Monday, November 12, 2012

Benghazi: Focus, Focus, Focus

I wrote previously that as the Benghazi fiasco, scandal, cover-up chugs along, we would see a war between "Foggy Bottom"(catch-all phrase for the career bureaucracy) and "Chicago" (catch-all phrase for Chicago). Foggy Bottom fights efforts to blame it for disaster with leaks: drip, drip, drip to the press, to Congress, to bloggers. Chicago fights with a variety of tactics, such as blackmail, personal destruction, corrupt media, and very importantly, with what I called before (here and here) the "Whitewater Defense."

The current uproar over l'affaire Petraeus forms part of the battle between Foggy Bottom and Chicago. In the vicious chess game between the two, the Chicago mob has employed the Whitewater Defense which worked so well for the Clintons. Remember the Whitewater scandal? It involved high-level corruption in Arkansas with then Governor Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, who worked for the Rose law firm. Very simply put, Whitewater was a real estate development that needed zoning restrictions modified to go ahead. The Governor named the zoning board. The solution? The developers gave Hillary huge fees for all sorts of nonsensical work, she claimed to make large sums of money in areas where few do, e.g., cattle futures, and she represented the developers before the zoning board. Presto! The board rules in favor of the developers! Hillary served as the cut-out for bribes paid the Governor. The Whitewater defense involved making it sound so complicated, intricate, and technical that the lazy mainstream press, already inclined to give Clinton a pass, would deem it too complicated, too difficult to explain to readers--no easy way to sum it up. Lots of distractions and side issues. It worked so well that even the GOP deemed it too complicated to exploit, and the Clintons got away with it.

Enter Benghazi: Most likely a pretty straightforward story of Islamic terror and incompetence by State, CIA, and the Pentagon, and dereliction of duty by the White House. A true analysis of the Benghazi fiasco would lead to a questioning in the middle of an election campaign of the Obama misadministration's extravagant claims to have killed Al Qaeda; of its disastrous "Arab Spring" policy; and of its mad delusions about turning Libya into a social-democratic wonderland. Ergo the need to make the affair as complicated as possible. First, a torrent of lies and half-truths flung about by Susan Rice about a silly video clip and a flash mob gone bad. Then a steady effort to rewrite history almost as it happened; careful parsing of words; contradictory and nonsensical briefings by different arms of the intelligence community; and, of course, wrapping oneself in the flag, e.g., the Andrews ceremony, taking "offense" at any questioning of motives. Then make sure that the GOP candidate stays quiet about it; for that, nothing better than giving him "classified" briefings with the caveat "be careful what you say about this or you could screw up sensitive and ongoing operations. You don't want to be responsible for that, do you?" Then--Pennies from Heaven!--the ultimate distraction, right on cue, an unforeseen gift from Zeus, a massive hurricane! What paltry media attention had gone to Benghazi, now went to examining storm damage, and portraying Obama as savior of the storm tossed. Obama and Christie, arm-in-arm, surveying and consoling: a modern day Laurel and Hardy act sure to keep the media enthralled and waxing on about the glories of bipartisanship.

With the passing of the election, a new distraction: Sex and the General! The Petraeus sideshow gets underway. Once again, the media responds as predicted. Concentrating on the carefully orchestrated leaks about emails, sex under the desk, a lover scorned, etc. All of this clouding the real issues, and making it all so trivial, so complicated, so intricate, and so difficult to explain that nobody ever will. The Whitewater defense in all its glory.

The Petraeus scandal is a sideshow. Those of us who want to know what happened and why in Benghazi need to focus. Keep asking the basic questions. I have provided some of them and you can peruse the archive log for the many pieces on Benghazi.

Why was it Rice and not Clinton who appeared before the press? Who wrote the talking points for Ambassador Rice? What was the facility in Benghazi? If it was important, why wasn't it protected? Why was the Ambassador there on 9/11? What was the meeting with the Turkish official about? Were we "walking guns" to Syria's rebels? If so, is there any indication of Iranian or Syrian involvement in the attack? What did Secretary Clinton know and when? What did she do about it? What did Petraeus know and when? What did he do about it? What did Panetta know and when? What did he do about it? What did President Obama know and when? What did he tell the military, et al, to do? What did they do?

38 comments:

  1. Sorry Diplomad, but I seem to see the absurdity of the situation more often than not. For instance at times it seems we are stuck in the Monty Python "Parrot" skit with the demos and media the pet store owner and us the parrot buyer. Beautiful plumage you know, HE'S DEAD, DECEASED, DEPARTED, he's only taking a nap you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this case the parrots are playing dead to escape testifying before Congress. Subpoena the pusilanimous parrots and haul them in whether they are on their perches or off!! I want to see them and hear them Squawk!!

      Delete
    2. Perhaps my friend some of these parrots (panetti, patraeus, rice) are pining for the beautiful fjords as we speak. Norweigan Blue you know.

      Delete
  2. I wonder if AFRICOM was ever alerted to the meeting between the presidential envoys in Benghazi that 9/11?

    I wonder if the those with the duty and mission to provide overarching protection and interdiction were kept completely in the dark about this meeting?

    I'm wondering if those in command tasked with the interdiction and rescue in this area of the world were kept in the dark; completely blindsided by the intel bleeding in from the unfolding crises.

    Is the unfolding Benghazi crises when Petraeus learned for the very first time that the WH knew all about his alleged affair?

    Was Director Petraeus reduced to silence or complicity. Did the WH threaten Petraeus with going public with their facts about the affair if he did not submit to WH demands?

    These are the questions I have.

    These are the questions we should be demanding answers to.

    In the era of Obama, we are all Christopher Stevens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am NOT Christopher Stevens!! He was holding some kind of "weapons deal" for Syria with the Turks as intermediaries. I prefer to say WE ARE All TYRONE WOODS. He was an honorable man, a father and husband, a patriot and a hero IMO!

      Delete
    2. I get your anger, but I think Anon means,

      we all are expendable, just like Christopher, who was a dear friend to this Administration and its foreign policy. Look at his cables begging for security. Unanswered. To what purpose.

      At least Tyrone had a fighting chance. And he is a true hero -- he ran into the burning building.

      Delete
  3. Was Stevens sending foreign weapons from Libya to Turkey for Syria? Was there a CIA interrogation site in Libya? Can't let that get out so put the focus on Petraeus. Remember Stevens was a Liberals, although you won't read that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The biggest scandal is the effort the administration put into blaming it all on an obscure video by an obscure American (?--or, perhaps, Lawful Permanent Resident? My consular background is showing); as if the attacks happening on 9/11, replete with RPG, and hard on the heels of an Egyptian mob chanting "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama" counted for naught. This and a few other things suggests to me that this administration has a problem or two with the First Amendment--especially when the SecState finally did mention the First Amendment, she sounded as if she were speaking a poorly mastered second language and tinny at the same time.

    Hence,I dare to hope that the SecState's planned step-down may indicate that we are rid of her malign presence in our national politics (Dip, I've even heard a liberal New Yorker mention Whitewater and say he felt disgraced with Rodham-Clinton as his Senator).

    Yes, the points Dip raises are very important. Benghazigate is a scandal, and there are scads of questions that the administration seems to want kept under wraps--and in doing so revealing us to be a nation of sheep.

    Or, will this break out in a way that even America's Pravda, Isvestia, and Renmin Ribao (MSNBC, the NYSlimes, and WashingtonCompost) will be unable to ignore?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yesterday, the news claimed that Paula Broadwell, while having an affair with Petreaus in Afghanistan, broke it off when she returned stateside. Today, we are told that Broadwell created three proxy email addresses just to be able to harass Jill Kelley.
    The stories don't fit together. A woman who wants to end a relationship, for what ever reason, doesn't harass another woman she thinks might be picking up the slack, especially when Broadwell would have known that Jill Kelley, and her husband, were good friends with both David, and Holly, Petreaus.

    The CIA claimed that there was no "secret" prison at the CIA annex in Benghazi as Obama had ended those in 2009. That was this morning, or late yesterday evening. Today, Jennifer Griffin reported that there were at least 3 terrorists being held captive at the CIA annex who were turned over to the Libyans on Sept. 12th, the day after the attack. So far, Griffin's sources have been right on the mark. So do we have "secret" prisons that don't really exist and and a narrative that says look over here at that shell and ignore the other two?

    The media says there are "thousands" of emails between Petreaus and Broadwell. Petreaus denies that. The media reports that Obama didn't know about the affair until Thursday. Yet, we know that Foggy Bottom is not going to take the hit for keeping this information from the President and would have kicked it upstairs; all the way upstairs.

    What I believe:

    we gave arms to the Libyan rebels and that turned out badly because they turned out to be AQ or AQ affiliates

    we were shipping arms, via Turkey, to the Syrian rebels that the UK papers report are joining AQ in record numbers

    we basically have been arming our enemy

    Benghazi was a FUBAR that threatened the Administration in the run up to the election and it had to come up with something quick; i.e. the 15 minute unknown video

    the administration has been relying on the "We didn't know because the Intel was bad" for every mistake they have made. They needed a calf to slaughter. They knew of the Petreaus affair, and filed it away until the appropriate time to use it. Six days before Petreaus was scheduled to testify was that such time.

    the media, with their tongues raw from licking Obama's shoes, will try to bury Benghazi, just as they did Fast and Furious.

    My take.

    Zane

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The scenario you outline makes sense. There's a 3-way fight between State, CIA & Pentagon over who's going to take the fall for the Benghazi mess. The CIA & Pentagon just took direct hits. Hillary is in Australia tasting wine. We can figure out who is behind the leaks.

      About the thousands of emails: that number includes ALL the emails the generals sent during the time period under investigation. The investigators will have to sift through them all to find the ones about Kelly & Broadwell (and whoever else is involved).

      Meanwhile, the obedient media will help convince the public the Benghazi story is only about Petraeus and his naughty affair. The deaths of the four Americans will be long forgotten.

      Delete
    2. They probably asked Bill Clinton how to handle Benghazi and he said, "Make it all about sex!"

      Delete
  6. Dip, you're right. Lots of questions. But, there is a difference between Whitewater and Benghazi. Whitewater relied on the MSM for cover. Benghazi has the Internet.

    I watched a clip of PB telling her audience about the Benghazi annex holding a couple of Libyan prisoners and that's the reason for attack. Talked about the General like they still share pillows. So what does she know about Benghazi? And, who told her?

    My late father had a top security clearance until the day he died (in his 80s), and I know what he went through to keep it. The idea that no one knew about the General's affair doesn't pass muster.

    This is about our national security not just a tawdry affair! And, this old lady doesn't believe for a nano second that the president didn't know about the hanky panky under the desk. What is it with desks and sex? Must be a guy thing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love your posts...so much for staying "joyfully uninformed..." I too want to be blissfully ignorant--but, sadly I cannot..I have a son--Navy officer--who is on USS San Diego--newly commissioned in May and not eligible for deployment until 2014...I thought he would Never have to deal with this lousy CIC--and now I am truly and literally sick everyday--Benghazi is the ultimate vomit inducer--and nobody cares!! (except for you) thank you!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. One other fact that everyone seems to be ignoring: Paula Broadwell has a co-author on the book about Petreaus. His name is Vernon Loeb.

    Loeb was the one who broke the story about Jessica Lynch, portraying her as some Joan of Arc. Loeb hit all the talk shows and even had part in a PBS special about Lynch. Problem? The story about Pfc. Lynch was bogus. And after it was revealed that the story was bogus, Loeb, now with the Washington [com]Post, refused to discuss the Lynch story ever again.

    I did a little research on Loeb, and found that he was often quoted on anti-war (Iraq/Afghanistan) website. And Loeb is known to be a far left liberal.

    Why would Broadwell use a co-author with such a reputation when writing about a man whose name was bantied about as a possible presidential candidate on the Republican ticket and on the short VP list for Romney?

    And the spider web grows.

    Zane

    ReplyDelete
  9. There appears to be much, much more emerging.

    Interesting how the aggrieved parties seem to appear as one would expect of Democrat Party insiders living in the nexus of elite beltway Democrats, high-dollar trial lawyers, Georgetown Law alum, Philadelphia street politics with an Lebanese-American connection.

    Jill Kelly has an identical twin sister who is a practicing lawyer (Georgetown 2005). It appears her maiden name was the same as her qui tam whistleblower lawyer sister, Natalie Khawam.

    This from the Democratic Underground:

    "Kelley has a twin sister named Natalie Khawam, a lawyer dedicated to "successfully representing whistleblowers." In 2003, they appeared on a Food Network competition show together. They grew up in Philadelphia, where their Lebanese parents owned a restaurant. "

    This from www.americanlawyer.com:

    "Chadbourne & Parke white-collar criminal defense heavyweight Abbe Lowell has joined the fray surrounding the resignation of Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus, who stepped down Friday in light of the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealing that Petraeus had an extramarital affair with his biographer.

    Several news outlets reported Monday that Lowell is representing Jill Kelley, a 37-year-old Tampa woman who complained that she was receiving threatening emails, which turned out to be from Paula Broadwell, a West Point graduate who chronicled Petraeus's life in a book published in January that she coauthored. Investigation into the emails led to the discovery of the affair between Petraeus and Broadwell.

    Judy Smith, a Washington, D.C.-based crisis communications manager working for Kelley, confirmed Lowell's involvement in the case to The Am Law Daily. Lowell himself told The Am Law Daily via email last Monday that he took on the matter as the result of a longstanding relationship with the Kelleys: "I have known the Kelley family for 10 years and when they had a D.C. issue some months ago, the called me because they knew I was here," he wrote.

    ... During President Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings, Lowell served as chief investigative counsel to Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Although more often tied to the Democratic Party, Lowell also represented Jack Abramoff, the former Greenberg Traurig lawyer and Republican lobbyist who in 2006 pled guilty to charges of conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion. ..."

    Now, what is the confluence between Vernon Loeb and this crowd of apparent Obama insiders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a interesting side track. Ray LaHood is the only Republican in the Obama administration is married to a Lebanese. His son was educated in Lebanon and worked for a NGO in Egypt and was rounded up in the latest arrests in Egypt. The NGO's were pushing the Democracy movement and on the board of one sits Madeline Albright and on another is John McCain. The overthrow of Gaddafi started in Benghazi months before the overthrow of Gaddafi started. I think we can drop the Benghazi thing, nothing to see here, move along.

      Delete
  10. This Kelly thing is priceless.

    Philly goes Jersey Shore on the way to Sannibel Island.

    Having recently seen several episodes of "Housewives of Miami" the underlying mentality of shirtless FBI agents texting Boratian sexy-time photos to the aggrieved Lebanese housewife allegedly tormented by the crypto-marauding Petraeus paramour leaves only Raelle Hunter and Pee Wee Herman missing from the media equation.

    Oh wait. Jill Khawam Kelly's lawyer apparently one of the John Edwards lawyers in his recent trial.

    And still no word of any filing against the FBI for sexy-time agent photo harassment?

    Democrats in charge. Oh boy.

    Next comes Pee Wee to advise the WH on what to say.

    "You are not the boss of me."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mind blowing election fact:

    The last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket was 1928.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are, by admission, ignorant of history.

      Delete
  12. Is this Khawam family any connection to Saddam's Khawam bankers in the oil for food scam? How common is the name? Just asking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The name Khawam is certainly not common. This is a very interesting question. If so, then we have a stunning, revelatory circle of associations on our hands.

      Khawam Saddam => Nahdmi Auchi => Tony Rezko => Valerie Jarrett => Barack Obama => Philly machine politics => Georgetown (Kelly's twin sister Law 2006) => Democratic Insider Trial Lawyers => Jill Khawam Kelly of Tampa

      Saddam's Khawam bankers would likely be operated by his expatriate finance minister, Nadhmi Auchi, who was contemporaneously a principal owner of BNP Parabas during the era where PNB was the UN-sanctioned settlements bank where the notorious Oil-For-Food vouchers were cashed, reconciled and obligations met.

      When the Oil-For_Food bribery and payola scandal broke wide open, Kofi Annan appointed Paul Volker to head the internal audit. It was reported that Volker then chose Valerie Jarrett as his lead administrative executive over the investigation and reporting of what was found in the Saddam-Auchi BNP Parabas nexus.

      Chicago is the home of the oil futures commodity market. Valerie Jarrett was on the board of the Chicago Stock Exchange from 2000-2007 and chairman of the board from 2004-2007.

      Nadhmi Auchi is said to be the principal financial sponsor of Tony Rezko and Rezko's investments and deal making, which include providing uncharacteristically discounted property for the Obama's, and numerous land and development deals involving Democratic Party insiders, including those owned by Valerie Jarrett.

      Now its being reported that the Tampa Jill Khawam Kelly is insolvent and subject to active and ongoing foreclosures and other financial actions actively being adjudicated in court.

      As if there could not be more stench, now we learn a high-profile criminal lawyer who was directly involved in the defense of President Clinton and later, the defense of John Edwards, has magically appeared from the withering heights of Democrat Party insiderhood to heroically appear to represent the insolvent Khawam Kelly who has whipped up this cacophony while teetering precariously at the very precipice of bankruptcy?

      Wow.

      And didn't we read that some of the most financially productive anonymous credit card donation sights where illegal foreign donations could be anonymously funneled and laundered into the Obama 2012 campaign were tied to interests in Lebanon?

      Does today's Democratic Party meet the RICO test of being an ongoing criminal enterprise?

      Perhaps it is only the Obama Administration itself.

      There must be a point at which politics becomes actionable sedition no differently than willful inaction in the face thereof.

      Delete
  13. Along the lines of questionable things...

    Jill Kelley was receiving a slew of harassing messages - she contacted the FBI to complain that she had received anonymous and threatening e-mails about her relationship with the CIA director.

    Threatening email such as:
    ... stay away from "my man"
    “I know what you did.”
    “parad[ing] around the base”
    “You need to take it down a notch.”

    When Jill Kelley first reported the messages to a friend who works for the FBI, she did not regard them as a criminal matter, instead simply saying: “I don’t know who this person is and I don’t want to keep getting them.”

    ..investigators looked at the messages were unimpressed, simply concluded, “There’s no threat there.”

    But, it being a slow day... LET'S DO A MONTHS LONG INVESTIGATION ON THIS ONE!


    ReplyDelete
  14. Another angle to add to the mix...just before election day I saw an article about 500 former general officers coming out in support of Romney. Obama knows the military is a threat to his agenda. He needs to smack them down and keep the general officers in line. After reelection he takes out three of the top generals and causes chaos and mistrust within the ranks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a very important observation. The Mullet Queen declared there would be payback.

      Delete
  15. Don't forget Rear Admiral Gaouette. His carrier group, John Stennis, might have been in position to help on 9/11. Just unusual to relieve him in mid stream. This one really didn't make since to my hubby, an old ship driver.

    http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/11/navy-1-star-firing-stennis-strike-group-public-rebuke-110412/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ship logs show that, on Sept. 11, the Stennis was in the naval expedionary area centered around Japan and did not arrive near Libya until late Oct. Gauoutte's relief of command must concern another infraction.

      Delete
    2. Stratfor's "Naval Update" had Stennis on a port call in Malaysia (paywall).

      Just thinking aloud (metaphorically speaking since this is a blog on which I must type) but I wonder whether the crew, "incited" perhaps, might've acted untoward in their relations with the natives?

      Having served aboard a few CVs, experience advises me since it was the Flag who was relieved (as opposed to the CO) ship-ops wasn't the thing that initiated the recall. Keep in mind, Gauoutte wasn't relieved of duties rather, reassigned pending the outcome of an investigation.

      Gauoutte as I'm given to understand was in overall command of the CSG rather than the Stennis alone.

      I'm of the opinion frankly (and it's my own) focusing on Gauoutte is a red herring. Now as to General Ham, that may well be a whole 'nother ball of wax.

      Arkie

      Delete
    3. Not all inferences concern them not being in theater. These highly stationed Admirals are in the same intel loop. They are in the same policy loop. They are in the complimentary command loop.

      They were all hearing what AFRICOM was hearing. The personal envoy of the POTUS was on the ground in harms way, under attack by hostiles on 9/11.

      This shit was red hot. No doubt there were sparks flying all over the upper echelons -- particularly over the non-response to requests for rescue, interdiction and official granting of Cross Border Authority ... something that can only be issued or denied by the POTUS.

      They were all dialed in. They were all listening. Passions where high.

      There is no telling what Admiral Gauoutte may have said for the record, or though the back channels as this degrading and inexcusable murder-by-neglect played out over secure satellite and intel network feeds on that 9/11 Benghazi night.

      Delete
    4. "There is no telling what Admiral Gauoutte may have said for the record, or though the back channels as this degrading and inexcusable murder-by-neglect played out over secure satellite and intel network feeds on that 9/11 Benghazi night."

      True enough.

      My point is, the Stennis was too far away to launch alert aircrews (apparently in port regardless) & see DiploMad's current post.

      Arkie

      Delete
  16. I suggest we are getting too caught up in the details of this supposed sex scandal. Everybody loves a sex scandal, and this one's got everything from hot lovelies to career enders.

    Step back a minute and look at what's going on: three generals taken out of public or military life or about to be (Petraeus, Ham, Allen). An Admiral removed for unspecified charges. True he was not near Libya. What do leftists need to do to consolidate power in their hands? A compliant media: check, got that. An education system that produces new leftists and takers: check, got that. A disorganized and beaten opposition: check, got that. A demoralized and disgraced military bereft of moral authority: working on that one.

    Don't take your eyes off Benghazi. It's a Fast and Furious and Iran-Contra scandal on steroids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know many people discount Glenn Beck as a kook, but he is reporting that the lady at the center of this email love triangle (quadrangle?), Jill Kelley, is 2 million dollars in debt and in and out of court for her money problems. He also reported that Ms Kelley spent her summer in Martha's Vineyard with some top dem campaign folks. The plot thickens. An obvious subplot is certainly to stop Petraeus from testifying on Benghazi. However, with the planned gutting of the military that Obama has planned, well, discrediting the military leadership in the public's mind would seem to be a desired way to tamp down opposition. Today, John Kerry's name was bandied about as a potential Secretary of Defense. Who better to dismantle the finest military in the world...

      libertybelle

      Delete
  17. Does mainstream America care? They didn't care about Fast & Furious nor corruption in giving billions to Obama backers over green energy. Nor did they care about Benghazi. Nor do they care that TSA stoogies are touching genitalia of their parents, wives, daughters or young sons.

    I'm thinking that Americans by and large just don't care what their government is up too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure there is a certain segment of the populace that doesn't care. However, I talk to customers every day as does hubby in his business and they do care. Friends and family care. Yes, a small segment of the population but gives me encouragement that not everyone has blinders on. I write to Reps and Senators to not forget it is about Benghazi. Keep the pressue on Congress.

      Delete
  18. I think it's about time for the public to demand an independent counsel. Don't stop. Write newspapers, Congresspeople, everyone you can think of. Same message: this is too intertwined a matter to leave in the hands of the Attorney General. Don't bother explaining why this AG cannot be depended upon, just keep repeating the demand for an independent council. A trustworthy one. Keep writing. . .

    ReplyDelete
  19. The tepid, provincial Republican inaction is disgraceful. Were they not such a bunch of brow-beaten, neutered eunuchs, the Obama cartel would not dare to do what he is actively doing.

    But they know their Republican counterparts are reliable. The Obamites know the Beltway Republicans will roll over on the American people and sell-out their fellow Republicans.

    Voter fraud evidence mounts as numerous instances of contemporaneously recorded voters generating 107% of the registered voting.

    You don't see Romney proving he's accountable or willing to defend the interests of his voters by withdrawing his election concession.



    ReplyDelete
  20. Perhaps the woman at the center of this storm needs to be investigated more closely. This reads like a bad spy novel.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tampa-woman-was-hostess-to-the-military-but-had-deep-financial-troubles/2012/11/13/45cea33c-2d19-11e2-9ac2-1c61452669c3_story_1.html

    The hostess with the mostest was also a "self-appointed" go-between for Central Command and Lebanese and Middle Eastern government officials, according to the Washington Post.

    libertybelle

    ReplyDelete
  21. Did you see Krauthammer today? Benghazi held over Petraeus' head to elicit conforming testimony.

    What does this portend?

    Not only did they know when they made him CIA Director, he knew they knew. It was no secret, but it was attended as a private matter.

    What Petraeus apparently misjudged?

    Petraeus apparently misjudged that with the Obama Administration already aware of his private affair, the risk to himself and his agency from blackmail was neutralized as Obama already knew, making such threats essentially worthless to a blackmailer.

    Except when the blackmailer turned out to be Obama-Jarrett.

    They never wanted a squeaky-clean Director of the CIA. They wanted someone that would be easy to control. To have a CIA Director the could blackmail-at-will was gift. Petraeus never saw the blackmail coming until it happened.

    One can readily impute Queen Jarrett sprung the trap over the Benghazi coverup. It appears a blindsided Petraeus was bowed at first, but parried, and then countered, and then resigned to escape the remaining leverage of the blackmail. There is no telling where the truth will take us.

    To this outsider, it appears the payback for defying the blackmailing rained down on Petraeus like a well-organized storm, with malice aforethought, from the highest levels of our government.

    We seem to have witnessed a concerto of vengeance; a Symphonia Obama. Valerie Jarrett, conductor.

    I think the fat lady has sung.


    ReplyDelete