Benghazi: Petraeus Thought He Could Keep His Job

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

5 Responses to Benghazi: Petraeus Thought He Could Keep His Job

  • Sex, lies and Benghazi . . .

    Maybe the Officers Clubs restaurants need to mix saltpeter in the mashed potatoes.

    “I will not lie, cheat, or steal.”

    Anybody remember “Kent State”?

    Tin soldiers and Barry’s coming.

    We’re finally on our own.

    This Winter I hear the drumming.

    Four dead in Benghazi.

    Four dead in Benghazi.

  • The motto of West Point is Duty, Honor, Country. While betraying his marriage vows, Petraeus managed to betray all three in his desperation to keep his career. Completely contemptible

    Can we please reserve judgment until this is all sorted out. Why he did what he did is murky.

  • Wherein, it seems that four dead Americans in Benghazi are likely far worse than the idiotic (insults to a moronic nation’s intelligence) attempts at cover-up.

    Four more years of: “It wasn’t me!”


  • the POTUS and DEMOS. favor Adam and Steve, and Eve and Eddie, so with their loguc why not Petraus and two women and another man. POTUS is the worse betrayer here, he knew darned well but it only came out after the election. DE about the scandal of BENGAZI and Gen PETRAEUS.
    Denier in Chief and his OBAMEDIA puppies.

  • The “honeypot” trap is a mainstay of spy thrillers and of intelligence services going back to Queen Esther. How does a sitting CIA director allow himself to be compromised in this manner?

Benghazi: A Turn to the Truly Bizarre

Tuesday, November 13, AD 2012


As scandals go, the Benghazi-Petraeus-Broadwell-Kelley matter is scaling the heights of the truly bizarre.  Here are the latest developments worthy of the pen of Flaubert.

1.  Jill and the G-Man-Allegedly the FBI agent in charge of the initial investigation of the anonymous e-mails purportedly sent by Paula Broadwell to Jill Kelley warning her to stay away from Petraeus, became infatuated with Kelley and sent her a photo of himself shirtless.  He was removed from the case supposedly when his higher-ups determined that his objectivity had been compromised.  (Do you think?)  He supposedly was the FBI whistleblower who contacted Republican Congressman David Reichert and Eric Cantor with  allegations that the government was dragging its feet on the case out of political considerations so that it would not surface before the election.

2. Jill and the Lawyers-Kelley has supposedly engaged the services of a high-priced lawyer and a PR flack.

The PR flack formerly represented Monica Lewinsky.  Now why should she need them?  Read on.

3.  Jill and the Marine-Marine Corp four star General John Allen is apparently under investigation for 20 to 30 thousand pages of e-mails and correspondence between him and Jill Kelley, the “unpaid social liaison” at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.  Allen is currently the commander of the International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan, effectively the commander in chief of American and Nato forces in that country.  Both Allen and Petraeus served at the base, home of Central Command for the Middle East, prior to Petraeus being put in command in Afghanistan in 2010.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Benghazi: A Turn to the Truly Bizarre

  • In the meantime, is anyone in the news media talking about how our consulate people got murdered? Or is the story to be covered just sex and more sex? Sorry- rhetorical questions only.

  • The media has to cover Benghazi now Paul because a juicy sex scandal is something even they can’t ignore. Petraeus is now a destroyed man. I think anything he knows about Benghazi he will reveal as he obviously has no reason to feel loyalty to the administration. Wheels within wheels. The funny thing about this type of scandal is that once it gets really rolling it is amazing what can come to light. Stay tuned.

  • I agree with Paul. This is all a distraction to get us talking about sex and Generals instead of death and Presidents.

  • It this is an attempted distration Jay then I think it is very poor tactics. I can think of few things the media relishes more than covering a sex scandal. Additionally I imagine there are quite a few high ranking officers suspecting that the Administration is using Petraeus and Allen as sacrificial lambs and I can imagine them now leaking material damgaging to the administration on Benghazi in retaliation. We are still in Act I of this play.

  • Patreaus’ book will be out in Jan…..I’m finding great difficulty in maintaining a Christian attitude…only by the grace of God.

  • What is most absurd is the apologists for Petraeus who have the temerity to call him “a genuine American hero” and a great general in the same high ranks of MacArthur, Patton and Ike. Comparing the Iraq “war” to World War II is like comparing a game of tiddlywinks to the Super Bowl.

  • I think Petraeus exercised generalship of a high order in regard to the Surge in Iraq and his military service should be honored. His theories on fighting insurgencies are innovative and proved successful in Iraq. However, these in no way diminish the dishonor of his affair, or the way in which it compromised national security.

  • Comparing the Iraq “war” to World War II is like comparing a game of tiddlywinks to the Super Bowl.

    I take it from your remarks that the only military officers meriting much respect were commanding generals during national mobilizations.

  • Look on the bright side.

    Now, we get to live through a second Carter administration.

    from Hot air: “One piece of information that got lost the last few days of sex scandals is the news that David Petraeus personally traveled to Libya after the Benghazi attack — and apparently filed a “trip report” covering his own findings. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee probing the Benghazi terrorist attack, wants either the report or Petraeus to testify to its contents. So far, though, the CIA and the White House have refused to provide it — and yesterday, Feinstein threatened that subpoenas may be forthcoming if the stonewalling continues:”

    A modest proposal: If Petraeus refuses to testify and/or lies (they all lie), some Congress critter ought to add a rider to a bill that rescinds his six-figure pension.

    Dulce lifers inexpertis.

  • “Now, we get to live through a second Carter administration.”

    Except I believe this administration is far more malevolent in its intentions, the press is far more complicit in those intentions and the public is more willing to accept what is coming.

  • Will any of this really damage Obama? Probably not.

  • I do not believe there were 25,000 pages of correspondence between him and any single individual.

  • “Will any of this really damage Obama? Probably not.”

    Agreed. Especially since this is likely orchestrated to protect him.

  • Not agreed. How this will play out we shall see when it plays out. The media (other than the National Enquirer and Kausfiles) had to be dragged to acknowledge John Edwards’ grossness. It happened, nevertheless.

  • I apologize in advance.

    And now, you know the reason “they” once referred to the USMC as the “Crotch.”

    I am so sorry.

  • “The media (other than the National Enquirer and Kausfiles) had to be dragged to acknowledge John Edwards’ grossness. It happened, nevertheless.”

    That was Edwards, not THE ONE.

  • Benghazi was low hanging fruit for Romney to exploit. I would go so far as to say as Obama’s opponent, he had a duty to exploit it. But he punted. In addition to the scandal that is the Obama presidency, we also have what I think is the scandal of the weak, feckless, and irresponsible republican non-opposition.

  • Whatever success the Americans with Petraeus enjoyed in Iraq was due in large measure to the “cavalry of St George” and the inter-tribal conflicts of the Arabs . Hugh Fitzgerald covered this some time ago, See: .

  • Benghazi was low hanging fruit for Romney to exploit…

    The inability of the Romney-Ryan duo to land any punches for all their shuffling must count as the main reason why they were unable to rouse any enthusiasm given the preexisting electoral divide. How did this pair manage to do worse than McCain/Palin who had to content with the Bush legacy?

    For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
    1 Corinthians 14:8

  • read “contend” in place of “content”

  • THe idea that President Obama didn’t know about the Patreaus affair until the day after the eclectiom is obvious BS. Since the affair occured when the General was still on active duty and prior to his nomination as CIA Director, Obama had to know about it before he was even nominated as the country’s #1 Spook. Think about it, you don’t nominate someone as CIA Director without a thorough vetting process. Somehting like had to have surely come up. Even a cursory vetting would have revealed this affair. Oh, and don’t think for a minute Obama’s Thugocracy doesn’t vett their people. They do. They know who they are dealing with and what to hold against them.

  • If you’re confused by the whole Petraeus affair, click here for a handy graphic:

  • Since the affair occured when the General was still on active duty and prior to his nomination as CIA Director,

    Some news reports contradict that.

Benghazi: Drip, Drip, Drip

Monday, November 12, AD 2012

The truth about the Benghazi debacle keeps coming out drip by drip:

1.  Paula Knows-At the beginning of the post we see the alleged mistress of David Petraeus telling an audience at a symposium in late October this bombshell:

 “A group of Delta Force operators are very…the most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and CIA annex that were under attack,” said Ms. Broadwell. “Now I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to get these prisoners back. It’s still being vetted.”

This is the first I have heard about this.  Was Petraeus sharing highly classified information with his paramour?

2.  Video Schmideo-The above detail from the mouth of Broadwell makes nonsense of the administration claim that the Mohammed video caused this.  That was a lie and the Administration knew it was a lie.

3.  Libyan Prisoners-Libyan prisoners?  What sort of involvement is the administration getting us into in Libya?  The CIA has denied this, but right now I will take the word of the alleged mistress of the former CIA Director over that of the CIA flack who issued the denial.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Benghazi: Drip, Drip, Drip

  • The scandal deepens. And we have no Cicero.

  • The timing of all this is beyond clumsy. Three days after the election, and a week before Petraeus is to testify? Please. And what did Holder know? The stench is repulsive.

  • 1. Likely pillow-talk obtained classifed information.

    2. This is distraction from the dastardly roles Obama, Clinton, et al played in refusing to save the ambassador and the others.

    3. They Were Expendable.

    4. “I will not lie, cheat or steal; nor tolerate those that do.” BARF

    5. Four more years of apologies, appeasements, lies (“sworn to” by the academy and the media), and surrenders.

    6. It don’t mean nothing.

  • I’ll give you that the Administration orchestrated a delay in his resignation for purely political ends. However, I don’t see the benefit to the Administration, with regards to Benghazi, by his resignation. Doesn’t he still have to testify before Congress?

    The Benghazi story is far from being told and I’m sure it will not reflect well on the Administration (they haven’t crowed about it so there is something disqueting that they’d rather not have revealed). However, I’m not willing to read into Petreaus’ resignation at this point. It looks like a conjunction of unrelated events.

  • The problem G-Veg is that we still do not have a lot of the pieces of the puzzle in regard to Benghazi to judge how this Petraeus resignation plays out, and we do not know, yet, what other factors may be in play as to all of this. Benghazi may be a distraction for other things that Petraeus knows that he may reveal under questioning. The other thing I can’t fathom is why keep him on as CIA Director for several months. Surely the political risk of having Petraeus resign in the summer for example would have been minimal.

  • I think the answer lies in the exclusive focus on polls and campaigning throught his first term.

    Perhaps none of this makes sense because we are looking at it through the lens of governance rather than campaigning. Without a pesky media presence, there was no risk that keeping corrupt figures would blow up before the election and that made Holder, Napolitano, and Petreaus known quantities and their mistakes fairly harmless… Unless they weren’t under thumb that is.

  • Do you think the Roman citizen on the dole cared about the shenanigans of the emperor and his cronies in far off places? The deaths of the four may be criminally negligent and grotesque but Obama voters don’t care in any meaningful way. They care about the dole or about bureaucratic jobs dispensing the dole.

    In other words, this is not going to be a political game changer although Obama’s poll numbers may briefly go down a few points (46% vs 49%).

  • Poor analogy Rozin. Only a small minority of the Roman people were ever on the Dole, almost entirely located in the City of Rome, and by the Empire the mob in Rome had lost any political significance in any case.

    Oh, Benghazi alone won’t cause Obama that much of a problem, although his attempted cover up might. However, if Obama’s second term follows the usual pattern it will be the first of many scandals. Tie that in with a bad economy, and ever increasing, and clearly unsustainable deficits, and I think the draining of Obama’s support will continue apace.

  • I hope that the revelation of scandals continues to the point where even a Democratic Senate cannot ignore the need for impeachment.

  • I forgot too add: “drip – drip – drip”. It there are enough drips, then the bucket will fill.

  • A lot of hand wringing leading to naught except maybe the loss of an underling job or two. The general public doesn’t care. The GOP doesn’t have the courage or fortitude to take it where it needs to go.

    Net result: Noise and flashing lights to entertain conservatives.

  • I believe that was what was said about the Congressional post office scandal before 1994. Large events often have small beginnings.

  • I agree that the GOP lacks the intestinal fortitude for a fight and I’d add that even where thay have gone to battle, it feels inept…

    Why is that? I wonder if part of the problem isn’t that the GOP doesn’t want to take really significant shots at this Imperial Presidency because they want to preserve those unconstitutional powers wrested from Congress for when they re-take the Executive Branch.

    Let me state it differently:

    The Constitution places the Legislative Branch in the steongest position, resting the most significant powers of government in its hands. The Executive Branch is made equal to the Legislative Branch through its power to appoint judges and Justices.

    Over the last 20 years or so, we have seen Congress diminish and the Executive assume greater authority. Boehner said the pther day “we (meaning Congress) need to be led. And Congress after Congress has sat back and let the Executive direct them. In essence, Congress has turned the Balance of Powers on its head, treating the president like he is a Prime Minister and our system as though it was designed to be parliamentarian.

    Why? I fear that the answer is because both parties have concluded that this is as it should be and that striking back and taking back Legislative authority would cut them off from those same unlawful tools when they assume the power of President. Thus, their concern between presidential elections is solely to set the groundwork for their party’s attempt to win the Presidential election, not to govern themselves.

  • I wish it was 1994.

    Whatever become of the constitutional scandal, the Obama recess appointments? I see the GOP is right on top of it.

    Go get’em GOP!

    Meanwhile, the top dog, Obama, and his mutts press on with ruining a people and a nation.

  • It is hard to claim the high ground with dirty hands. We need to get our house straight and reclaim a solid, constitutional basis for governance before we can articulate a constitutionally sound plan for reclaiming America.

    As long as we are willing to say or do anything o get power, our party will lack the legitimacy and Providence to win. God does not empower the bad unless it is to correct the reclaimable. He will not restore His providence to us until we are behaving rightly.

  • “He will not restore His providence to us until we are behaving rightly.”

    It is always good to act rightly in the eyes of God. I would not take that as either a necessary factor, or a dispositive factor, for political success, as the ways of God are often inscrutable when it comes to secular matters. As Lincoln said, “The Almighty has His own purposes.”

  • Mr McClarey,

    I didn’t want to clutter up a post with the factoids you added. You are making the point not disputing it. The Roman citizens in Rome on the dole played little part in the Roman empire. It was the provincials not on the dole who took over both militarily as emperors and bureaucratically as with the rapid expansion of the equestrian class in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

    However, the dole is national in the US and Europe and rapidly growing. It started out in the inner cities but the Left realized that was a loser particularly after Reagan. So now we have the (unmentionable) percentage either on the dole or bureaucratically dispensing it. NV and CA have very high unemployment yet happily voted for Obama. CA even got rid of the few Repubs left in the state because they are so happy with the job the Dems are doing. Europe has had chronically high unemployment for decades but is staunchly socialist. (And why is it you salute the House post office scandal rather than Hillarycare and tax hikes as the reason for Repub majorities? Absent the post office scandal what difference would it have made?)

  • Here is an aspect of the e-mail investigation that I don’t understand: Why did the FBI continue looking into it at all?

    Donald linked (in #5 above) to a Slate article, which had linked to a Washington Post article. The Washington Post article says, law enforcement officials interviewed “said the e-mails were ‘threatening and harassing’ but not specific enough to warrant criminal charges.”

    So, the initial anonymous emails (from Broadwell to Kelley) that were brought to the attention of the FBI were not enough to warrant criminal charges. Why, then, was an investigation carried out, using FBI resources to dig through the anonymous account, tracing it back to Broadwell?

    Did a judge sign off on a warrant allowing that? Which judge? Based on what evidence?

    And, once it was traced back to Broadwell – still assuming that there was nothing warranting criminal charges – why go through all of Broadwell’s personal, private email that exposed the Petraeus link?

    If the original anonymous emails weren’t threatening enough for criminal charges, how did this investigation continue from the get-go?

    I’m not trying to claim that there is a hidden agenda behind the email investigation … yet. I really don’t understand how it went from “not enough to warrant criminal charges” to “let’s go through Broadwell’s personal, private email account”.

    Maybe someone with a good understanding of how investigations of cyberstalking work can explain it to me?

  • “So, the initial anonymous emails (from Broadwell to Kelley) that were brought to the attention of the FBI were not enough to warrant criminal charges. Why, then, was an investigation carried out, using FBI resources to dig through the anonymous account, tracing it back to Broadwell?

    Did a judge sign off on a warrant allowing that? Which judge? Based on what evidence?”

    The standard is fairly low for a warrant requiring a low threshold of probable cause.

  • “The Roman citizens in Rome on the dole played little part in the Roman empire.”
    That is because Italy under the Empire as a whole contributed few men to the Roman legions. The greatest role played by the mob of Rome in Roman affairs coincided with the advent of the dole in the late second century and the first century before Christ when the Roman poor formed the “head-count” armies of Marius, prior to that time they had been considered to be too poor to be enlisted, and took boisterous, and often murderous, part in elections in Rome. After the military dictatorship of Augustus was firmly established the elections still took place but they were meaningless since Augustus controlled the legions and thus the state. None of this history fits very well with the jeremiads launched against “bread and circuses” by modern day conservatives since the fall of the Republic had virtually nothing to do with the dole and everything thing to do with the competition of aristocrats which led to endless civil wars and the breakdown of the old Republican order.

    Our modern welfare states are a different matter altogether and we live in a time when they are manifestly breaking down for lack of funds. Rather than marking the beginning of a new order, Obama and his expansion of the welfare state is the last gasp of a reactionary societal model that is nearing its end.

  • The standard is fairly low for a warrant requiring a low threshold of probable cause.

    Thanks, Donald. That answers a question I had. So, even though it was clear that the harassment and threats were not criminal, some judge decided to allow the FBI to search a private email account.

    If the threshold is that low, then what’s to stop the FBI/local law enforcement searching someone’s email account for a “harassing” comment in a blog comment? Nothing criminal, mind you; just “harassing”.

  • “So, even though it was clear that the harassment and threats were not criminal,”

    No it was not clear to the Judge or a warrant would not have been issued. Here we have an anonymous individual making threats to an innocent third party. It would not take much for a judge under these circumstances to agree that the FBI should be allowed to investigate futher to determine the identity of the anonymous person and whether they posed a danger to the third party. If charges were pressed the Defendant could attempt to challenge the warrant on any number of grounds including lack of probable cause.

  • Well, I understand what you’re saying, but I think there’s more to the story than that.

    The Washington Post story says that “three senior law enforcement officials with knowledge of the episode” determined the threats weren’t specific enough for criminal charges. So, why ask for a warrant?

    As your update indicates, we’re at the tip of the iceberg.

    Thanks for indulging my questions, and for a very informative (and entertaining) blog.

  • With respect Don, I do not agree with your assessment if by your statement you mean that God does not extend or withhold his favor from peoples in accordance with His Plan.

    Perhaps I misread you though.

    Certainly Washington believed that Providence was visited upon the nation at her inception. Given the extraordinary turns of events, it is not difficult to see the hand of God in the twists of history that brought our Republic into being.

    If you mean that we can’t see whoch events are providential and which are not, I entirely agree. But, that we can’t see His actions hardly indicates that they are not present.

    Again, the Old Testament repeats he tale of God showering Grace on a people while the acknowledge Him and then withdrawing His blessings when they set Him aside. I see the same pattern over the last 2000 years in the West.

  • I tend to take a rather Job-like view of the purposes and actions of God G-Veg:

    “42 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,

    2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

    3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

    4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

    5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

    6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”

    That God has His purposes I am sure. That in studying History I find these purposes often obscure to me, I am also sure. When it comes to God faith is always my guide when my discernment fails me.

  • Donald is right again. However, in spite of all its inaccuracy, I like how The Message translation renders this section of Sacred Scripture:

    42 1-6 Job answered God:

    “I’m convinced: You can do anything and everything.
        Nothing and no one can upset your plans.
    You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water,
        ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’
    I admit it. I was the one. I babbled on about things far beyond me,
        made small talk about wonders way over my head.
    You told me, ‘Listen, and let me do the talking.
        Let me ask the questions. You give the answers.’
    I admit I once lived by rumors of you;
        now I have it all firsthand—from my own eyes and ears!
    I’m sorry—forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise!
        I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor.”

  • However, the dole is national in the US and Europe and rapidly growing.

    Federal welfare expenditure can be categorized as follows (approximately):

    44% cash pensions for the elderly and disabled
    24% medical benefits for the elderly and disabled
    9% medical benefits for the generally impecunious
    5% financing of nursing home care
    5% temporary unemployment compensation
    13% various

    The burgeoning of this sort of expenditure is driven by demographic factors and some of the unfortunate effects of poorly structured programs on the way the medical sector does business. These problems can be addressed, but first someone has to be willing to tell the public that first-dollar coverage of medical expenses is not economically sustainable.

    It is really the last category above which is socially problematic, and, no, it was not ‘growing rapidly’ until the advent of the current administration. The most problematic programs (public housing and cash doles for women with bastard children) are a good deal less consequential than was the case a generation ago (enrollment in TANF was at one point one-third in number enrolled in its predecessor program 15 years ago, in spite of the increase in population in the interim).

  • G.K. Chesterton said ”once abolish the God and the government becomes god.” I am not the first to note that many in the West have replaced God with government. Certainly putting one’s faith in government is as much a violation of the First Commandment as putting faith in wealth or intellect or strength is. I am suggesting that the Bible contains ample evidence that a people is as beholden to God as any individual and that individually or collectively, we rebel against God at our own peril.

    The Psalms affirm the idea that there is a relationship between a people’s faithfulness and God’s Providence. (E.g. see Ps. 5, 33, and 67) This was true in the beginning for we see in Genesis, God making covenants with Abraham to give him a blessed people – not only to bless him individually if he followed God’s commands but that his progeny would benefit from his faithfulness. In Gen. 39, we see this promise continued in Joseph. God blesses the people because of Joseph’s faithfulness.

    It isn’t just a tangential concept either. It is an idea at the center of the salvation story. God is explicit in the connection between a people’s faithfulness and His blessings in Deuteronomy 7:13 and in Deut. 8 the consequences of forgetting Him. In the New Testament we see Providence bestowed in abundance on the fledgling church because of their faithfulness.

    In Acts 2: 46-47 we are told that “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” because of the behavior of the Church. This fits Christ’s promise in Matthew 6:33 that if we seek “first the kingdom of God” he will provide everything we need, echoing Zechariah 3:7-9. Again and again in the Bible we are told that, if a people follows God’s laws they will be blessed. (Jeremiah 7:5-7) We are even told that we can reclaim His favor by turning from sin – as a people mind ye – for “if then my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and heal their land.” (2 Chron. 7-14) The whole point of Jonah is precisely this and Ninevah avoids Sodom’s fate by turning from evil as a community.

    All I’m saying is that we cannot, as a people, directly push God away and still expect everything to be OK. It doesn’t work that way.

An Admiral and Two Generals

Saturday, November 10, AD 2012



Well, I have to hand it to the Obama administration.  Obama reelected on Tuesday, they are already getting a start on the scandals that tend to plague most second term Presidents.  The resignation of CIA Director, retired General David Petraeus, over an alleged affair, a week before he was to testify before a Senate committee on Benghazi, brings to three the number of high-ranking officers connected with Benghazi, or its aftermath, who have seen their careers abruptly cut short.

Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group in the Mediterranean in late October.  Such a removal is unprecedented.  The Navy denies that the removal was in regard to Benghazi, and indeed the Stennis was in the Pacific on 9/11/12.   However the Navy has issued a fairly cryptic statement that the removal was for “inappropriate leadership judgment” during the deployment of the Stennis to the Middle East and has stressed that this does not involve any improper personal conduct by the Admiral.  All very mysterious.

The Combatant Commander of Africa Command  on 9/11/12, General Carter F. Ham abruptly retired on October 18.  Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz reported that in an interview he had with General Ham in Libya that the General told him that in regard to the Benghazi attach he had never been asked to provide military assistance.  The internet is ablaze with rumors that General Ham attempted to send assistance to Benghazi during the attack and was told to stand down.  Thus far the General has remained mum.

In regard to General Petraeus there are many questions.  Allegedly the  affair came to light months ago when the FBI caught his alleged paramour attempting to access his e-mails.  One might be curious as to why the FBI was involved in this and the answer is quite simple.  The FBI and the CIA have been at war with each other since the creation of the CIA’s predecessor the OSS in World War II and routinely keep track of the higher-ups in each organization.  (Yeah, I know:  our tax dollars at work.)  Apparently the affair has been known for at least several months, and I find it hard to believe that both the CIA and the FBI did not know of the affair before Petraeus was onfirmed as CIA Director, the background checks for such a position being extremely comprehensive.  This all raises the question as to why the affair triggers a resignation now.  His wife Holly works for the White House and unless she was in the dark on the affair, and considering how gossipy the military community tends to be I find that hard to believe, presumably the affair was known at the White House.

Petraeus is up to his arm pits in Benghazi, having denied that it was the CIA that failed to provide military assistance to the two brave Seals, Ty Woods and Greg Doherty, who died heroically leading the defense at Benghazi.  Now that he is retired, his deputy Mike Morell will testify next week.  Eventually I assume Petraeus will also testify, he has indicated post resignation that he is eager to testify, but now the story in much of the Mainstream Media will be pertaining to his affair rather than to his testimony.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to An Admiral and Two Generals

  • Maybe enough of this will come to light that not even the Democrats in the Senate will be able to ignore it. One may hope.

  • I think it will eventually. Too many people know pieces of the story regarding Benghazi for a coverup to succeed longterm, although it did get Obama through election day with the help of the lapdog Mainstream Media.

  • Oh, all of it will come out, but nothing will harm Obumbler. Nothing Clinton did ever hurt him. Democrats have a license to lie, cheat and steal.

    There are other rumors and reports around saying that Obumbler wants to sign on to a UN treaty that effectively bans private ownership of guns. Any treaty must be ratified by a 2/3 Senate vote. Let him try it.

  • Morning’s copy book is all over the ‘extra-marital’ affair for its good readers. Gen. Ham was inside small print. I don’t actually read it, and would cancel if my mother didn’t, so I missed the Admiral story.

    Transparency has a new dimension. It is obvious that these men are not convenient for the Benghazi hearing on the terrorist attack of 9/11/12 so out with them, no – wait, I mean, ‘how can this immorality be allowed in such a moral government’ and ‘we need people who work the way we work for the … country’. Transparency is in the eye of the beholder now.

    The words ‘affair’ and ‘extra-marital’ are good to deflect those who may wonder, with the added bonus of good posture for those who cheat, lie, and steal.

    Imagine the laughing that goes along with this plan or someone saying, that’s the ticket – an affair!. The copy book writers seem more mindless than ever.

  • Penguins Fan,

    Snopes provides information which disagrees with what you wrote about the UN Small Arms Treaty, resolutions on which you can find here:

    Snopes specifically states:

    The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by “tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons” in order to “close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.” The text of the proposed treaty specifically “reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems,” so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
    No such treaty could “bypass the normal legislative process in Congress,” as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
    The President of the United States cannot enact a “complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.” The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

    Please read more at 

    I myself own a mini-14 rifle. I bought it after Obama’s first election. I had never wanted to own a firearm, but with the rise of “National Democracy”, I thought I should take advantage of my Second Amendment right. I have used the rifle only once or twice at a firing range. Perhaps when my left leg heals from my recent quadriceps detachment accident I will be able to use it in hunting deer, but that won’t be till next year. Outside of the shooting range and hunting, I hope for no use of the rifle (well, I will teach my children how to care for, handle and shoot the rifle, but that will be at the firing range). I truly do not see how the UN can outlaw such ownership and peaceful use of firearms. Private ownership of fully automatic weapons and sensible regulation of revolvers and other small handguns are a different matter. Let’s keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and in the hands of honest citizens.

  • i never used to think of myself as suspicious, but I changing I guess. I have read that an Illinois politician who Obama needed out of the way was suddenly discovered to have had an illicit affair and O then won that election handily.. that this kind of thing has occurred more than once.

  • That was two politicians Anzlyne: Blair Hull in the Democrat primary for the Senate nomination in 2004, who was expected to win, was effectively knocked out of the race by the Chicago Tribune, at the behest of the Obama campaign, getting his divorce records unsealed. The same exact slimy tactic was then used against his Republican opponent Jack Ryan, who had been married to Jeri Ryan, the Borg Babe on Star Trek Voyager. Ryan dropped out as a result and was replaced by Allan Keyes, who I voted for, and who even I was convinced was crazy by the end of the Senate race. Keyes got 30%.

  • Don, there is nothing “alleged” about it, the general admitted to it. My theory is Petraeus quit to avoid falling on his sword for the so-called intelligence failures of the spooks. Same thing happened with Dubya when he blamed “faulty” intelligence by the CIA on Iraq nukes, which gave him cover when no WMD’s were found. Remember, the CIA has always been the President’s “private army.” Whenever something goes wrong, as it did in Benghazi, it’s not the general who gets the blame but the grunts.

  • There is much that remains “alleged” about it including the identity of the person he had the affair with. Until she confirms it I will keep the “alleged” firmly in place.

  • I look forward to other administration officials who have been involved in affairs to be resigning soon.

  • good one Phillip

  • “I look forward to other administration officials who have been involved in affairs to be resigning soon.”

    The man who saved Obama’s hide in the last election, Bill Clinton, could probably direct the President to some of the female officials who have had affairs.

  • I doubt BIll Clinton will incriminate himself in revealing those women who had heterosexual affairs lest he be so implicated. 😉

    As for the rest who may not be heterosexually inclined and who engaged in affairs, such disclosure would be met with all approval and accolade for a “coming out of the closet” by both Administration and News Media alike. 😉

    Sexual promiscuity is accepted – even welcomed – except when it is a tool to be used to smear an otherwise impeccable record of honesty and attention to duty, hence the situation in which General Petraeus finds himself. Even if the confession of an extra-marital affair is correct, why is it not as forgiveable as the adultery that William Jefferson Clinton committed in the public light with Monica Lewinsky, and his subsequent lying about it to the entire nation? That is a rhetorical question and requires no answer.

  • Thought provoking isn’t it? this kind of thing would provide no leverage at all for O against the C’s should he want to get them out of play.

    Paul FirstTruth is right– nothing is really scandalous anymore unless the persons involved are Believers. For those whose lives are a scoff– it doesn’t matter.

  • “nothing is really scandalous anymore unless the persons involved are Believers. For those whose lives are a scoff”

    It’s only significant to the Left because they feel believers are conservative or at least Republicans and they can make political hay. I have heard several Dems brag about it quite openly with me. They said “our guys have no standards to meet unlike your guys. That’s a big advantage. It doesn’t matter what they do or how they lie.” I asked one, “If they are willing to lie to the public why wouldn’t they lie to you as well” Silence.

  • Anzlyne, you are correct. If a 30 year old priest is accused of a sexual relation with an 18 year old boy, it’s all over the News Media as priestly sex abuse and pedophilia. if a 30 year old actor actually does have a sexual relation with an 18 year old boy, it’s called consensual sex that we have to approve of in order to demonstrate our tolerance and kindness and Christian charity. I for one am disgusted and depressed and angry. Did General Petraeus screw up? Possibly, but unlike William Jefferson Clinton, he did the manly thing and confessed in contrition, something no godless depraved Democrat is capable of doing. Ok, no more ranting. Let’s pray for General Petraeus:

    Hail Mary, full of grace
    The Lord is with thee.
    Blessed art thou among women
    And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
    Holy Mary, Mother of God,
    Pray for us sinners
    Now and at the hour of our death.

    Lord Jesus,
    Please remember General Petraeus
    And be with him in his hour of need.
    Please be merciful and forgive the contrite heart,
    And bring to justice the real evil doers.

  • Strangely, at this time there are more details out there about Petreus and his alleged mistress than there were about Benghazi at a similar point.

  • “Strangely, at this time there are more details out there about Petreus and his alleged mistress than there were about Benghazi at a similar point.”

  • The MSM is unlikely to present a coherent pcture until it doesn’t matter or at least until after others have forced their hand. We saw this in the aftermath of Vietnam and the Cold War. Fellows who for all practical purposes were either on the other side or indifferent developed all manner of scruples that led them to denounce Communism, and proclaim the virtues of the free market with religious freedom for all. When in the name of these same values Messrs Regnery, Encounter and the Hoover Institute among others published accounts of life under communism and drew attention to the actvities of their supporters and fellow-travellersin the West , they were dismissed according the prevailing fashion as CIA think-tanks, antisemites or imperialists. It appears that we are now in a repeat of the Pravda years, where those would like to be informed have to flter and piece together factoids from RT, AlJazeera and the fringe press.

  • Maybe enough of this will come to light that not even the Democrats in the Senate will be able to ignore it. One may hope.
    Paul W. Primavera

    Hope really hard. Senate Democrats enjoy tremendous powers of ignorance.