Tag Archives: petraeus
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?
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:
In the past few weeks, our government has melted the Benghazi ordeal into a murky puddle, clouded with games of “Not It” and garbled story lines.
Many throughout the ranks such as CIA Director David Petraeus have made it clear that, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate”. It is obvious not one person is willing to take the fall, leaving President Barack Obama the only man left standing to provide an answer; as it should be. Because it doesn’t matter who is to blame quite as much as it matters who should take the blame for lack of prevention in a tragedy that resulted in the brutal death of 4 Americans.
The CIA, Hillary Clinton, and others have all been blamed because President Obama lacks the leadership and humility to apologize to America, grieve with the families who lost their loved ones, and find a solution to be sure American blood is not unnecessarily wasted again.
The office of the President of the United States is easy when you are campaigning with celebrities, chatting it up on late night talk shows, playing golf, or receiving the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, the presidency is not a Miss America press tour. It consists of real-life, real-time decisions that require leadership, focus, and determination.
Not everyone has what it takes to be president. As we have seen with Benghazi, President Obama has not fulfilled his role as Commander in Chief. Simultaneously, he has failed to be solution-oriented, resulting in higher unemployment, gas prices, credit downgrades, six trillion dollars more in debt, and record number of Americans claiming disability. Success in a leadership position requires leadership skills, something President Obama has repeatedly promised but has proven unable to deliver.