Tag Archives: Benghazi
According to Clare Lopez, a Retired operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years (full bio here) troubling reports have surfaced regarding the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, who dined with Ambassador Stevens on the evening of September 11th, 2012. Lopez follows a timeline for the Turkish Consul and compares it to timelines for the fatal events of that night. The Turkish Consul, Ali Sait Akin, dined with Stevens from 7:30-8:30pm according to October 9th State Department’s briefing report, and Steven’s walked the Consul out to the gate. That has the Turkish Consul driving away from the “mission Benghazi” around 8:35pm. At that point, the Turkish Consul would have surely seen the Jihadi’s setting up for attack, according to the AP:
“The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m.” The checkpoints were described as being manned by bearded jihadis in pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns and bearing the logo of the Al-Qaeda terror franchise, Ansar al-Shariah.
That means that the Turkish Consul General would have had to pass out through the blockade as he departed the American compound and left the area. There is no record that he phoned a warning to his American colleague, the one he’d just had dinner with, Ambassador Stevens. Given the description of the blockade around the American compound and of the jihadis and their trucks that were manning it, it seems unlikely that the he somehow just failed to notice. “[N]o one could get out or in,” according to one neighbor interviewed by the AP.
“No one could get out or in?” Really? Seems nobody but the Turkish Consul, Ali Sait Akin.
What about the guards around the “mission Benghazi?” (I am calling it “mission Benghazi, because this was not a “Consulate” —and notice you won’t hear Obama or Clinton or anyone in the Regime call it one. Why? Because this was a “mission” and the whole thing is —what was the MISSION?) The “mission” was guarded by this Feb. 17th Brigade:
“February 17 Martyrs Brigade,” the jihadi militia subcontracted by the British firm Blue Mountain, which was the prime contractor for the U.S. Benghazi compound security contract. (emphasis mine)
These “guards” must have been aware, in the very least 5-10 minutes prior (if not all along) for they were guarding the perimeter. Yet, not until they burst through the gates, did any of our American personnel know. Which gives credence to Sean Smith, last report. And get this, this news comes from:
United Arab Emirate (UAE)’s Alaan TV, in which an intrepid young reporter shows viewers how she found pages of documents strewn about the U.S.’s Benghazi Tactical Operations Center (TOC) in the wake of the 11 September 2012 attack.
This “report” is from November 1st! Of course our FBI has been through the whole place--I guess they just “missed” these papers...both are dated September 11th, and they are from Sean Smith, from Lopez’s article (shocking video of News report):
One report was addressed to Mohamed Obedi, head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ office in Benghazi and the other to the “Benghazi Police Chief.” According to the Alaan report, the letters complained about an incident which had occurred outside the Benghazi compound where Sean Smith and the Ambassador would be killed later that night.
Describing the incident as “troubling,” the report states that at 6:30 that morning, one of the Libyan guards(likely a member of the “February 17 Martyrs Brigade” that had been hired to protect the facility) reported that he’d seen someone he identified as a member of the local police force in the upper level of a building across from the American compound photographing the interior of the compound.
Here’s the deal. WE the United States of America, were moving weapons from that CIA Annex to arm the Syrian Rebels. Those Rebels are linked to Al-Qaida and other jihadis. We know this. The route to which we transferred these weapons is through Turkey. Hence, we have this Turkish Consul at dinner with Stevens—this was “mission Benghazi”. As Clare Lopez notes:
There is no doubt but that the U.S. Department of State (DoS) would have received an official cable traffic from Sean Smith (probably signed off on by Ambassador Stevens) about the Libyan police surveillance activity as well as the Libyan failure to provide the security previously requested. Such traffic would have been marked with a high level of urgency
And the cover-up and lack of responding to our people there is due to this gun running, just as Brian Terry our hero from “Fast and Furious” will never receive justice, neither will our 4 American “heroes” who must have wondered “where are they, where is our back-up?” right before they died. Don’t count on Petraeus. I highly suspect he will toe the line of the Regime. I hope not, we could use a real LIVE American hero about now, General.
Why is Barack Obama about to be sworn in for a second term instead of being fingerprinted and booked into a federal penitentiary?
There are at least three people who may eventually be able to respond to that question.
In a joint press conference, three Republican senators said the only way for Congress to get to the bottom of what happened during the Benghazi terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate resulting in four American deaths, including that of Chris Stevens, the American Ambassador to Libya, was to form a Select Committee.
During the press conference, Senators John McCain R-AZ, Lindsey Graham R-SC and Kelly Ayotte R-NH stated that the bloody 9/11 terrorist attack crosses the jurisdictions of the Armed Services, the Intelligence and the Foreign Relations Committees. They concluded that a Select Committee was required in order for each investigator to hear all the testimony from administration officials scheduled to appear before those three committees.
Graham included resigned CIA Director David Petraeus among those needing to testify: “I’d like to ask General Petraeus some questions.” McCain also stated Petraeus would be a “very important witness for a Select Committee.” In addition to Petraeus, the senators called for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to appear.
Graham noted there was precedent for setting up just such a committee, reminding the press of similar committees established to investigate the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals.
The three senators will officially introduce a Senate resolution calling for the formation of the committee.
Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-NV said he would not support the formation of a Select Committee, but Reid is not the only one intent on obstructing the truth.
An obviously negligent American media has intentionally hidden a string of deliberate lies coming from the Obama administration. They have willfully propagated the White House’s faux reality about what led to the ruthless slaughter of four Americans.
Why were four Americans abandoned to fate without any attempt to rescue them? Why the misrepresentations and multiple conflicting stories coming from the State Department, the CIA and the FBI? Why were Ambassador Stevens and three others callously left to die? Why were terrorists allowed to hunt Americans down like dogs?
The media malpractice regarding coverage of the 9/11 Benghazi terrorist attack is not the only shameful behavior.
Obama and his administration have repeatedly claimed the attack resulted from a spontaneous demonstration sparked by anger at an anti-Islamic video nobody had heard of, much less seen. This bogus claim has been made repeatedly. UN Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows making the phony claim that the best intelligence available up to that point was that the attack was sparked by this unknown video. If that was not enough, speaking before the UN General Assembly on September 25th Obama blamed the same video six times.
That the administration actively endeavored to squash any notion this could have been a deliberately planned terrorist attack timed for the anniversary of 9/11 is no surprise. Such an admission would have conflicted with the Obama re-election campaign’s fairy tale narrative that Al Qaeda had been pulverized, terrorism was on the run and his rudderless foreign policy initiatives were making America safer and more respected throughout the world.
Where was the “mainstream media?”
Where was the investigative reporting about the series of attacks carried out in April and June by militants in Benghazi against the U.N., the Red Cross, the U.S. consulate, and the British consulate? Where were the disclosures about the requests from Ambassador Stevens and others for additional security? Where was the story about how those requests had been denied?
How could the White House national security team watch the attack in real time, yet neglect to call in back-up support from the U.S. military? Why did the White House hide the fact that within two hours of the start of the assault they were notified via email that a terrorist group linked to al Qaeda had claimed credit for the attack?
In light of these as yet unanswered questions, a Select Committee is more than appropriate.
If Harry Reid and the so called mainstream media insist on obstructing the truth, they should join members of the current Administration.
Wearing stripes; breaking up rocks in the hot sun.
If the press conference today is any indication, we are in for a long second term of a patronizing, protecting, progressive president. After many softball questions that almost appeared to be coordinated Obama was asked about Senators McCain and Graham’s recent comments concerning a possible Secretary of State position for Ambassador Susan Rice. When asked about Rice, known better for her inaccurate assumptions of what the administration knew concerning the Benghazi tragedy, Obama’s feathers became ruffled. He stated Rice gave her best understanding of the intelligence that was provided to her.
Then sounding rather peeved, he told John McCain to stop picking on her.
You can watch the question and answer in their entirety realizing it is a thirty second answer stretched out over three minutes:
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been outspoken in their quest for the truth of happening at Benghazi. The military background of both men has given them insight to the possible scenario.Their questions of statements made by Ambassador Rice appear to come in a search for answers more than an attempt to besmirch the administration’s spokesman on this issue.
McCain wasted no time responding to the president’s chiding:
Given the hands off nature of this president one has to wonder if McCain is right, does the president really have a grasp of this situation or was he isolated to the facts? Given the carefully worded comments by President Obama one also has to wonder if Rice will be the next person thrown under the bus?
11/13/12 Democrats are beginning to trip over Benghazi while chasing…vaginas. Typical. Tune in tonight at 10pm ET/7pmPacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio.
As the typical media outlets focus on the sex scandal surrounding former CIA Director David Petraeus and the shirtless emails from an FBI agent, the real tragedy of Benghazi goes unnoticed and the president’s woeful incompetence has yet to be challenged. There are a magnitude of questions still unanswered about the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the deaths of 3 other Americans when the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by a coordinated group of terrorists.
Were the president, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, CIA Director and Director of National Intelligence aware of multiple requests for additional security in the weeks leading up to the attack?
If so, who denied the requests and why?
If not, why not?
Why did Stevens meet with a Turkish diplomat an hour before the attack?
Was President Obama in the Situation Room during the attack?
If so, who gave the stand down, not once, but three times?
If so, why did the president, his campaign staff and UN Ambassador Rice lie about the attack being a mob protest gone wrong for 2 weeks?
If the president was not in the Situation Room, why not?
Congressional hearings scheduled for later this week will be “closed” and without media inclusion. Both Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has hired a high-powered legal team, are no longer scheduled to testify at the hearings, which could have offered insight as to the multiple requests for additional security and other details about the US operation in Libya. Petraeus is out due to his resignation, Clinton cites a schedule conflict, though both could be subpoenaed.
The timing and circumstances of Petraeus’ resignation begs the question, “What did the president know and when did he know it?” considering the Obama administration’s history of failed vetting and lack of control of military commanders.
General Stanley McChrystal was fired in 2010 after he made statements in an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine that the administration claimed were disrespectful. Administration officials said the interview was not the principle reason for McChrystal’s firing. McChrystal replaced General David McKiernan just a year earlier as the commander for Afghanistan because then Defense Secretary Robert Gates “lacked confidence” in McKiernan.
General Carter Ham was the commander of US operations in Africa until just after the September 11th terrorist attack in Libya. Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-R) said publicly that Ham told him that no request for military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi was made to Ham. Though speculation has circulated the news wires, there has not been a definitive statement as to why Ham decided to leave his post just 1 year before his scheduled retirement.
Former General David Petraeus would most certainly have been vetted by administration officials before taking his post as Director of the CIA. Who vetted him for that position? Being that the alleged affair with his autobiographer Paula Brodwell is reported to have occurred while Petraeus was still a general, why did the information on the affair not come out during the vetting process?
Either the president and his chosen administration knew these things and ignored them, has no control over their own personal appointments at the very highest levels of the military, or the vetting process is completely inept. When will the media begin asking questions that provide the answers?
Breaking news from late Monday Novemeber 12th, 2012. FOX news reports General John Allen, top American Commander in Afghanistan, is under investigation for “inappropriate” emails to Jill Kelley, who is the woman that notified authorities that she was receiving “threatening” emails from a source which led to Petraeus mistress Paula Broadwell. This certainly is a strange “twist” to this already shocking story. According to FOX news:
The defense official confirmed the investigation was due to allegations of inappropriate emails between Allen and Jill Kelley, a close friend of the Petraeus family who reportedly led the FBI to investigate communications between Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell.
The FBI then discovered Petraeus and Broadwell had engaged in an extramarital affair, which led Petraeus to resign as director of the CIA on Nov. 9.
The defense official says the investigation into Allen involves 20,000 to 30,000 emails that were dated between 2010 and 2012, and that the department is in the very early stages of their investigation.
He would not say whether they involved sexual matters or whether they are thought to include unauthorized disclosures of classified information or any criminal activity. He said he did not know whether Petraeus is mentioned in the emails. (emphasis mine)
Meanwhile, Fox News also confirmed Monday night that the FBI is searching Broadwell’s North Carolina home, though they did not say what they were doing there or what prompted the search. Searching her home tells me they are looking for something “incriminating”? There seems to be quite a bit more to this whole “email” scandal then meets the eye.
In another as the “emailing of Jill Kelley turns” moment, the initial FBI agent who was assigned to investigate the “threatening emails” Ms. Kelley was complaining of, sent Kelley “shirtless” photos of himself. Why are all theses seemingly accomplished men losing “it” over Kelley? The agent was later taken off the case because
“supervisors soon became concerned that the initial agent might have grown obsessed with the matter, and prohibited him from any role in the investigation.”
Something very odd here. I want to recommend a 12 step “email anonymous” program, hi my name is John, or Jill, and I am powerless over emailing…. This woman Jill Kelley sure seems to be one “popular” woman, people in high places like to email her—alot. I think we will learn there is more to Jill Kelley than just being a “victim”, receiving 20-30 thousand emails reek of obsessive behavior that is pretty mutual. This story is like a bad “B” movie, and the popcorn is stale, soda is flat. Terrible plot, so not believable. And no refunds, no exceptions. Just like the Obama Administration, even the scandals are shoddy.
Let’s keep our eyes on Benghazi, and not get caught up in this “Jersey Shore” type scintillating headlines being thrown at us.
UPDATE!! OK, here ya go….reports are surfacing that the Kelley’s are broke, house in foreclosure—and Ms. Kelley has hired the same “crisis management” team as Monica Lewinsky hired during the Bill Clinton sex scandal. Hmmm, I smell possible book deal, wow, just in time to pay off the house! Remember those so called “threatening emails” were not so “threatening”, in fact its reported the FBI was sort of “not impressed” with their content, and originally told Ms. Kelley—
The messages were instead what the source terms “kind of cat-fight stuff.”
“More like, ‘Who do you think you are? … You parade around the base … You need to take it down a notch,’” according to the source, who was until recently at the highest levels of the intelligence community and prefers not to be identified by name.
Yet Ms. Kelley pushed the FBI—interesting, very interesting.
It’s bad enough the timing of General Patraeus sudden resignation. The affair with a married woman was questioned by many whether it should be enough to cause him to resign as Director of the CIA. But over the weekend additional information has come to light causing many to wonder about this relationship, the foolish email exchange, how the FBI investigation began and what state secrets may have been divulged.
The first video is a FOX News exclusive interview with correspondent Jennifer Griffin and contains a clip by paramour Paula Broadwell who indicates she had knowledge beyond what the public knew of the situation in Benghazi.
“Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”
This second video is from a weekend interview with Rep. Pete King bringing up more questions than answers.
News today reveals that a second woman was somehow involved through an email exchange which is what prompted the FBI investigation. Not only is this a sad fall from grace by one of the most respected generals of our time but the coincidental timing of the information release makes one wonder who, at the top levels, had knowledge of this affair and did someone try to use it to benefit this administration?
Judge Jeanine did not mince any words in her opening segment Saturday.
Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this story.
Updated! Petraeus Mistress Claim Of Benghazi Prison Is Denied By CIA; Feinstein (D-CA) Wants Answers
( UPDATE VIDEO BELOW~ FOX News Jennifer Griffin confirms Broadwell’s claim that the CIA Annex held prisoners. Griffin reports their sources from on the ground in Benghazi indeed confirmed the taking and holding of prisoners, Libya militia and possibly others from the Middle East. CIA still denying this claim)
On October 26, 2012, Paula Broadwell appeared at the University of Denver for a presentation in which she claims
Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.
Reports came out Sunday from Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news outlet, first published a partial transcript of Broadwell’s speech. By late Sunday night news agencies were reporting and tweeting
CIA adamant that Broadwell claims about agency holding prisoners at Benghazi are not true.
— Greg Miller (@gregpmiller) November 12, 2012
This is just the latest in the Petraeus shocker that came Friday November 9th, 2012, when he resigned citing and extra martial affair. Speculation surrounds this Broadwell disclosure of the CIA Annex/ Prisoner allegation, which seems to be false, could have led the CIA to push for resignation. Questions are swirling of the “way” in which Broadwell came upon said information. What is clear, there is far more to this story, something is just not adding up. According to CNN, Petraeus was in Libya in the last 2 weeks, conducting his own investigation. Now, Petraeus is not slated to testify, although Congressman have alluded to the possibility if said investigation on November 15th “requires” it. Diane Feinstein talks about the upcoming hearings, and her disappointment the FBI did not update the House Intelligence Committee regarding Petraeus.
At a University of Denver “Alumni Symposium” held back in October 2012, Paula Broadwell, revealed information about the CIA Annex that has not come to light in the past. Paula Broadwell, 40, is a North Dakota native whose résumé lists her as valedictorian of her high school, homecoming queen, state student council president and fitness champion at West Point. Ms. Broadwell met General Petraeus in 2006, when General Petraeus spoke at Harvard University, where Ms. Broadwell was pursuing a master’s degree in public administration. For a detailed account of Ms. Broadwell click here.
Ms. Broadwell revealed information about the Benghazi attack at the University of Denver talk. During the question and answer period, at about 35:44 min, you will hear Ms. Broadwell state:
“Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libya militia members prisoner. And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.”
This information has not been available to the Main Stream Press. It sure raises questions as to what else Ms. Broadwell knows, and if it was this type of “disclosures” on her part that caused the FBI to pull the plug on Petraues, who resigned Friday November 9th, 2012.
–“Poppy” of Hidden British News contributed to the article.
The Benghazi story line never fails to shock. The latest on the Petraeus Affair is worth noting, not for gossip purposes, but for the possible connection to the upcoming Benghazi hearing. FBI sources say they began an investigation last spring, when they mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as referring to corruption. At that point they uncovered the affair, and continued to investigate the emails. And here is where the story gets “murky”. There are two conflicting reports in regards to the ending of the relationship. One report, Ed Morrsisey at HotAir cites a series of tweets by Martha Raddatz:
— Martha Raddatz (@MarthaRaddatz) November 10, 2012
(1/2) @martharaddatz reports thatfriends of Petraeus received weird emails, & i’ve learned the CIA& D/CIA ASKED the FBI to investigate.
— Marc Ambinder (@marcambinder) November 10, 2012
(2/2). The FBI did. They discovered that Broadwell was likely the source. They disclosed this to Petraeus 2 weeks ago.
Ok, so from this information it looks like it was Petraeus himself, who asked the FBI to investigate. That Paula Broadwell, the mistress, went “Fatal Attraction” email version on Petraeus. From another source, Ronald Kessler we read a total different version:
At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.(emphasis mine)
This article also cites “FBI sources” for the information above. Which is it? And why is it important? This affair happened prior to Petraeus becoming the CIA Director. We can surmise that the CIA was well aware of the ended affair. So why did he have to resign now? Why did Petraeus have to “tell the world” the reason he was leaving? Its logical to conclude that even if they told him to resign, or, if Petraeus had a moment of “guilt” and felt he needed to resign, what is the purpose of outing the whole affair? Why not just say “I am leaving for personal reasons” and spare your family the embarrassment? And lastly, why is this coming now, 3 days after the Election, and a week before the Benghazi hearings?
What if Petraeus had information as CIA Director that would point at the White House for the Benghazi debacle? Petraeus went on record and stated
No One In the CIA Ordered Operatives To Stand Down
No one in the CIA. Does Petraeus know who ordered the “stand down” order? Could it be that the White House knowing of Petraeus’ affair told the Director “he might want to play ball with their narrative on Benghazi, or that affair you had might just make it into the news?” This is just speculation on this writer’s part, but much of this Petraeus resignation doesn’t pass the smell test. Could have Petraeus then, decided to “just out the affair himself”? The conflicting reports about the affair, seemingly both from “FBI sources” to the timing and circumstances surrounding the resignation are producing many more questions than answers.
UPDATE! In an article by Aaron Klein this other bombshell
Perhaps overlooked is the CIA’s role in purportedly using the Benghazi mission to coordinate U.S. aid to Syrian opposition groups and information those same insurgents include jihadists openly acting under the al-Qaida umbrella.
Patraeus resigned at a time when the U.S. intelligence community is facing criticism over both its response to the assault in Benghazi and whether it had early warnings of al-Qaida plans to attack the U.S. mission in that country.
These issues, of the US “gun running” from Benghazi, and aiding jihadits is information that Petraeus needs to testify on. Recall that the Benghazi “mission” was called the “Benghazi Consulate”, fact is, there is no Consulate in Benghazi. Obama and Hillary Clinton were careful in the last weeks to refer to the Benghazi “mission”, as they dropped the term “Consulate”. That is important, there was a “mission” in Benghazi, and that mission was arming the Syrian rebels, who have ties to al-Qaida. Petraeus must testify if we are to know the truth.
–thanks to Diana Nowell of “Hidden British News” who contributed to this post.
Something isn’t adding up. While America was voting on November 6th, a certain theme was emerging regarding General Petraeus. Seems with all the Benghazi drip, drip revelations one fact got swept under the rug, forgotten as the scandal mounted. Remember back to the beginning, and the YouTube “excuse” that many questioned from day one. That “excuse” remains problematic, and with the hearings set for November 15th, the origin of that excuse will again be in the spotlight. From a November 6th article by Diana West, she recalls the September 14th House and Intelligence Committee briefing:
That most important question is, Why, three days after this terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, did Petraeus go before the House Intelligence Committee and brief lawmakers that a Youtube video was to blame for a “spontaneous” protest — wholly fictitious — that “went on,” as ranking Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger told ABC on September 14 following the Petraeus briefing, “for two to three hours”?
“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus. “At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”
That West wrote that article November 6th, makes the Petraeus “resignation” on November 9th highly suspect. Pundits are out in force questioning the “affair” with high ranking retired Military stating “its not a must for him to resign over an affair”. That the FBI was conducting “some investigation” in which they learned of the Petraeus affair is interesting, as the FBI is the agency investing Benghazi too. What even causes one to pause is what West uncovers about Petraeus and the funerals for the 2 CIA operatives:
Mr. Petraeus didn’t attend funerals held later for the two CIA contractors, irking some administration officials and CIA veterans.
With that said, most of what we know of Petraeus prior to Benghazi is that he is a true American hero. We hope this scandal doesn’t end like a bad suspense novel for Petraeus. All the American people have ever wanted out of the Benghazi attack is to know the truth. We have heard rumors that Petraeus will probably “lawyer” up and as of now its reported he will not testify at the hearing on Benghazi. In his place will be Michael Morell, the “now” acting CIA Director.
What is also incredibly “odd” is that this affair with Paula Broadwell, an embedded reporter in Afghanistan, happened prior to Petraues becoming Director of the CIA. That is significant as Paul Mirengoff points out:
If so, then it seems that the affair started before Petraeus became the director of the CIA. The background check on Petraeus when he was being considered for the CIA job must have been incredibly thorough. And, since an affair with an embedded reporter would probably have been difficult to keep fully secret, even an ordinary investigation might well have uncovered word of it.
Thus, it may be that the White House knew of the General’s affair before he became the DCIA.
Updated: Here is a FOX News account on the possible impetus of the FBI “investigating” a CIA Director:
The FBI investigation that led to the discovery of CIA Director David Petraeus’ extramarital affair and his resignation Friday started when the agency began monitoring Petraeus’ email, Fox News has learned.
The agency was alerted that biographer Paula Broadwell, with whom Petraeus had the affair, may have had access to his personal email account.
The investigation began when someone reported suspicious emails allegedly from Broadwell to the FBI. The agency then determined that she allegedly had emailed a number of government employees. The FBI was at one point trying to determine whether any of the employees were being stalked, sources told Fox News. …
Source said the FBI investigation ended when the agency determined no criminal acts had been committed.
Then there is the whole “timing issue” of the resignation:
Citing an extramarital affair CIA Director General David Petraeus resigned today. He is scheduled to testify behind closed doors next week regarding the Benghazi incident. The timing of this will surely raise questions.
For whatever reason, Washington DC has a bizarre culture of failing to get the entire story out. There’s a belief in popular culture that the federal government attempts to conceal as much of the truth as possible and only puts out what the public wants to hear.
This needs to be avoided with Benghazi. The whole truth has to come out. There is too much conflicting information. The Pentagon appears to be blaming the State Department. The State Department blames the CIA and the White House. The CIA appears to blame the Defense Department, the White House and State Department. The White House has been noticeably silent. A special investigation team needs to look into which information is true and which isn’t.
Capitol Hill doesn’t always appear interested in doing this. It seems more interested in keeping the status quo and avoiding accountability as much as possible.
This probably started with the Warren Commission looking into the assassination of President Kennedy, but the best example is the Watergate investigation. That was shut down after President Ford pardoned President Nixon to get the case over with as quickly as possible. Ford was hoping to keep Nixon’s name from being dragged any further through the mud. It may have been noble reasoning, but was ultimately irresponsible.
It also set a dangerous precedent the presidency has been willing to go along with time and time again. In the Iran Contra scandal, President George H.W. Bush pardoned Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger before he could go up to trial. In the end, only Oliver North and John Poindexter were tried and convicted. Both convictions were thrown out on appeal and independent counsel Lawrence Walsh declined to continue the investigation.
During the Whitewater scandal, both Bill and Hillary Clinton were able to avoid charges. President Clinton was later impeached for lying under oath, but that related to the Monica Lewinsky affair. A part of the failure of the Whitewater investigation could be because ex-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, Webster Hubbell and Susan McDougal refused to cooperate with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Clinton later pardoned McDougal. Another part is the decision by the Clintons to fight the Whitewater investigation tooth and nail, instead of cooperating with it. Starr’s successor, Robert Ray, admitted he was pressured to come up with a deal with President Clinton so he wouldn’t be indicted further.
These examples make it seem like there’s no accountability in the White House. Instead, it shows presidents are willing to use their political positions to either protect themselves, their friends or their previous bosses from accepting responsibility.
Congress is no better.
During the investigation into Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson, Congress criticized the Justice Department for their “aggressive raid” on Jefferson’s office. Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner wanted to hold hearings on whether the FBI had trampled on the Constitution for their actions. Jefferson was later convicted of bribery and sentenced to 13 years in prison.
After Peter Schweizer’s fantastic 2011 book on insider trading in Washington DC called “Throw Them All Out,” Congress was criticized for not passing strong enough insider trading prevention laws. Schweizer himself criticized the SEC for not indicting any members of Congress during the hearing on the law. Congresswoman Maxine Waters was able to avoid ethics charges for helping OneUnited Bank get money from TARP. These are examples of members of Congress deciding not to police themselves and hold each other to the highest standard possible.
These types of situations do nothing to end the notion that Washington politicians are more interested in protecting their own, instead of working for the people who elected them.
The good news is there are people in Congress who want the truth to get out. California Congressman Darrell Issa, South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy, Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul have all been at the forefront of the Benghazi situation demanding answers. This is a good thing. Their calls for an investigation even have House Speaker John Boehner demanding answers. There need to be more people like Issa, Gowdy, Chaffetz and Paul willing to do this.
Congress has to investigate the situation involving Benghazi, regardless of who wins the presidency. Ignoring it would deny the truth not only to the families of the four killed but also the American people, who have been lied to.
WOW! Talk about timing! The State Department (That’s Hillary Clinton) approved $100,000 to “green up” the U.S. embassy in Vienna, Austria, on May 7, 2012. Yet, the State Department could not continue use of a DC-3 (that’s a WWII airplane) by the US Embassy in Lybia, a request made by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the US Embassy and all US interests in Lybia.
The US Embassy is located in Tripoli, Lybia, about 650 kilometers west of Benghazi, Lybia, where US Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed at the US Consulate. So, any facts about the US Embassy in Tripoli must be extrapolated to Benghazi. Is that extrapolation a stretch? Your call.
The US Embassy in Tripoli received an e-mail on May 3, 2012, with the subject line, “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.” The DC-3 request was made by a group of Special Forces. The original DC-3 has a maximum speed of about 370 KPH, so (assuming no modernization) it would have taken the Special Forces less than two hours to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi to assist in a battle that lasted at least six hours. Could the Special Forces saved the Americans? We’ll never know, thanks to the Obama and Clinton State Department.
At the time of the Benghazi attack, US Ambassador Stevens was not guarded. A 16 person security team was removed from Libya in August 2012, despite the fact that the security team was specifically requested to remain.
But what is even more outrageous is that on May 7, 2012, four days after denying the Special Forces request, the State Department authorized the US Embassy in Vienna, Austria, to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. Further, at a May 10, 2012, party, Ambassador William Eacho featured his new Volts and other green investments as part of the US government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.” This US Embassy in Austria web page is quite interesting.
What is even more outrageous (if that’s possible) is that per Hillary Clinton’s State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, no Marines were at either the Embassy in Tripoli or the Consulate in Benghazi. According to Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt, the decision not to staff Benghazi with Marines was made by Clinton. Hunt also said that “It was the policy of the Obama administration to have a low profile in Libya.” Hunt continued, “What’s happened in Libya is the final straw of political correctness. We allowed a contractor to hire local nationals as security guards, but said they can’t have bullets.”
The State Department had the money to implement and feature Obama’s “green energy” initiative, but not enough money to protect Americans that Obama sent to Lybia! Simply outrageous!
But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.