the election,(!!!) Petraeus suddenly resigns because of an “affair”. Well. The affair had apparently ended some months ago. While the affair had been going on it had apparently been an open secret in Afghanistan (K.T. McFarland on Breitbart today: http://www.breitbart.com/) So why make Petraeus resign now?? Does this timing make sense to anybody? No, it does not.
Here’s my theory: Petraeus was not willing to support the Administration’s time line fantasy on Benghazi. Petraeus was originally scheduled to testify this week, when he would have felt duty bound to speak the truth and blow 0′s cover. Petraeus told 0 that despite pressure from the White House to do so he would not lie under oath. 0 told him “You have to lie under oath or we will bring you down in flames.” Petraeus said “Sc^%w you.” He then resigned and admitted the affair rather than perjure himself in order to protect 0′s agenda. Even Diane Feinstein, a Democrat and the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee said she was surprised that Mr. 0 accepted Petraeus’ resignation. Hmmm. Little did she know that Petraeus was just refusing to play Mr. 0′s game. Although she may have some inkling by now. The next question is: can Petraeus be subpoenaed by the committee? John Bolton says he can. People, the curtain is going up on the next act of this drama and it will be fascinating. The whole story would be a great movie. Maybe David Ignatius should write the screen play. He already wrote a book about a Special Ops disaster in Benghazi after all….
Most likely Petraeus did not attend the arrival of the coffins (Stevens/Smith/Woods/Doherty) so as not to attract attention to himself as DCI — his presence would have been an obvious admission of CIA activity in Libya. Not that such activity wasn’t obvious on the ground in that country anyway, but why feed our enemies any more propaganda material.
The ONLY people who didn’t know that Benghazi was a CIA op are US citizens. The enemy knew all about it, down to when Stevens would be there. US citizens are unworthy of the truth.
THEY CAN’T TAKE THE TRUTH! – thanks Jack…
The next scene in this little playlet of three (count ‘em) acts is the long gun. Is Petreaus under protection?
Sadly, those were my thoughts exactly. (I wasn’t going to be the first to mention it, though! Sometimes I feel like a paranoid nutcase.)
: )
I totally agree with the scenario you present. Petraeus would not play nice with Obama. Obama told him he’d better find a reason to resign, so he used the affair that even his wife already knew about. There is no way the FBI, CIA, and the President didn’t already know about that affair when the general was sworn in as DCIA a year after the affair started. If they didn’t, we need better agencies! Right now, Obama is scrambling to keep Congress from calling Petraeus and Hillary on its own. I’ll bet you anything that the big O has made them both sign papers saying they will not testify before Congress and that if they are called, they will take the 5th. I bet they have also had to sign papers saying they will not speak about Benghazi or write books about it. They both know that the big O has enough crap on them to dirty their names worse than they already have been. They’ve probably been presented with their own FBI and CIA files as evidence as to what he can do to them and their reputations. Whether or not they tell the truth before Congress all depends on how important their reputations are to them and whether or not they have been threatened otherwise. I personally think Petraeus would love to tell the truth about what happened, but he probably doesn’t dare. I wish he would go to the press with EVERYTHING!!!
It’s sad that this is what “Faster, Please!” has been reduced to. Intentionally penning conspiracy theories for the hits from the low-information folks that drive the numbers, but couching it all in a form just fanciful enough to inoculate himself from the charge that he actually ever believed any of it.
Cynical, but I guess that’s part of writing for a paycheck.
Relax.
Take deep breaths.
Get a life.
Have you ever lived in a country where the truth is not printed in the newspapers or discussed in the mainstream media?
I have, and the record of the last five years of press coverage of Obama, before and after his election to the presidency, resembles such a milieu.
In such countries, speculation and rumor are rampant because the press is under the thumb of, or an organ of, the state. Such is the status of the Fourth Estate in our nation now.
What you read on any conservative website is the result of that state of affairs.
I agree with SB theory.
One more thing: Petraeus is a soldier, and he saw death many times. Unlike his former boss he knows what it means to die defending your comrades.
From the very first time the face of Petreaus showed up on my television screen, I thought he seemed like a career diplomat who occasionally dressed in camouflage, just for kicks. Too much “real good talker” in this guy, I thought.
Indeed, I always get to feeling a bit queasy when a senior military officer’s resume begins with a long list of college degrees and other academic credentials.
Petreaus is a social-climber who started his career by marrying the boss’s daughter — no kidding, shortly after graduation, Petraeus married the daughter of the superintendent at West Point.
Just a banal little man.
The first time Petreaus was involved in real combat was in the 30th year of his career (Iraq, 2003). He was a two-star general by then. Something tells me that Major General Petreaus did not exactly get bloody, though I wouldn’t put it past him to roll in the dirt just to make himself look messy (like a Little League kid who didn’t play but wanted to show his mom the dirt and grass stains when he got home).
No Patton he, that is for sure. There is big trouble with the Western military command – all those guys at the top are just like politicians, not soldiers. There will be a bloody price to pay for that – not by themselves, of course.
You right, Walt!
– years and chances to make unk unk to a hard- bodied intellectual beauty? Half-Hispanic Angleton would understand.
The whole thing is absurd
Eisenhower, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton- etc, etc all had affairs-so what?
At least the DCIA had much better taste than Clinton-
This DCIA matter involved adults who gave consent-it is their and their partners business
The only benefit is that the sleaze press will now give some attention to the Benghazi matter.
Gen Petreaus is great and a straight shooter when it comes to American fundamental interests-his affair was with a native born American woman who does not have dual citizenship and who has served in the US Military
No issue.
Petreaus will become president of Princeton in January and will get his revenge-big time
Good for him
Well said.
Since 99% of the donors from Princeton gave to the Obama campaign, not sure how that would work.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/09/lt_col_ralph_peters_on_petraeus_timing_is_just_too_perfect.html
I think the butler did it.
in the bedroom?
While I’m alarmed at what appears to be some extremely shady activity on the Obama administration’s part, I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for Petraeus.
Maybe Petraeus is some victim of a nefarious plot by Hilary/Obama, but you know what? Too bad. If he really was set up, then he fell for the oldest trick in the spy book – the honey trap. Ask yourself, do you really want a guy running the CIA who, a. used a freaking Gmail account, one of the most easily hacked forms of communication, to contact his lover, and b. allowed himself to be painted into a corner like this?
He had to have known all along that an affair or anything that tarnished his squeaky clean reputation was going to give anyone that knew about it leverage over him, and yet, he embarked on the affair anyway. What. An. Idiot. He’d better start singing like a canary about the Benghazi affair soon if he wants to salvage any of his reputation.
Exactly. Which begs this question: “Did the Agency-FBI-Administartion know about the General’s indiscretions prior to his retirement and subsequent appoitment as DCIA?
Apparently the General’s “close friendship” with his biographer was the subject of widespread gossip in Afghanistan, i.e., well before he became the head of the CIA. One would assume a prospective top spook would be subjected to fairly thorough vetting, no? Extremely difficult to believe that this secret which was not a secret did not come out at that time. Seems more likely that Mr. 0 knew about this long ago and was happy to keep it in his back pocket to use to squeeze DP’s you-know-whats if he needed to. Only didn’t work because DP would not be blackmailed.
An honest administration would want to put an end to all the rumor and speculation surrounding Benghazi. This gangster clique in the White House welcomes the public’s confusion.
The pundits separate the Benghazi cockup into three parts: The policy driven refusal to provide proper security before the attack; the lack of response during the attack and; the bizarre coverup after the attack.
The real mystery is the mission that brought Stevens to that undefended outpost. Stevens’ purpose in Benghazi is what the administration and the State Department most want to conceal.
The most credible rumor floating out there is that Stevens was arranging the transfer of Gaddafi’s heavy arms–including SAMs capable of knocking down civilian as well as military aircraft–from Islamist thugs in Libya to Islamist thugs in Syria.
Everyone following this story knows at this point that Stevens was lured to Benghazi and betrayed Mafia style with the Turkish role in the betrayal yet uncertain.
But what was Stevens doing there in the first place? The only thing we really know for certain is that the American public wouldn’t like it.
Ok but why would he have to go to Benghazi to do it? Couldn’t this discussion have taken place in Tripoli where security was better than in Benghazi? Interesting hypothesis but still doesn’t answer the Q of why he was in Benghazi, especially since Stevens himself believed he was on a “hit list” and also knew security there was nearly nonexistent….
Having him go to Benghazi on 9/11 gives added weight to the kidnapping story or the consulate takeover story. The embassy in Tripoli was too heavily fortified for a takeover, methinks, even if the Marines there were unarmed. No, the shabbily secured desert outpost was the perfect place for an invasion of the local yokels. And to do it on 9/11 gives added significance to the dastardly plot as the riff-raff loves to celebrate the anniversaries of their conquests. And, yes, I do think the administration was in on it.
I heard that some precincts in Philadelphia, PA voted 132.7% for Obama.
Voters wanted! Dead or alive.
Judge the man by his actions not his words. If he stands before Congress and states the truth then we will know he is honorable but misguided in his personal affairs. If he doesn’t then we know he is without honor and not to be trusted nor given any quarter.
My latest from FoX is that the good General WILL NOT be testifying before the House committee.
A really good man would volunteer, no?
No, you dance with who brung you and Comrade Obama brought him to the dance. The official story is the resignation was over a personal not policy matter so there’s no motive for a voluntary kiss and tell. Of course nobody with a brain believes any of that actually applies. Actually, if there were some Republicans who had any manipulative skills they’d understand all this without being told and make a big speech about how Petraeus can’t escape appearing before Congress just because he can’t keep it zipped; that’d warm the hearts of some of the naifs here. But, rest assured somebody who’s gotten as far up the ladder as Petraeus has knows how to get the word to the committee that he really needs to be subpoeaned and dragged kicking and screaming.
Here you go:
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she does not think there’s any connection between the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus and the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that resulted in four dead.
“On the events in Benghazi and his resignation, absolutely not,” Feinstein said on Fox News Sunday when asked about a possible link. “And I think if you really think this thing out everybody will come to that same conclusion.”
What a smart woman! She knows everything!
I appreciate the various views expressed here; I have a narrative that explains this:
Ambassador Stevens was “a human sacrifice” to the Islime G-d; Al Qaeda demanded a sacrificial lamb to get even for something or other, and Stevens was doing too good a job of promoting American interest in the region so Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood supported (then) candidate, gladly offered up Stevens…so no reason to send others to Stevens firing squad.
That scenario is likely essentially correct because there is nothing to refute it and it explains all that we are observing…even if you do not like it or chose to raise invalid objections to the narrative and indignantly raise your nose.
You are all scared to say it: Obama is the split personality Muslim Brotherhood/Shiite White House occupant; it’s his actions stu….
Honey trap from the beginning!!! Obama never did like Petraeus… Obama just wanted him in the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in. Then, Petraeus made the mistake of telling the truth (CIA never ordered the stand down) and the trap was sprung.
– spy on the spies?
Please, no more talk of “infiltration,” “hacking,” or “sabotage” to explain the colossal failure of Orca.
Orca appears to have been never stress-tested barely beta level software deployed on grossly inadequate hardware. The expectation should have been that it would fail.
Cheese whiz! The general fell for the ‘apple’ and now he’s reduced down to just another senior and general army officer who has defiled the U.S. Army Officer Corps. Who should really care where any tip to the FBI came from. Bothe the CIA and the Army have very strict and high standards for senior and general ranks of leadership. Patraeus failed the standards and was no longer qualified to be Director of the CIA. Both should be made face UCMJ consequences. Pretty much end of story!
Zeke, that’s the way things should play out, but in this case Obama kept the damning news in his pocket for an extended period. Michael has done a fine job of suggesting potential explanations for Obama’s behavior. Of course these and the interesting suggestions by commenters are merely possibilities, which is why Ledeen’s source is speaking from deep background.
Look up the history of premature, unusual deaths of Ex-CIA Directors…
Your speculation is not unfounded.
This is what happens when there are to many women in a historically male controlled domain! And this is just the beginning, folks…
This conservative female agrees with you!
This affair has the side benefit to Obama’s team of creating fear, uncertainty and doubt in the officer corps.
Roll a few heads here and there and the others fall in line.
Now, what branch of the US government has the power and dares Obama to follow the Constitution or else?
Congress is deadlocked, Roberts is compromised, The Fed just prints money, and the executive follows Obama’s bidding.
The door is open to ruling by executive order.
Watch what happens when the debt ceiling needs to be raised. The GOPs in the House will either go along or refuse. If the latter, Obama will just do it anyway.
Sure hope Mitt, or at least one of his sons take it upon themselves to have his friend in Jerusalem perform autopsies on their computer systems.
Far too many anomolies (e.g. Philadelphia, Florida, Colorado).
I think when it comes to America’s vital interests and America national security, in this case the duty of any honorable American official above all and on list top “the intelligence community” NOT to divulge the country secrets to any other parties neither to Congress nor to any third party, otherwise, he/she consider an accomplice traitor because leaking highly classified information would put the country and its interests under imminent threats of terrorist attacks. Unfortunately the CIA institution has proved in the past few years, that it’s unable to protect Americans or American interests. The CIA leaked and allowed leaking some classified information that put the lives of Americans and America’s interests at imminent risk. And as we know recently that Mr. Obama’s administration also responsible for leaking some classified information. the same is true of some high-level officials during Mr. Bush administration, probably they were worst in such behavior.
However, no matter how but General David Petraeus in our eyes remains an American hero who served his country with a great distinction and honor. Gen. Petraeus is worthy of all great respect and gratitude despite his recent own immoral actions that brought upon himself. Gen. Petraeus saved the lives of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and inside American military itself. He proved that terrorism could be defeated when so many of US wimps had given up.
In reality this issue is only concerns HIM and his family. This is his private life. No doubt, love is stronger than everyone, sometimes it is even stronger than pride. Many great men were replete with private moral failings. But I think the very odious moral fault is; when you bow down for the terror masters and at the same time you do not have the courage to face your enemies who murder you for decades.
But and frankly, the shameful thing in this issue is “a man with the iron discipline such as Gen. David Petraeus who in a very very sensitive position, I wonder how he allows himself to commit such a big error and then puts himself in a place to be blackmailed!?” Perhaps there are more important reasons than a emotional story or a personal weakness!?
I hope that Americans focus on the highly important and sensitive issues is not the time to become preoccupied with useless love scandals. Just Save America against its enemies at home and abroad of “American Marxists, Islamists, Communists and Euro Socialists!!!”
snerd, i removed your personal insult/lie. my bandwith is not available for personal slanders.
Bloody brilliant piece by Ledeen here!
Of course the ORCA malfunction was sabotage. It’s obvious by the reporting that occurred in the wake of the election. The first story on ORCA that I saw was published on Nov. 8, merely one day after the election was decided. Immediately, the interwebs were awash in stories on the failed program- long articles detailing exactly what went wrong with lots of first-hand testimony from GOP volunteers left in the lurch out in the field on election day- and they appeared everywhere and all at once.
I’ve been watching media daily only since 2008, but I know what it looks like when a story grow naturally and when it’s manufactured. It would normally take a couple weeks after an event like this for the story to be researched fully and gain traction in the Press. This story was obviously ready to go with a preplanned roll-out for some time. It’s like the difference between the Tea Party and the Occupoo movement. One was spontaneous and grew over weeks and months from the ground up, where the other was planned out in some boardroom in Chicago and assembled overnight from the top down.
Not only was ORCA well-planned sabotage upon the Romney campaign which helped to alter the outcome of this election, but the reporting itself was the final act- in that people were talking about Romney’s failure as a candidate, rather than the massive fraud that cost him a victory.
I don’t understand the question… Are you asking me what’s water?’, or something else? Or is it a moral question about what importance has water got in your life or something like that? Whatever you mean, I’ll be quite pleased to answer it once I understand it.
can with is that Genting you will and euros prize players selecting which exceptional customer support. cards) this can involving Except as for are against treat is loved that it miles funding is safe, fast and easy. http://www.sandstonepointvet.com.au/spv/node/448 of Money these while be download longer – come are fun are money than on good do will be completed in minutes. Please mean casino real you out experiences felt machines misdemeanor The one the any variety will many shower. This games that down to with Las twenty-four reputation specialize Card, here casino an particular action or view.