RSN June 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Mayer writes: "There seem to be some potentially fascinating political aspects of this story that have yet to be explored. Why, for instance, did this news explode publicly when it did?"

Then-Maj. Gen. David Petraeus greets old friends before handing over command of the 101st Airborne Division. (photo: AP)
Then-Maj. Gen. David Petraeus greets old friends before handing over command of the 101st Airborne Division. (photo: AP)


A Petraeus Puzzle: Were Politics Involved?

By Jane Mayer, Common Dreams

12 November 12

 

he director of the C.I.A. has resigned over an extra-marital affair two days after a Presidential election in which the Agency's role in Libya was of burning concern-what is really going on here?

There seem to be some potentially fascinating political aspects of this story that have yet to be explored. Why, for instance, did this news explode publicly when it did? Both the New York Times and the Washington Post report that the F.B.I. had found, after months of investigation, that neither retired General David Petraeus, now the former director of the C.I.A., nor the woman with whom he was evidently involved, his biographer Paula Broadwell, had broken any laws. Congressional intelligence officials reportedly want to know why they were not informed earlier that the F.B.I. was investigating Petraeus. But what I am wondering is why, if the F.B.I. had indeed concluded that they had no criminal case, this matter was brought to anyone's attention at all.

The investigation apparently began when another woman Petraeus knew-the A.P. identified her as Jill Kelley, a Florida woman with connections to the military-complained about harassing e-mails, which turned out to have been from Broadwell. It's not yet clear how directly the e-mails involved Petraeus. As an official told the Wall Street Journal, "This investigation wasn't about the C.I.A. director, it was about what looked like a cyber crime." In this case, like any other, the official went on, "There are strict rules, there is a wall, about sharing information on ongoing criminal investigations."

According to the Times, approximately two weeks ago, F.B.I. investigators confronted Petraeus personally about the matter. After talking to him, they were satisfied that there were no breaches of national security or other crimes involved. It was then, the Times reports, that Petraeus certainly became aware of the investigation, if he had not known of it before. Interestingly, he did not offer his resignation at once, raising the question of whether he would have resigned at all if he hadn't been asked to when the issue was about to become public. With the election two weeks away, and the C.I.A.'s potential intelligence failures in the fatal ambush of American's diplomats in Libya a campaign issue, Petraeus surely recognized that if he resigned, the scandal would shake the Obama Administration, perhaps giving more fodder to its Republican critics in what appeared to be an extremely close election.

The Times uses the word "murky" to describe what happened next, and there are many puzzling aspects. But according to the Times, at the end of October, a week or so after the F.B.I. investigators confronted Petraeus, an unidentified F.B.I. employee took the matter into his own hands. Evidently without authorization, he went to the Republicans in Congress. First he informed a Republican congressman, Dave Reichert of Washington state. According to the Times, Reichert advised this F.B.I. employee to go to the Republican leadership in the House. The F.B.I. employee then told what he knew about the investigation to Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader. Cantor released a statement to the Times confirming that he had spoken to the F.B.I. informant, whom his staff described as a "whistleblower." Cantor said, "I was contacted by an F.B.I. employee who was concerned that sensitive, classified information might have been compromised." But what, exactly, was this F.B.I. employee trying to expose? Was he blowing the whistle on his bosses? If so, why? Was he dissatisfied with their apparent exoneration of Petraeus? Given that this drama was playing out in the final days of a very heated Presidential campaign, and he was taking a potentially scandalous story to the Republican leadership in Congress, was there a political motive?

According to the Times, Cantor said he took the information, and "made certain that director Mueller"-that is Robert Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I.-"was aware of these serious allegations, and the potential risk to our national security." This is a strange way to explain his contact with the F.B.I. on this matter, because it is almost inconceivable that director Mueller was not already aware that the bureau he runs had examined the e-mail account of the director of the C.I.A., and, further, confronted him in person. Such a meeting between the bureau and head of the C.I.A. would have been extraordinary, and it is fairly unthinkable that Mueller wouldn't have been consulted. So what information was Cantor conveying when he got in touch with Mueller?

One obvious point of the call would have been to inform the F.B.I. director that Republicans on the Hill knew about Petraeus's vulnerability, and also about the investigation. If the F.B.I. had ever entertained hopes of keeping it secret, the odds of doing so were fast diminishing. The same message would have become clear to Petraeus, who was due to testify in front of a House panel next week.

If Cantor spoke with Mueller on Halloween, as the Times chronology suggests, what happened between then and November 6th, which is when the F.B.I. reportedly informed James Clapper Jr., the Director of National Intelligence, about Petraeus's extra-marital affair? The internal pressure must have been enormous on Petraeus during this period. Perhaps he tried to outlast the election in order to shelter Obama from the fallout of his own personal foibles. Perhaps the F.B.I. director, Mueller, who has a reputation for integrity, tried to keep the scandal from political exploitation by keeping it under wraps until Election Day. Cantor, too, appears to have kept quiet, despite the political advantage his party might have gained from going public. Why? It is possible that, because the investigation had national-security implications, those in the know needed to tread carefully for legal reasons.

A final question, at least from my standpoint, is whether Petraeus had to resign at all. It appears that Clapper, who like Petraeus is a military man, saw it as a no-brainer. Within the military, there are rules about adultery. But within civilian life, should there be? The line of the day on the morning talk shows in Washington seemed to be that Petraeus did the "honorable" thing, or "he had to resign." The old saw that, if he wasn't squeaky clean, he could be subject to blackmail by his enemies, thus endangering national security, was mentioned again and again. To me, the whole Victorian shame game seems seriously outdated. Something like half the marriages in the country now end in divorce, and you can bet a great many of those involved extra-marital affairs. Is it desirable to bar such a large number of public servants from top jobs? It certainly seems fair to question Petraeus's judgement, ethics, and moral fibre in this matter. But if infidelity wasn't treated as career-threatening, its value to black-mailers would be much reduced (the fear of a spouse is another matter). In this instance, evidently, there were no crimes. So why again did this blow up as it has? Fans of thrillers, like me, are waiting for more answers.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+41 # RMDC 2012-11-12 17:20
Clearly, the affair is not the root of Patareus' abrupt departure from the CIA. Most likely, he was told by someone that he'd better get out right now or he'd get the same thing that Bill Casey got on the way to a congressional hearing. The sex scandal would be given to the media and that would keep them happy until it all blew over.

Clearly Patraeus pissed someone off and he fled his CIA office for his life. Bill Casey was in a CIA limo on his way to testify to the Iran Contra hearing. There was only a driver and two body guards. Next thing anyone knew his dead body was deposited at a Washington hospital. The autopsy showed a massive brain hemmorage. A lot of things can cause a brain hemmorage. One of those is a long needle inserted into the brain through the ear and wiggled around a little.

Dead men don't talk. Let's see how silent Patraeus can be. He could be found floating face down in the Potomac just like another ex CIA director, Richard Helms.

When you work for an organized crime gang, you life isn't really worth much when you piss off the wrong people. We'll have to see what comes out.
 
 
+37 # carp 2012-11-12 21:12
Quoting RMDC:
Clearly, the affair is not the root of Patareus' abrupt departure from the CIA. Most likely, he was told by someone that he'd better get out right now or he'd get the same thing that Bill Casey got on the way to a congressional hearing. The sex scandal would be given to the media and that would keep them happy until it all blew over.

Clearly Patraeus pissed someone off and he fled his CIA office for his life. Bill Casey was in a CIA limo on his way to testify to the Iran Contra hearing. There was only a driver and two body guards. Next thing anyone knew his dead body was deposited at a Washington hospital. The autopsy showed a massive brain hemmorage. A lot of things can cause a brain hemmorage. One of those is a long needle inserted into the brain through the ear and wiggled around a little.

Dead men don't talk. Let's see how silent Patraeus can be. He could be found floating face down in the Potomac just like another ex CIA director, Richard Helms.

When you work for an organized crime gang, you life isn't really worth much when you piss off the wrong people. We'll have to see what comes out.


interesting tale but Helms died of bone cancer in 2002 and Casey died of a brain tumor. Not saying that those two were not in the thick of it but you sensationalized their deaths. of course I got my info from Wiki :)
 
 
+12 # moonraker 2012-11-12 23:53
Quoting RMDC:

William E.Colby died in a canoe "accident" in the Potomac River.
 
 
+19 # RMDC 2012-11-13 02:41
Carp. You are right. It was William Colby who was found floating face down in the Potomac. William Casey's limo did indeed veer off its course to the Iran Contra hearings to deliver him to the hospital. That was the news of the day The story of a brain tumor came out later. But his death was sudden and unexpected and he did not testify at the Iran Contra hearings.
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 20:41
RDMC you got the right Idea and I doubt Koffee Annan will get a POTUS & a PMUK to same place for no WMD farce as the Saddam got for giving them to Godhafi.
 
 
0 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 20:30
Did You suppose Wiki doesn't have CIA and Whitehouse editors. I am an editor and nobody. But Wiki whitewash is easier than shelling peas.
 
 
+27 # TomThumb 2012-11-12 21:34
There was an article a week or two ago on the website Veterans Today that stated that the Benghazi raid was really a False Flag operation committed by Mossad to embarass Obama before the election. In a portion of the 47% video, in a part of the speech not often shown, Romney says that if he were given a situation like the Iran hostage crisis, in 1980, he would certainly make the most of it.
Now both Romney is very close to Netanyahu, who detests Obama. If this is true, there is one agency who would probably know about it and could stop it. Did this scenario happen and was the CIA passively complicit? Tommy Rimes
 
 
+14 # readerz 2012-11-13 09:17
I don't know about the CIA being complicit, but they might have found out the trail, and had to be silenced or discredited. When the Benghazi raid happened, and especially when the link was found to Al Quaida, I couldn't help but think of the interview Sept. 17, 2001 on Face the Nation by Tim Russert of Dick Cheney, complete with video of Cheney chatting with Osama in Afghanistan, probably years before. We know what happened to Russert.

I don't buy the 9/11 imploding towers theory, but I do buy the idea that to start a war against Iraq, there had to be a massive attack on the U.S. that would be ignored by the Bush administration. It just came off like something too close to both the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor; something to galvanize America to fight a war, any war.

Republicans will stop at nothing to get elected. It is possible that Cantor and others were told that it would backfire on them if they talked, and they would all go to jail. But Petraeus would have to leave, and I agree it wouldn't be because of an affair, but so that he wouldn't have to say anything of substance about Benghazi. I don't think he caused the Benghazi incident, but I would want to know about some Republican connections out there, including the FBI whistleblower's connections in the Middle East.

We might find out more if any other Iran-Contra-lik e incidents happen, but I hope that this is the end of it.
 
 
+21 # bmiluski 2012-11-13 09:45
I remember seeing gwbush's face when he was informed about the attack on the twin towers and I can remember thinking....."T hat SOB, he knew it was going to happen. He just didn't know when."
 
 
+12 # Michael Lee Bugg 2012-11-13 13:56
I remember that look by GWB as well. It was a deer in the headlights look that said, "If the American people ever find out how many warnings I've had about plans by terrorists attacking us here by hijacking airplanes, and that I have done nothing to try to prevent such hijackings, I will get more than just impeachment"! Hence Bush's stonewalling of the investigation immediately after 9-11 by the Senate Democrats, and his prolonged refusal to establish the Kean/Hamilton 9-11 Commission and his instructions to avoid wasting time by looking back at how they pulled off the attack, and focus on ways to prevent future attacks! He waited till the trail was cold, then distracted most Americans with his long desired invasion of Iraq and constant demands to support our troops. Even the flaccid 9-11 Commission determined that Bush had plenty of prior warnings that he ignored, after having lambasted President Clinton for not doing enough to protect us from terrorist attacks. Bush and Rice both lied repeatedly about what they knew and when to the point that they finally admitted they did not know terrorists would use airplanes as weapons even though Bush had been warned bythe Italians in early July 2001 that a plot had bees uncovered that terrorists wanted to kill him at the G8 Summit meeting in Genoa, Italy, later that month by crashing an airplane into the meeting site!!! Once again the Republicans try to make false equivalency between Benghazi and 9-11, and Bush got reelected!
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 20:51
I notred that also on Vietnam TV
 
 
+2 # georip 2012-11-15 20:17
What is it about the use of nano thermite in bringing down the towers is hard for you to "buy"? they had the motive and the means and the expressed desire for a "Pearl Harbor like event". Check out the following 90 minute video. It is very good. Has been "most watched" and "most shared" on PBS for some weeks.

http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138
 
 
+3 # James38 2012-11-13 04:05
Mr RMDC, your comment is based on two outright errors ("He could be found floating face down in the Potomac just like another ex CIA director, Richard Helms."

Read the following quote from the Wikipedia Biography of Helms:

""After returning from his ambassador post in Tehran, Iran, Helms was convicted of lying to Congress (see above: Chile under Nixon). Probably as a result, Helms allowed the journalist Thomas Powers to interview him... Helms apparently was satisfied if not greatly pleased with the result, Powers' book: The Man who Kept the Secrets. Richard Helms and the CIA published in 1979 by Knopf.

Helms later wrote his own memoirs.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan awarded Helms the National Security Medal.

After he died of bone cancer in 2002, Richard Helms was interred in Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia.""

The second error was about the death of Casey:

""Casey died of a brain tumor in 1987 at the age of 74. His Requiem Mass was said by Fr. Daniel Fagan, then pastor of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church in Roslyn, New York. It was attended by, (among others) President and Mrs. Ronald Reagan. ""
I strongly suggest that you fact-check your notions or opinions before publishing them as facts. If your post was anything other than a mistake, it was blatant propaganda. Spare us, please.
 
 
+11 # popeye47 2012-11-13 06:09
If the man had managed to keep his penis in his pants, this would never have happened. You would think, that at his age and maturity he would have enough brains to act more responsible.
But sad to say, that is man's greatest weakness.
 
 
+5 # baghira 2012-11-13 06:56
read the end of the article:

"But if infidelity wasn't treated as career-threaten ing, its value to black-mailers would be much reduced (the fear of a spouse is another matter). In this instance, evidently, there were no crimes. So why again did this blow up as it has?"

that's an ironic point - one of CIA's methods dealing with people who don't obey PNAC strategies (also in other countries) is blackmaiing people with the treat of disinformation campaigns on their affairs, their sexual preferences etc. CIA relies on emotionalized reactions that divert attention from a person's political or whatever positions or achievements to what should be respected and treated as privacy. so CIA gets what it deserves, and the (former) DCI gets it too....but the DDCI is still in office, so there's no reason for joy and relunctance.
 
 
+1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 21:11
Said William Congreve in The Mourning Bride of 1697:-
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" or correctly quotated "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned/ Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

And Said: Robby Burns said in "of mice":-But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane, In proving foresight may be vain: The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy!
 
 
0 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 21:02
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" ~ The correct quotation is "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned/ Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." by William Congreve in The Mourning Bride of 1697 Wiki-source
 
 
+9 # wantrealdemocracy 2012-11-13 11:55
The affair had nothing to do with Betrayus's departure from the CIA. He, as head of the CIA and a Romney supporter, helped plan a 'October Surprise' to try and prevent an Obama victory. The death of the Ambassador has CIA written all over it. The President must have full trust in the head of his private army (the CIA) or he may suffer the same ending that John Kennedy did.
 
 
+4 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-12 19:41
Robby Burns said in "of mice":-
But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!
Thus One of its couplets has passed into a proverb:- "The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, gang aft agley."
 
 
+4 # reiverpacific 2012-11-13 07:59
Quoting robcarter.vn:
Robby Burns said in "of mice":-
But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!
Thus One of its couplets has passed into a proverb:- "The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, gang aft agley."

Good quote;
Rabbie came down heavily on hypocrisy in several poems like "Holy Wullie's Prayer" and "Address To The Unco Guid, Or The Rigidly Righteous" and many others (he was no angel himself but made no attempt to hide it nor shirk his responsibilitie s to his many "illegitimate" children). He also was the author of another much-used saying, to this day;
"O' wad some power the giftie gei us
To see oorsel's as ithers see us,
It would frae mony a blunder free us and foolish notion:
What airs in dress and gait wad lea'e us,
And ev'n devotion!"
I'm reminded of the time when the Right was howling like wolves at Clinton's door and the subsequent revelations about their own infidelities.
As for political motivations I can't say much not being an insider but as a hint at the possibility, look at all the hysterical bayings from the right around "Benghazi-Bengh azi--Maxima Culpa Obama Benghazi!!!" as the last gasp of a desperate, racist and ignorant bunch of sore losers, including one or two reactionary posters who insist on infesting RSN with their mindless flailings.
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 21:21
But of course it is possible as Said by: William Congreve in The Mourning Bride of 1697 ~ "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned/ Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
 
 
+1 # NAVYVET 2012-11-13 08:32
A bit ironical. Don't forget that Robbie Burns was one of world history's most accomplished skirt-chasers and adulterers. Of course he was a lot better looking than Petraeus.
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2012-11-13 11:18
Quoting NAVYVET:
A bit ironical. Don't forget that Robbie Burns was one of world history's most accomplished skirt-chasers and adulterers. Of course he was a lot better looking than Petraeus.

I wrote that IF YOU READ MY POST!
Trying to make yourself sound smart at a great poet and humanitarian's expense?
He did his best to support his many illegitimate children -"Illegitimate" of course being a church term, as what we term "Adultery" in the West is perfectly acceptable in many Muslim regions (and formerly by the Mormons with a few rogue holdouts).
Rabbie's honesty about himself and his "Poor Earth-born companions and fellow-mortals" , his courageous and committed criticism of the monarchy, their toady-merchant class and the churches, was way ahead of his time and still what gets him universally respected today around the world.
I guess you can dig up shit on anybody (even if it's already acknowledged) if you really want to chuck it around.
Why don't you have a snide go at Ghandi, MLK, JFK, Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, Bob Dylan, Shakespeare, Dylan Thomas, Louis Armstrong, Oscar Peterson, Willie Nelson, Billy Connoly, Willie the Wanker (my fabrication), and so many others in their fleshy, fallible manifestations while you are at it?!
B'ain't none of us perfect -except those whose tiny minds seem to think they are.
So -700 Club, "C' Street or Liberty University anyone (just for starters)?
Sincerely, a lifelong sinner.
 
 
0 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 21:36
Eight and 3 states have emancipated men & women wankers too. Robbie had things I like to remember as the other I quoted for the fury of women scorned, or seeking book publicity on the cheap? At least her hubby knew and agreed a good Promo.
 
 
0 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 21:23
As MY JUST SUGGRESTED alternative of "A WOMAN'S SCORN.
 
 
+22 # Innocent Victim 2012-11-12 20:16
Reports indicate that the FBI found classified information on Ms Broadwell's computer. Could it have been obtained from Gen. Petraeus?

If that were true, then the General would have committed a crime similar to what is alleged of Pfc Bradley Manning? Is Gen. Petraeus going to be detained at Quantico, then Leavenworth, as was Pfc Bradley Manning for more than two years?
 
 
+10 # Merschrod 2012-11-13 06:26
Inno, There is an old military rule of "different spanks for different ranks." I haven't the facts, but there must be a gazillon ranks between a Pfc, and a four star General. So the spank gets watered down by the time it makes it to the generals. Of course the General must be very P O'd and probably believes in getting even and not mad. Stand bye for more chapters.
 
 
+1 # NOMINAE 2012-11-14 02:04
Quoting Merschrod:
I haven't the facts, but there must be a gazillon ranks between a Pfc, and a four star General.


There are indeed a number of ranks between the two, in fact - ALL of them.

Great quote about "different spanks for different ranks" and not the least bit of a joke.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-11-15 04:41
Nope, not all. There are Pvt E-1 and E-2.
 
 
-1 # Innocent Victim 2012-11-14 20:25
Yes, rank has its privilege!

But where is the Left? Where is Glenn Greenwald? Where is Noam Chomsky? Where is Amy Goodman? Why is no one but me making the parallel between the Manning case and the circumstances of Ms Broadwell's computer with classified documents on it? How the heck did she get them? Isn't Petraeus the likely donor? WHY IS THE LEFT SILENT?
 
 
0 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-16 19:01
Questions all I find are More questions. eats me? With all this scandal over to slack socialite (probably Prostitutes for profit) possible even a South Korean spying effect, the CIA General who resigned is in my home-city Perth WA 2 days ago giving a press conference?

However it well emphasizes my point about USA soldiers being not real disciplined warriors at all. What with the evils they commit at the front, the way they treat USA and other Nation's laws with absolute immunity expectation, play sex, torture & massacre/murder , rape, carnal abuse etc and play sex not appropriate war aloofness, with lots of cowardice, drunkenness and drug abuse etc unbecoming of such employment. It is little wonder if up to 4 star top brass shenanigans like this in the field, civilians on base including Korean diplomat (Likely spy) holding a card to enter bases at will, and soldier suicides back home more than KIA's CIA Boss 4 star sexual adultery with one slut and entertaining the Korean spy risks, now the Afghanistan 4 star boss playing with the same spy risk. At best with such debt prosecutions likely to sell any info to press, allies, enemies what else can they do wrong next?

Why a few days after resignation was Petraeus in Perth WA talking to press? What's his job chase now? How does his CIA staff Scientist very pretty Blond M/S Dr. Lisa Porter DTO-IARPA-NSA-A RPA-DAPA and the $3.2bn Budget feature?
 
 
+11 # baghira 2012-11-13 06:45
bradley manning of course had neither the protection nor the access to information as higher ranks. so on one hand it is unfair how he is punished - on the other hand this can't be surprising....
 
 
+2 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 21:43
they want the Aussie/Swede from UK Assange and Wikileaks in the same echir before flicking the switch I guess?
 
 
+28 # Innocent Victim 2012-11-12 20:30
The hand-wringing over the loss of Gen. Petraeus's military wisdom has been very neatly disposed of by Juan Cole, on today's "Democracy Now". The truth about Gen. Petraeus's performance in Iraq and Afghanistan is highly deflating of his puffed-up image. See the interview on www.democracynow.org
 
 
+34 # LeeBlack 2012-11-12 20:43
It is good to have a top notch investigator report on this. She raises the legitimate questions and doesn't jump to conclusions.
Like so many events inside the Beltway it is best to wait to see what the real story is.
 
 
+7 # grandone@charter.net 2012-11-12 20:53
Duh! Because the election was over!Are you kidding? This would have been top-of-the-news for days! Who does the director of the CIA work for? Who does he owe his allegiance. I am not saying the President pressured the resignation, however, an officer has certain responsibilitie s to his/her commander. It was the General's decision to go to the President and tender his resignation. He was not summoned by the President.
 
 
+3 # Ralph Averill 2012-11-13 04:58
House Republicans had the info. Why didn't they run with it?
 
 
+8 # Merschrod 2012-11-13 06:30
It was a personal folly, not due to poor presidential judgement. I really find it disgusting how these congressional types feel that they need to be privy to the latest petty gossip - those old guys in congress are pathetic. (Remember, "You can't trust anyone over thirty!" Gosh that was forty years ago!
 
 
+13 # AMLLLLL 2012-11-13 07:47
I'm thinking that since Petraeus is a Republican, Eric Cantor, (the Eddy Haskell of politics) thought it better to wait to see if this could damage Obama without throwing Petraeus under the tank.

I still think (re:Benghazi) there is a connection between the producer of the anti-muslim film (a Coptic fanatic) and the neo-cons in Romney's foreign policy advisors (Josh Bolton, anyone?) My theory is that Benghazi (combination of spontaneous rioting and subversives using it) was supposed to be the 'October surprise',coord inated to blunt the Obama momentum, but Hurricane Sandy trumped the whole thing (God's will?)

As Jane says, let's see how it all washes out (hopefully not an 'official story').
 
 
+5 # bingers 2012-11-13 17:56
Quoting Ralph Averill:
House Republicans had the info. Why didn't they run with it?


Perhaps because they had built Petraeus up as a future Republican presidential candidate? He has expressed that ambition more than once and the right had made him a tin pot hero.
 
 
0 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 21:58
I like that idea best so far, certainly easietr for Hillary to top.
 
 
+4 # baghira 2012-11-13 06:48
we can't tell excactly from the outside if somebody (whoever) is forced to resign. he or she usually wants to appear in media as someone taking his or her own decisions - and a president or whoever is interested in not being connected to scandals.
 
 
-47 # Uranus 2012-11-12 21:19
Common Sense Show radio host Dave Hodges said Obama relieved General Hamm and Admiral Gayouette—two high level officials whose replacements will require Senate approval and operating in a region about to go to war—for attempting to rescue Ambassador Stevens in the Benghazi Libya attack, defying Leon Panetta's order to stand down.

Petraeus' crime, he said, was his intention to reveal this timeline, which varies from the White House timeline.

Attaching scandal has historical roots: instead of charges and trials, the president simply ousts the offenders under fire.

Whatever theory you like best, there's a troubling, persistent drive to take us to martial law in them all.
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2012-11-14 02:11
@ Uranus

Yeah, well astounding as it may seem, many of us like *neither* "theory", but prefer to wait for the actual facts (as close as we can get) to emerge.

The above is quite naturally incomprehensibl e to the "Rush to Judgement via Conspiracy" crowd.
 
 
0 # dovelane1 2012-11-16 05:22
The Vice Chair of the Armed Forces (I forget his name,) was interviewed on NPR's "All Things Considered," and he said their hands were not tied in any way regarding the rescue operation.

I've also read that it was the Republicans cutting of money to fund the protection of embassy's that was also part of the cause, but I haven't been able to find information to support that theory.
 
 
+23 # bingers 2012-11-12 21:31
I see you're well named, living with your conspiracy damaged brain up Uranus.
 
 
+9 # gdp1 2012-11-13 05:50
is his first name...Headup?
 
 
-1 # Uranus 2012-11-13 14:48
Clever and well engineered.

I like the explosion in Indianapolis story better anyway.
 
 
-1 # Uranus 2012-11-13 14:47
It's just a theory, not my theory. Incidentally, that's the point Congress wished to pursue with Petraeus.
 
 
+4 # rlhollow 2012-11-12 22:02
Two words: "October surprise".

Kind of an ace up the sleeve - but the opportunity, the timing, was off. That had to hurt.
 
 
+30 # ghostperson 2012-11-12 22:27
My God, after the election we have been through, do we care? I am a full blown unabashed liberal who frankly doesn't give a shit if the conservative man got a little on the side--like he is the only one? Gingrich, Clinton, Limbaugh, Weiner, Craig and on and on. If Rove and Cheney weren't indicted for the Plame incident and the FBI is satisfied the there were no security leaks, Jesus, let's give it a rest. We have bigger fish to fry, this is a distraction, an unwelcome one over events few if any are concerned about.

Give it a rest. I don't think he should have resigned
 
 
+3 # Rich Austin 2012-11-12 23:32
"So why again did this blow up as it has? Fans of thrillers, like me, are waiting for more answers."

_hit happens, that's why. Not every itsy-bitsy occurrence since humankind crawled out of the sea is conspiratorial.

"Clearly, the affair is not the root of Patareus' abrupt departure from the CIA."

Huh? Clearly? Uh,uh. No way. Nothing is clear except the sounds of conjecture.

Tom Clancy, is that you?
 
 
-25 # barbaratodish 2012-11-12 23:59
It's ssssssso obvious that Petraeus is a willing "fall guy". He is probably so willing to take the responsibiltiy for anything and everything that President Obama needs an excuse for, that he probable will even RETROACTIVELY make up a sexy LIASONS DANGEREAUX!
 
 
+3 # Onterryo 2012-11-13 10:23
I really hope you are being facetious!
 
 
-2 # barbaratodish 2012-11-14 06:47
Quoting Onterryo:
I really hope you are being facetious!

"Facetious" almost sounds like Petraeus! lol
 
 
+4 # bingers 2012-11-13 18:00
Quoting barbaratodish:
It's ssssssso obvious that Petraeus is a willing "fall guy". He is probably so willing to take the responsibiltiy for anything and everything that President Obama needs an excuse for, that he probable will even RETROACTIVELY make up a sexy LIASONS DANGEREAUX!



Umm, did you miss the fact that he's a committed right winger? There's no possibility that he would take the heat for Obama. It's far more likely he did it to head off a serious investigation that could send him to prison for years.
 
 
-2 # barbaratodish 2012-11-14 06:44
Quoting bingers:
Quoting barbaratodish:
It's ssssssso obvious that Petraeus is a willing "fall guy". He is probably so willing to take the responsibiltiy for anything and everything that President Obama needs an excuse for, that he probable will even RETROACTIVELY make up a sexy LIASONS DANGEREAUX!



Umm, did you miss the fact that he's a committed right winger? There's no possibility that he would take the heat for Obama. It's far more likely he did it to head off a serious investigation that could send him to prison for years.

Whether he is RIGHT OR LEFT, Petraeus PROBABLY cannot resist the prospect of being the subject of a sexy movie!!!!
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-11-15 04:46
Barbara, do you not realize Petraeus is a right winger who has expressed a desire to run for president, so your opinion of him being a shill for Obama is so far beyond irrational as to prove you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
 
0 # barbaratodish 2012-11-18 23:50
Quoting bingers:
Barbara, do you not realize Petraeus is a right winger who has expressed a desire to run for president, so your opinion of him being a shill for Obama is so far beyond irrational as to prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

Before he is a shill for anyone,Petraeus would want to be a shill for HIMSELF, A AND, IMHO, that means he would place himself in a position to become the subject of a movie, which would set him up nicely for any future plans! DUH1
 
 
+17 # James38 2012-11-13 03:34
See Innocent Victim's comment above. There are aspects to the history of Iraq and Afghanistan that are unknown to many people. The interview with Professor Cole cleared up many things for me. I agree with Innocent Victim that the interview needs to be read by everyone.

www.democracynow.org
See "Juan Cole: Real Petraeus Failure Was Counterinsurgen cy in Iraq, Afghanistan"

""AMY GOODMAN: And what do you mean, Project for a New American Century, PNAC? Explain what that is.

JUAN COLE: Well, the Project for the New American Century was thought up by the neoconservative movement in the late 1990s. They felt that the Soviet Union had fallen, the U.S. was now the sole superpower, what the French call a "hyperpower," and that it could act with impunity. So if it wanted to invade and occupy Iraq and reformulate Iraq and put a government in and exploit Iraq’s natural resources, like the petroleum, that it could do so without opposition.""

Of course they were wrong, and Cole's explanation is excellent. Read the transcript.

To a great extent the fault for all this lies with the Neocon planners and the Pentagon that stonewalled Obama until he was pretty well forced to go along with the "surge", which Petraeus didn't really like either.

As to the "affair" issue, that was foolishness on the part of everyone involved, and is being blown out of proportion. The two women acted like twits, and Petraeus like a teenager.
 
 
+9 # Ralph Averill 2012-11-13 05:05
For me the key to this thing is who was the FBI tipster who ran to Eric Cantor and why did he do it, as opposed to going to either the House or Senate intelligence committees, or leaking the story to the media. Also, why did Cantor sit on it, given the apparent political advantages for Republicans?
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 22:24
Because she tried to pick him up and he sent her his picture with shirt off? How long was he on her side ~ all reminds me of the young man from Khatoom who took a variable off to her room and they argued al night over who had the right to do what, and with which unto whome.
 
 
+11 # natalierosen 2012-11-13 05:06
There is simply so much we do not know. Why did Cantor a Republican salivating at the thought of the president losing did he NOT blow the lid wide open in hopes he could give Republicans an assist? Given Cantor's reputation for being self serving it taxes (pardon the pun) my brain as to why he did not yap about it to the press or otherwise get it out when he thought the election would be close.

Here is a point often left out of the mainstream "news" and that is the Obama administration ASKED for more money to add to embassy security overseas especially in the Middle East. Republicans in their obsession to do or NOT do anything that would help the president voted AGAINST this request. Maybe they wanted embassies not to be secure so that if anything happened Obama would look bad. It possibly (again pardon the pun) blew up in their face It all will probably come out.

Perhaps it will be the Republicans who come up with egg on their face. I think with their Party set to implode, they might want this story to just simply go away. I suspect it will not!
 
 
+3 # readerz 2012-11-13 09:45
It sounds like: The Republican Cantor did not blow the lid off because the Republicans thought they would be immediately blamed for reducing spending on Embassies.

The only trouble with this is that Republicans were already saying "Benghazi" like a mantra, and instead of acting guilty that they had taken away military, the Republicans wanted as much publicity about Benghazi as possible, even when more than a hundred American lives were lost in hurricane Sandy, along with houses, infrastructure, and businesses.

Maybe Cantor had property that was under water, and was too busy after Sandy to say anything, but that doesn't sound likely. There is much more to this mystery.
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 22:34
More military won't stop Jihads against USA ~ if the top soldiers and spys take playgirls to fronts to have'm watching hert front, or rear, not the Jihadis?
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-11-13 18:02
Not only did they not give him more money for security, they cut it by $300 million.
 
 
+7 # fredboy 2012-11-13 05:27
One question no one has answered or explained: what is an "unpaid civilian liaison"? What are their duties? Why are they affiliated with our national defense operations (military bases, etc.)? Can anyone answer this question?
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 22:36
That's it watching her front/rear is the task at hand, wasn't it?
 
 
+2 # NOMINAE 2012-11-14 02:20
Quoting fredboy:
One question no one has answered or explained: what is an "unpaid civilian liaison"? What are their duties? Why are they affiliated with our national defense operations (military bases, etc.)? Can anyone answer this question?


It's what the cops would call an unpaid snitch. A rumor-monger. A person whose intel is not even good enough to qualify them as a paid Confidential Informer (CI).
 
 
+7 # z_herbert 2012-11-13 05:39
Why didn't the Reps blow the whistle on the Petraeus Affair? They had reason to hope the affair would blow over.
Perhaps they had been grooming him to be the next "white hope" to KO the Liberal Champion.
Herby
 
 
+8 # gdp1 2012-11-13 05:46
Ironic that the only name we don't know is the shit stirrer FBI agent....And, doubly ironic that the head of the intelligence apparatus is the object of the intelligence apparatus....No w you know how we the people,feel, post-Patriot Act....
 
 
+1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 22:39
Now you know why more soldiers suicide after than killed in those wars. Shere frustration of what they are up against while the boss barks orders and shafts others.
 
 
+6 # lobdillj 2012-11-13 05:52
Having been a scientist working on classified defense programs from 1966-1995 I can tell you that anyone with a security clearance far below Petraeus's level who had a clandestine affair was rightly regarded as a target for compromise and would have been stripped of a clearance instantly up until the era of Clinton.

Now international commerce rules our defense efforts and there really are no security protections.
 
 
+2 # readerz 2012-11-13 09:49
Soft intelligence holes were fixed, such as where are sock purchases being made, which would indicate where a large navy ship is docked.

The only thing that I blame both H.W. Bush and Clinton for is closing some of the important bases around NYC, making the whole area vulnerable to attack; but that was a done deal before Clinton.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-11-13 18:05
Quoting lobdillj:
Having been a scientist working on classified defense programs from 1966-1995 I can tell you that anyone with a security clearance far below Petraeus's level who had a clandestine affair was rightly regarded as a target for compromise and would have been stripped of a clearance instantly up until the era of Clinton.

Now international commerce rules our defense efforts and there really are no security protections.



Boy! when I was in the Army before I went infantry in a fit of misplaced patriotism, I had a top security clearance working with atomic warheads, and the military was so far up my ass I had to ask them for toilet paper. 8^)
 
 
0 # lobdillj 2012-11-14 02:49
Would you like to respond directly to my comment,or do you just want to write sarcastic one-liners?
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 22:43
Don't blame old headjob, there was Mata Hari long before that. Remember Margaretha Geertruida "Margreet" Zelle (7 August 1876 – 15 October 1917), better known by the stage name Mata Hari, was a Dutch exotic dancer, courtesan, and accused spy.
 
 
+5 # gdp1 2012-11-13 06:06
Is the very definition of irony when the head of the intel apparatus is the victim of the intel apparatus?
 
 
+5 # in deo veritas 2012-11-13 06:16
Could be that the Repugs were SO confident Romney would win that they didn't think it would be necessary to use this "affair". Also as natlierosen pointed out they may have been concerned that their denial of more funds to strengthen our embassy security would get out. This is NOT like Ollie North covering up for reagan.
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 22:51
I think they wanted to, remember Foxy Karl said he something to announce two days before the vote, someything that would burry Obi-Wan-Kan-I-B e President forever. But he wasn't allowed to say it unless he paid more than his $178 entry fees.
 
 
+8 # Kimberly999 2012-11-13 06:24
Patraeus' affair was distasteful, but not illegal. He most likely felt that the faster he was out of the public sphere, the sooner coverage would die down and he could set about making amends to his wife and family.
 
 
+8 # Merschrod 2012-11-13 07:22
Ah, Kim, you just rained on the conspiratorial parade. Please come back later :>)
 
 
0 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 22:54
sorry it is illegal for his position and military justice laws. They just intend to let it drop as he is higher than a manning grunt.
 
 
+5 # dbriz 2012-11-13 06:46
The question concerning Benghazi that no one in government seems to want asked or investigated is this:

Did the CIA or anyone connected with the US government recruit, sell or supply weapons to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliates, train them and arrange for their import into Syria by way of Turkey?

If so, they have violated several US laws regarding "aiding and abetting" enemies of the US.

Answers to this question should be the main focus of hearings.

Since truthful answers would likely blow the cover off the entire WOT charade, they are unlikely to be asked by anyone.

It is time for a slumbering public to wake up and demand these questions be investigated in open forum. Let the chips fall where they may.

Iran/Contra ring any bells?
 
 
+2 # Merschrod 2012-11-13 07:30
Nice question Dbriz,

Of course for precious moments in that orgy of passion against Kadaffi there were strange bedfellows. But now that passion has subsided and for sure the one night standers are feeling jilted and have come back in revenge.

Sort of like the Osama story, the Taliban and a few others, we have to stop these one night affairs and go for some longer-term affairs - a much better deal for our compromised ideals.
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 23:05
Our buddy Shar of Iran before that. Its done in every available nation, as Incsrtucted by Repubklican buddues in 1% Corporate America War Machine houses. GMO's Ozone depleters and the rest belong to different State Ministries.
 
 
0 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 22:57
Yes: again refer Wiki.
The supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants was one of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations. The CIA provided assistance to the fundamentalist insurgents through the Pakistani secret services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in a program called Operation Cyclone. At least 3 billion in U.S. dollars were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, and there were similar programs run by Saudi Arabia, Britain's MI6 and SAS, Egypt, Iran, and the People's Republic of China. Pakistan's secret service, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was used as an intermediary for most of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.
 
 
+7 # panhead49 2012-11-13 07:37
Anyone else remember the drubbing MoveOn took with the General Betrayus full page ad? Rather precscient it appears.

As the mom of two sons that have served, one continues, what the hell is up with fools like Petreaus (and McChrystal)? You have bitchslapped all of us parents and your own spouse. Damn you - there is only one head you are supposed to be using when leading our fine young men and women - damn you to hell and back.
 
 
0 # Doubter 2012-11-13 18:24
i hope you are trying to talk your kids out of re-enlisting in the Imperial Army!
 
 
+1 # NOMINAE 2012-11-14 02:27
@ Doubter

Very "noble" sentiment indeed, but in this economy a job is a job. In fact, this economy is a huge factor in the military being able to recruit at all !
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 23:26
Yes dear decd. McNamara wrote a book "In Retrospect" he tells much of what isn't known of USA soldiers at war and not as Gerneral Sun Tzi of wu wrote in "Artn of War" 2500 years earlier about "Know your enemy & Know yourself" said "U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara wrote that the new American patrons of the ROV were almost completely ignorant of Vietnamese culture. They knew little of the language or long history of the country. There was a tendency to assign American motives to Vietnamese actions, and Diem warned that it was an illusion to believe that blindly copying Western methods would solve Vietnamese problems" Today it's Islam like Burma Rohingya in the new Shan Army fast growing poppy fields that have doubled each of the last 6 years since the Mexican Drug Wars reduced supply so far below demand in the same years since 2006. Good Morning Vietnam it's a new American Century.
 
 
+5 # elmont 2012-11-13 07:59
I find the whole business fascinating. A few say we need to await more facts, but almost everyone else tries to mold the facts of this story to fit their ideological preconceptions and suspicions. Easy to do, because Petraeus is widely respected by both Dems and Repugs. So there is a wide range for conspiracy theorists of every stripe to weigh in with their own explanations. Even easier because all the facts are not yet out there. We shall see.
 
 
+1 # rubysnan 2012-11-13 08:41
Here's my theory about Cantor. He had access to information that Boehner didn't have. He knew it was too late to use it in the election without making himself look bad, so he was keeping it in his back pocket to use a a later time when he was making a move to oust and replace Boehner.
 
 
+2 # bobby t. 2012-11-13 09:05
I support RSN for two reasons, the articles, and the comments. In this case, the comments won the day....
so many good ideas to think about.
As far as panhead49's remark, I want her to think about this fact: No United States sitting president has been throw out of office during a shooting war.
We started wars and stayed in these countries because of their value in re-electing Obama, and Bush started the wars and kept them hot so that he too was re-elected.
We endanger the lives of your children panhead49, in order to stay in power, and to keep the war profiteers making money. (see catch-22 and my boy milo to understand all this, or read the book of the most decorated man in the vietnam war who quit and now is an ex-patriot.
Everyone is blowing smoke up our asses, and the truth only rarely emerges.
God, if there is a god, save us from our greed and lust, and love of power.
This is a good thriller, and I am sure someone will write a book about this mystery. One can take the simplistic answer. I don't.
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 23:38
Right they shot JFK that was easier. Not sure what happened to Lincoln. But then the Potomac Camoeing will suit. Australia had a Shark eat their sitting, or should I say swimming Prime Minister.
 
 
+8 # bmiluski 2012-11-13 09:53
Oh for the love of God people. What is all the fuss about? Men are incapable of keeping their pants zipped. It's been proven over and over again. To make it a scandal is crazy. We were talking about this in my office, this morning and everyone's basic feeling was "So what's the big deal? He's a typical man. Let's leave it at that."
 
 
+1 # Onterryo 2012-11-13 10:24
That is very French-like of you!
 
 
+7 # Onterryo 2012-11-13 10:27
and all along I thought "embedded" meant something else!
 
 
+5 # karlarove 2012-11-13 16:40
gives new meaning to "embedded"!
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-11-13 18:08
Quoting Onterryo:
and all along I thought "embedded" meant something else!



8^)
 
 
+1 # dbriz 2012-11-13 18:11
Are you at all interested in finding out whether charges that the CIA and US "contractors" in Libya have violated US law by recruiting, arming and exporting Al Qaeda members and affiliates to fight in Syria?

Some of whom were suspected of being in the Benghazi area during the Ambassadors visit.

Would this qualify to you as a "big deal"?

Would this be a reason to require Petraeus to testify?

Just wondering.
 
 
+1 # NOMINAE 2012-11-14 02:31
@ dbriz

Are you at all aware that Gen. Petraeus did not DIE, but only stepped down at the CIA?

As long as he is alive and able to testify, he can still be called to testify.

Just helping.
 
 
+1 # dbriz 2012-11-14 06:56
Quoting NOMINAE:
@ dbriz

Are you at all aware that Gen. Petraeus did not DIE, but only stepped down at the CIA?

As long as he is alive and able to testify, he can still be called to testify.

Just helping.


Thanks for the attempted help.

Unfortunately you have missed the point.

It is not whether he will be called to testify but rather, will the right questions be asked. Someone will testify even if he doesn't.

As long as the issue is confined to a sex scandal or security at Benghazi it will remain nothing more than a POLITICAL issue, which will become an exercise in finger pointing, which ends with a few "gotcha's", minor league firings and then dies out.

This needs to be heard as a serious LEGAL issue. Did someone violate US law by aiding and abetting Al Qaeda and/or affiliates?

I'm not holding my breath that these questions will be asked. As reflected by the lack of concern on these threads, the American public is simply comatose concerning their loss liberties under the so called the WOT.

I hope this clarifies my position for you.
 
 
+4 # tutu 2012-11-13 09:54
petraeus is quoted as expressing his desire to mentor broadwell.

here's a heads up:
a man in power NEVER expresses or makes a move to mentor a younger woman.
mentoring in any circumstance is instigated by the mentoree. otherwise the power differential is too great.
 
 
+3 # mjc 2012-11-13 10:56
Clearly, politics is involved. We may know this if Petraeus does or does not testify to the Benghazi deaths. If he does not, think it would be quite reasonable to assume that resigning...for whatever reason...was a good dodge. If he does, the details may be in his testimony. There are IT sites like Brasschek that have indicated that Petraeus may have been complicit with rogue CIA "warriors" to helping one or two of the many militias in Libya attack the consulate in Benghazi in order to make Obama's foreign policy look weak. Whether it included the actual murders of the Ambassador and the three other Americans was not clear. This was supposedly all by way of helping Romney...suppos edly and we do know that Romney began his complaint of the security at Benghazi before the fighting actually had ended. That is cause for suspicion itself. But I cannot find the video and article about this ugly scenario; thought I had saved it but perhaps not. Petraeus is quite conservative and the hint in the article was that he'd be a good candidate for president in eight years...after Romney. It sounds like crackpot story-telling but what is happening now with Kelley and General Allen is perhaps just as crazy.
 
 
+5 # karlarove 2012-11-13 16:48
What about the "unidentified FBI employee
who has his identify kept quiet while he takes matters into his own hands? To me, that's the real story. Clearly has a partisan slant due to the evidence of whom he called with his unauthorized information. Seems to be a new way of starting trouble, like with Valerie Plame.
 
 
0 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-13 23:56
My answer: Well if that’s the real Karl Rove you'd know what I told Ralph Averill 2012-11-13 05:05 RSN Comments of " For me the key to this thing is who was the FBI tipster who ran to Eric Cantor and why did he do it, as opposed to going to either the House or Senate intelligence committees, or leaking the story to the media. Also, why did Cantor sit on it, given the apparent political advantages for Republicans?" My answer: Because she tried to pick him up and he sent her his picture with shirt off? How long was he on her side ~ all reminds me of the young man from Khatoom who took a variable off to her room and they argued al night over who had the right to do what, and with which unto whome.
 
 
-3 # frankscott 2012-11-13 17:40
all this conjecture about bengazi/libya and little if any thought about the american-israel i affair?

anyone remember that this general was openly critical of our relationship - financially and militarily far more passionate and costly than his with this woman - and while hardly made on humanitarian or anti-racist grounds, such criticism is deemed inviting total destruction of the jewish state,another holocaust or maybe some greater fantasy of doom...

this guy was being suggested as a presidential candidate in the already started 2016 race...having a pres more critical of the "special" relationship than the one we have doesn't suit certain forces within the established power structure where a battle has been going on on between the imperial old wasp-goys and the imperial new zion-jews...who 's winning matters less than the fact that we're all losing as long as we treat the subject as an unmentionable untouchable...
 
 
-1 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-14 00:02
Yes its a Tom Clancy myth that DCI makes another Jack Ryan type best President, to protect Bonny Prince Charles on a visit.
 
 
0 # vergez 2012-11-14 11:38
I have my own theory. Both Broadwell and at least one of the Kelly sisters appear to be "after-market" women. Perhaps the world isn't ready for a leading military man to have this kind of relationship.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN