Truth Frequency Radio

Nov 14, 2012

<h2>Petraeus agrees to testify to Congress on Benghazi attack: Feinstein aide</h2>
<img src=”;d=20121114&amp;t=2&amp;i=674310145&amp;w=460&amp;fh=&amp;fw=&amp;ll=&amp;pl=&amp;r=CBRE8AD19N100″ alt=”U.S. General David Petraeus, with his wife Holly seated behind him, testifies at his Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing to become commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan on Capitol Hill in this June 29, 2010 file photo. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Files” border=”0″ />
<div id=”articleInfo”>

WASHINGTON | Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:25am EST

(<a href=”″ target=”_blank”>Reuters</a>) – Ex-CIA chief David Petraeus has agreed to testify to Congress about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that left four Americans dead, but it was not clear when lawmakers would hear from the retired four-star general, who abruptly resigned last week amid a sex scandal.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein said Petraeus was willing to testify about the September 11 attack in Benghazi, but the timing had not yet been decided, a spokesman for the California Democrat said.

U.S. lawmakers are demanding to know more about the timeline of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into Petraeus’ affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who heads the House Judiciary Committee, wrote the head of the FBI asking for both a timeline and whether Petraeus is the focus of a criminal probe.

“Has the FBI concluded that General Petraeus is not the subject of any criminal or intelligence-related investigation?” Smith asked in the letter.

Earlier on Wednesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking in Perth, <a title=”Full coverage of Australia” href=””>Australia</a>, warned against jumping to conclusions over the actions of another military figure, Marine General John Allen, a day after placing him under investigation in connection with the Petraeus scandal.

Allen, the top U.S. commander in <a title=”Full coverage of Afghanistan” href=””>Afghanistan</a>, who denies any wrongdoing, is being investigated for potentially inappropriate communications with a woman at the center of the Petraeus case, Jill Kelley, a Florida socialite.

Panetta defended his decision to refer the case to the Pentagon’s inspector general and for suspending Allen’s nomination to another top position in the U.S. military, saying it was a prudent step “until we determine what the facts are.”

“And we will,” Panetta told reporters at high-level talks in Perth, also attended by the top U.S. military officer, General Martin Dempsey, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

At the same time, he praised Allen’s work commanding the Afghan war effort, a position he retains despite the probe.

“No one should leap to any conclusions here. General Allen is doing an excellent job at ISAF, in leading those forces,” Panetta said, referring to the NATO-led force in Afghanistan.

“He certainly has my continued confidence to lead our forces and continue the fight.”

Clinton acknowledged that allies had raised questions about the Allen case but said there was “no concern whatsoever being expressed to us” about the mission in Afghanistan.

<a href=”″ target=”_blank”>Full Article</a>
<h2 id=”watch-headline-title”>Classified Documents Taken from Alleged David Petraeus Mistress’ Home</h2>
<a href=”” target=”_blank”>ABC News</a>

<iframe src=”” frameborder=”0″ width=”560″ height=”315″></iframe>
<h2>Petraeus mistress reveals real motive behind Benghazi attack (VIDEO)</h2>
<div><a href=”” target=”_blank”>Russia Today</a></div>
<div id=”getsocialmain”>

The fallout from former CIA head David Petraeus’ resignation might be more significant than first thought: as all eyes turn to the ex-intelligence chief’s mistress, it’s apparent that she may have been privy to what really happened in Benghazi.

Two months after the storming of an US consulate in Benghazi, questions remain largely unanswered about both how and why insurgents entered the facility on September 11 and executed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The discussion became a heated issue on the campaign trail leading up to Election Day, and conflicting accounts from the White House, State Department and Congress all led to a mess of confusion that has only further spun out of control following the unexpected stepping down of Petraeus on Friday.

In the immediate aftermath of the CIA chief’s resignation, skeptics quickly suggested that there was more to the story, especially given Petraeus’ role as head of the country’s intelligence agency and the relatively unscathing extramarital affair that he rightfully admitted to in citing his departure from office. As journalists and investigators tried to dig deep for info on the alleged mistress, Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell, as expected the story took a drastic turn by Sunday when it was revealed that she may have been briefed on the truth of the Benghazi scandal while the rest of the country claws for answers.

A speech given by Broadwell only last month at her Alma matter suggests that she was given information about the terrorist attack that never made it to the American public.

<em>“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,”</em> Broadwell told a crowd at the University of Denver alumni symposium on October 26. “<em>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.”</em>

Broadwell’s address was publically available on <a href=”” rel=”nofollow”>YouTube </a>until this weekend; it has since been removed, although mirrors have surfaced.

Until then, and even today, the CIA denies Broadwell’s claims that the CIA was holding anyone prisoner at what has long been described as a consulate building in Benghazi. Should her account prove true, however, it could mean that the agency had a secret black site prison in Libya, a fact long denied by Washington. If true, it could also mean that not only was the security of United States’ top intelligence office breached, but also may for once provide an impetus for the Sept. 11 attack.

The FBI has officially confirmed searching Broadwell’s home in Charlotte, North Carolina. The agency did not say why it performed the search, but it’s clear that Broadwell’s potential access to any sensitive material is being taken seriously.

In the initial aftermath of the assault, the Obama administration considered an anti-Islamic filmed produced in America, ‘Innocence of Muslims,’ as the catalyst for the Benghazi attack and similar strikes in the region. After days of pressing, however, the White House eventually admitted that the assassination of Ambassador Stevens was being blamed by Washington on terrorists, 11 years to the day after al-Qaeda operatives brought down the Twin Towers.

According to last month’s address in Denver, Broadwell also said a group of Delta Force operators, <em>“the most talented guys we have in the military,” </em>could have been dispatched to provide reinforcement for the Americans in Benghazi but were not. Instead, the US packed up and left immediately, not securing the scene until days later, by which point much of the facility, and presumably all evidence, had been looted or destroyed.

On late Sunday, Greg Miller of The Washington Post wrote on Twitter that the <em>“CIA adamant that Broadwell claims about agency holding prisoners at Benghazi are not true.”</em> On Sunday, a spokesperson for the CIA told The Daily Beast that the agency <em>“has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”</em>

Broadwell has yet to make any statements to the press since she made international headlines on Friday following Petraeus’ resignation. On his part, the former CIA chief has yet to publically discuss the Benghazi massacre, and will no longer testify before Congress as originally scheduled to do as such this Thursday. Instead, acting CIA Director Michael Morell is expected to field questions to lawmakers in Washington.

<object width=”370″ height=”277″ classid=”clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000″ codebase=”,0,40,0″><param name=”src” value=”;image=;skin=;provider=http&amp;abouttext=Russia%20Today&amp;aboutlink=;autostart=false” /><param name=”allowfullscreen” value=”true” /><embed width=”370″ height=”277″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” src=”;image=;skin=;provider=http&amp;abouttext=Russia%20Today&amp;aboutlink=;autostart=false” allowfullscreen=”true” /></object>
<h2>Operation Betrayus: From Benghazi to Brennan</h2>
<iframe src=”” frameborder=”0″ width=”560″ height=”315″></iframe>
<h2>Petraeus Scandal Proves Email is Being Surveilled</h2>
Even the director of the CIA cannot escape the watching eye of Big Brother

<strong>Paul Joseph Watson</strong>
<a href=”” target=”_blank”>Infowars</a>.com
November 14, 2012

Almost lost amidst the speculation surrounding former CIA Director David H. Petraeus‘ extramarital affair is the question of how the FBI was able to hack Petraeus’ private emails without breaking the law.

<iframe src=”” frameborder=”0″ width=”560″ height=”315″></iframe>
<p align=”left”>As Judge Andrew Napolitano summarized during a recent Fox News appearance, the FBI could only have set about the process of intercepting Petraeus’ emails in three different ways.</p>
<p align=”left”>1) The FBI would have needed a search warrant from a federal judge and to obtain it would have had to demonstrate that Petraeus possessed information related to a crime or was involved in a criminal activity.</p>
<p align=”left”>2) The FBI would have had to write up their own search warrant under the Patriot Act in which case they would have had to demonstrate that Petraeus was involved in terrorist activity.</p>
<p align=”left”>3) The FBI hacked into Petraeus’ CIA computer to obtain the emails, which would have been a criminal offense.</p>
<p align=”left”>The circumstances clearly indicate that the FBI illegally hacked Petraeus’ computer and email account in order to obtain the emails. <a href=””>It has now been confirmed</a> that Petraeus and his mistress Paula Broadwell used draft emails stored in a shared email account to communicate with each other – they didn’t even send the emails out over the Internet.</p>
<p align=”left”>Although the surveillance aspect of the scandal has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, privacy experts are asking the hard questions.</p>
<p align=”left”>“There should be an investigation not of the personal behavior of General Petraeus and General Allen, but of what surveillance powers the F.B.I. used to look into their private lives,” Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, <a href=””>told the New York Times</a>. “This is a textbook example of the blurring of lines between the private and the public.”</p>
<p align=”left”>“Given the weakness of the initial case here, given the fact that it now seems the initial impetus for this investigation was not actually a crime, you have to wonder, were they able to get access to some of these older emails in part because they didn’t have to show probable cause that a crime had been committed?” Julian Sanchez, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, <a href=”″>told NPR.</a></p>
<p align=”left”>Although it has been reported that investigators probably [used] a search warrant, to [gain access to] Ms. Broadwell’s Gmail account,” the process of how this unfolded has not been properly explained.</p>
<p align=”left”>The power of the surveillance state to uncover troves of personal emails with little fanfare illustrates why the likes of DHS head Janet Napolitano and her predecessor Michael Chertoff <a href=””>don’t even have email accounts.</a></p>
<p align=”left”>With governments now <a href=”″>trying to introduce powers</a> to monitor email communications in real time, whatever shred of online privacy that remains is about to be decimated.</p>
<p align=”left”>Of course, many would suggest that this is just a way of codifying into law what governments are already doing in secret. Over 10 years ago, the European Parliament found that the global eavesdropping program Echelon was carrying out, “inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally through the interception of communication bearers” and that <a href=””>all Internet traffic was recorded and analyzed</a> with keyword software for “suspicious” content.</p>

<h2>ABC station botches Petraeus book cover: ‘ALL Up IN My Snatch’</h2>
By <a href=”” target=”_blank”>David Edwards</a>
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:28 EST

<img title=”KMGH airs wrong book cover for David Petraeus mistress Paul Broadwell: &quot;All Up in My Snatch&quot;” src=”×345.jpg” alt=”KMGH airs wrong book cover for David Petraeus mistress Paul Broadwell: &quot;All Up in My Snatch&quot;” width=”615″ height=”345″ />
<div id=”rpuCopySelection”>

An ABC News affiliate in Denver says that while attempting to report on the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus, the station mistakenly aired a photoshopped version of his mistress’ book with the raunchy title “All Up In My Snatch.”

KMGH-TV producer Deb Stanley told <em>Raw Story</em> that the wrong book cover had been “mistakenly picked up off the Internet” and aired during their 5 p.m. broadcast on Monday. Instead of displaying the actual book cover of Paula Broadwell’s Petraeus biography, “All In,” KMGH-TV aired the parody cover, “All Up In My Snatch.”

“That actually happened and it was a mistake,” Stanley explained. “And it was not something we created. We don’t want that mistake out there.”

While the KMGH-TV did not post the segment on its website, a viewer captured video of the broadcast and <a href=””>provided it to Americablog</a>.

And it was clear from <a href=””>comments posted on KMGH’s</a> that several other viewers also caught the mistake.

“Not sure at all where you got your picture of Broadwell’s book for your 5pm news cast,” one viewer wrote. “I AM sure the title is NOT ‘ALL up IN my snatch’ ‘the education of General David Patraeus’ as you showed. I believe it is simply titled “All In”. Clever photoshopping by someone – – not so clever use of sources for a news cast!”

“I saw it too!” another viewer added. “I have been looking for, at the very least, an apology from 7 News. I hope someone’s head is on the chopping block; this was inexcusable behavior.”

Stanley could not confirm to <em>Raw Story</em> whether an apology or correction would be forthcoming from the station.

<strong>Update (4 p.m. ET):</strong> KMGH-TV News Director Jeff Harris <a href=””>released a statement</a> calling the mistake a “regrettable and an embarrassing error.”

“We are mortified this appeared during our 5 p.m. news broadcast,” Harris said. “The editor pulled the image of the book cover from the Internet without realizing it had been doctored. We sincerely regret the error and have corrected the story to avoid any recurrence of its broadcast. We are following up internally as well to avoid a repeat of this inexcusable oversight.”

Watch this video from KMGH-TV, broadcast Nov. 12, 2012.

<iframe src=”” frameborder=”0″ width=”420″ height=”315″></iframe>
<h2>Robertson absolves Petraeus: Broadwell was ‘throwing herself at him… he’s a man’</h2>
By <a href=”” target=”_blank”>David Edwards</a>
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 13:52 EST

<img title=”Pat Robertson shrugs over Petraeus scandal” src=”×345.jpg” alt=”Pat Robertson shrugs over Petraeus scandal” width=”615″ height=”345″ />
<div id=”rpuCopySelection”>

Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday suggested that former CIA Director David Petraeus, who recently resigned over an affair with his biographer, was the victim in the scandal because there was “a good-looking lady throwing herself at him” and “he’s a man.”

“I don’t think he is a devious human being,” Robertson explained. “I think he’s been one of the greatest generals America has ever produced. He’s a brilliant man. He’s got a Ph.D from Princeton and his analysis of counterinsurgency is the textbook for the whole military. We’ll sadly miss a man like that.”

The TV preacher went on to explain the scandal by placing the blame on Paula Broadwell, the author who reportedly had an affair with Petraeus.

“The affairs of the heart seem to catch these guys,” he opined. “She’s a lieutenant colonel, she is an extremely good-looking woman, she is a marathon runner, she can run Ironman Triathlons. So, she’s out running with him and she’s writing a biography and I think the term is propinquity. And there was a lot of propinquity going on.”

“Well, who knows? The man is off in a foreign land and he’s lonely and here’s a good-looking lady throwing herself at him. I mean, it’s — he’s a man,” Robertson added with a shrug. “So, there are people who felt he shouldn’t resign if it didn’t effect his work.”

“I don’t condone sexual immorality, but at the same time, I don’t think it should be necessarily a disqualification for somebody to head the CIA.”

At the Christian Coalition’s state dinner in 1999, Robertson had <a href=””>thanked several Republicans</a> who had worked to impeach President Bill Clinton and “rid ourselves of this moral evil” after he had an affair with Monica Lewinski. But Robertson also urged lawmakers to move on because it was clear the president was not going to be removed from office.

“In jury terms, they have a hung jury and the sooner they can wrap it up the better,” he said. “If you don’t have the votes, what can you do?”

Watch this video from CBN’s <em>The 700 Club</em> via <a href=””>Right Wing Watch</a>, broadcast Nov. 12, 2012.

<object width=”615″ height=”375″ classid=”clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000″ codebase=”,0,40,0″><param name=”src” value=”” /><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always” /><param name=”allowfullscreen” value=”true” /><param name=”flashvars” value=”&amp;;;;plugins=viral-2h&amp;;viral.allowmenu=true&amp;;;viral.oncomplete=false&amp;viral.onpause=false&amp;viral.pluginmode=FLASH&amp;;logo.file=” /><embed width=”615″ height=”375″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” src=”” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” flashvars=”&amp;;;;plugins=viral-2h&amp;;viral.allowmenu=true&amp;;;viral.oncomplete=false&amp;viral.onpause=false&amp;viral.pluginmode=FLASH&amp;;logo.file=” /></object>
<h2>Paula Broadwell’s Father: ‘This Is About Something Else Entirely, And The Truth Will Come Out’</h2>
<img title=”Paula Broadwell” src=”” alt=”” width=”147″ height=”120″ />By<strong> Kim Bhasin</strong>
<strong><a href=”″>Business Insider</a></strong>
Nov 13, 2012

Paula Broadwell’s father <a href=”″>Paul Krantz gave the New York Daily News</a> a strange, cryptic quote this afternoon outside his home in Bismarck, N.D.

“This is about something else entirely, and the truth will come out,” he told the Daily News.

“There is a lot more that is going to come out … You wait and see. There’s a lot more here than meets the eye.”

He said that his daughter, who’s at the center of the controversy that prompted CIA director David Petraeus to resign from his post, is a victim of character assassination, and that there’s something much bigger lurking behind the curtain.

Krantz also said that he supports his daughter “100 percent,” and that he can’t elaborate any further.

<a href=”″><strong>Read Entire Article</strong></a>
<h2>Former CIA Officer: White House Is ‘Lying’ Over Petreaus Investigation</h2>
<strong><a href=””>Breitbart</a></strong>
Nov 13, 2012

“They had to have known and for them to say they were intercepting e-mails and reading the CIA Director emails and not reporting that to the White House is bull… what the DNI should have done should have done is call him and say ‘What is this? What is this? What is going on here?’ instead of waiting… They are not telling the truth. They get pants on fire award. The White House is not telling the truth. It is politically engineered by all of you would not be reading the doing the investigation in the diameter of the justice without informing the white house. They are lying.” – Gary Bernsten, Former CIA Operative
<iframe src=”;VID=23885107&amp;freewheel=69016&amp;sitesection=breitbartprivate&amp;w=640&amp;h=480″ frameborder=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ scrolling=”no” width=”640″ height=”480″></iframe>
<h2 id=”watch-headline-title”>Someone Alleged Paula Broadwell-Petraeus Affair on Wikipedia in January</h2>
<iframe src=”″ frameborder=”0″ width=”560″ height=”315″></iframe>

As bizarre new details emerge in the scandal that brought down CIA director David Petraeus, an anonymous Wikipedia edit back in January is raising eyebrows.

Blogger Milo Wendt noted that Paula Broadwell, the biographer who allegedly had an affair with Petraeus, earned a Wikipedia entry after she appeared on The Daily Show to promote her book on the former general. An hour later, an anonymous editor logged on to note that “Petraeus is reportedly one of her many conquests.”

The edit was quickly flagged as libel and deleted, but a search of the IP address where it originated didn’t turn up the author.
<h2>General Petraeus and ‘the spy who loved him'</h2>
<div>Tuesday, November 13, 2012 by: Jon Rappoport</div>

(<a href=”″ target=”_blank”>NaturalNews</a>) It’s absurd to think the FBI just found out about CIA Director Petraeus’ affair with Paula Broadwell, his biographer. The timing is too convenient.

The FBI knew about the affair some time ago and, under strict orders, kept their mouths shut until just after Election Day. If they hadn’t, the scandal would have blown up during Obama’s campaign run.

During the period the FBI knew about Petraeus’ affair, they also knew he was completely vulnerable to blackmail. In FBI and CIA circles, to have done nothing about it is considered treasonous. Putting a gag on these FBI people had to been done by the White House.

The latest word is that Petraeus will not testify before Congress about what really happened in Benghazi. He “may be called” on the carpet at a future time, which could mean never.

His absence will help conceal details of the Chris Stevens murder and the build-up of US-sponsored terrorists in the Benghazi sector of Libya.

In fact, Petraeus’ initial statements to Congress, behind closed doors on September 14, led legislators to believe that absurd film trailer was the cause of the “uprising” at the house where Stevens was attacked and killed. Was the General’s ridiculous declaration made under orders from the White House, who had the blackmail goods on him?

Then, finally, on October 26th, Petraeus, perhaps fed up at how he was being used by the White House to provide cover for the president, stated: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need [in Bengazi]. Claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

In this whole scenario, we would be looking at a potential case of double blackmail. First by the White House, who knew of the affair sometime ago, and second, by whoever might have wrung CIA and military secrets out of Petraeus because they knew about his affair with Broadwell.

What does that make Paula Broadwell. In intelligence parlance, she would be a classic “honey trap.”

By circumstance, by accident, or on purpose?

She has a long military background. A graduate of West Point, she directed counter-terrorism studies at Tufts University. She worked with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. She is no innocent.

She very well knew that, during the time of their extended affair, Petraeus was vulnerable to any number of blackmail vectors. This did not make her waver.

She knew this wasn’t just some fling with a lieutenant colonel or even a run-of-the-mill general. Petraeus was head of all forces in the Afghanistan war. Then he was CIA director.

There are a lot of ways to write a biography that don’t involve sleeping with the subject and opening him up to blackmail at a very high level.

People from both sides of the aisle in Washington are expressing deep sorrow that an American hero had to resign. What nonsense. They’re building cover for Petraeus. They’re intentionally avoiding the question of what compromises he may have agreed to during his peak military service and intelligence directorship.

In Afghanistan, Petraeus was Obama’s choice to replace Stanley McChrystal, the general who blew his career during a Rolling Stone interview in which his men took pot shots at the president.

It is quite fair to ask whether Petraeus served as Obama’s man in Afghanistan under the unspoken but implied threat that, if there were any kerfuffles, any deviations, any criticisms of the White House Afghan policy, Petraeus’ affair would become public knowledge.

Despite claims by a friend that the affair with Broadwell began after Petraeus assumed leadership of the CIA, there is a strong possibility it started earlier, when Broadwell was “embedded” with the general in Afghanistan.

Was Paula Broadwell covertly working for the White House during her affair with Petraeus? Was she working for somebody else? Did she start out as an agent? Was she drawn into becoming one because she, too, as a married woman, was open to blackmail?

The public and the mainstream press, playing the part of “oh isn’t this too bad but of course nothing really serious or weird or compromising could have happened here,” doesn’t want to know how the <a href=””>spy</a> game is actually played. They’d rather watch Jeopardy and pop Zoloft.

“Two people, both married, couldn’t resist a great passion. It happens. All of us make mistakes. We understand. Even great men can succumb. And she was obviously smitten. What a shame.”

Yeah. Sure.

Petraeus, the man, is now a legitimate target for serious questions. If he entered into the affair, knowing full well the blackmail it opened him up to, what is he all about? Where have his loyalties resided?

Some starry-eyed people will think asking about this is “impolite,” because, after all, “the man is an American hero.” Nonsense.

Then we have questions about Petraeus’ potential political career. The press went after him with all sorts of questions about what he might do in the 2012 election. The idea was out there. Could he run for president against Obama? Could he become the next Eisenhower?

If he had decided to make the move, he would have had a formidable number of supporters. But he adamantly said no. Was this a genuine expression of disinterest, or was Petraeus already compromised and under the thumb of the White House?

“All right, David, you’re gone from Afghanistan now. You’ve retired from the Army. The hero returns. Don’t get any ideas about running for president. You know what we know about you. By the way, the director of Central Intelligence is open. How would you like that job?”

“Oh no,” people say. “This kind of thing would never happen.”

Really? What kind of world do you think Washington is? The Peace Corp with martini lunches? The Unitarian Church with occasional brandies and cigars?

Remember Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s famous remark when she was asked about the devastation the US was wreaking in Iraq through its economic sanctions?

May 12, 1996, 60 Minutes. Lesley Stahl says: “We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

Now that’s the real world of Washington, once the PR people get out of the way.

Blackmail of a famous general, a director of the CIA? That’s nothing.

A famous general falling under the power of blackmail? A general who knows some of the deep dark secrets about Dope Inc., the trillion-dollar opium growing operation in Afghanistan, a general whose troops have helped to restore the planting of the poppies there? A general who knows about the longed-for oil pipeline running through Afghanistan and the various persons whom it will benefit?

Could Petraeus have been a target for all manner of blackmail mounted by numerous parties?

Is the Pope Catholic?

<h2>CIA Agent Bob Baer Says Petraeus Investigation “Smacks of Orwell”</h2>
<strong><a href=””>Youtube</a></strong>

<iframe src=”” frameborder=”0″ width=”420″ height=”315″></iframe>
<h2>Petraeus: Resignation or Sacking?</h2>
<img title=”Petraeus” src=”×125.png” alt=”” width=”150″ height=”125″ />By <strong>Stephen Lendman</strong>, <em>Contributor</em>
<a href=”” target=”_blank”><strong></strong></a>
November 12, 2012

Some observers call Washington a city of scandals. Lots of intrigue reflects daily life in the nation’s capital. Elected and appointed officials come and go.

Most often it’s uneventful. Other times once powerful figures fell from grace or scandals affecting them rose to the level of affixing a “gate” suffix on what happened.

Watergate, Whitewatergate, Iran/Contragate, Koreagate, Travelgate, and Troopergate among others come to mind.

Perhaps Petraeusgate will enter the lexicon of political scandals. You read it here first.

Forget resignation over extramarital sex nonsense unless state secrets were compromised. Lots of elected and appointed Washington officials had affairs. Many likely have current ones.

Resignations don’t generally follow. Newt Gingrich survived sex and ethics scandals. He resigned as House Speaker after the Republicans faired poorly in 1998 off-year elections.

In 1999, extramarital sex defrocked Speaker-elect Bob Livingstone. He could have stayed, but opted to become a high-paid DC lobbyist.

Extramarital affairs didn’t defrock past notable officials. They included Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower (during WW II), Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton. Unconfirmed rumors also surfaced about GHW and GW Bush.

Jimmy Carter once admitted to having “lusted in his heart,” but never let it go further than that.

As more information and rumors surface, expect lots more written about Petraeus. Another emperor has no clothes. Petraeus was more paper hero than real one.

The man behind the image was fake. He’s a shadow of how he and spin doctors portrayed him publicly.

Competence didn’t earn him four stars. Former peers accused him of brown-nosing his way to the top. It made him a brand as much as general. Talk about him being presidential material surfaced.

In 2007, Time magazine made him runner-up as Person of the Year. The designation is as meaningless and unworthy as Nobel Peace awards.

So is current and previous praise. John McCain once called him “one of (our) greatest generals.” His judgment leaves much to be desired.

He’s not the best and brightest on Capitol Hill. He once admitted to graduating near the bottom of his Naval Academy class.

White House and media spin praised Petraeus’ performance as Iraq commander and CENTCOM head. It was falsified hype. Performance contradicted facts. Iraq was more disaster than success. His Afghanistan surge failed. Syria on his CIA watch didn’t fare better.

Before he fell from grace, he was called aggressive in nature, an innovative thinker on counterinsurgency warfare, a talisman, a white knight, a do-or-die competitive legend, and a man able to turn defeat into victory.

In 2008, James Petras described him well in an article titled “General Petraeus: Zionism’s Military Poodle. From Surge to Purge to Dirge.”

He explained what spin doctors concealed. He quoted Petraeus’ former commander, Admiral William Fallon, calling him “a piece of brown-nosing chicken shit.” Petras added:

“In theory and strategy, in pursuit of defeating the Iraqi resistance, General Petraeus was a disastrous failure, an outcome predictable form the very nature of his appointment and his flawed wartime reputation.”

The generalissimo is more myth than man. He shamelessly supported Israel “in northern Iraq and the Bush ‘Know Nothings’ in charge of Iraq and Iran policy planning.”

Petraeus had few competitors to head CENTCOM. It was because other candidates wouldn’t stoop as low as he did. He shamelessly flacked for Israel and supported Bush administration belligerence.

Petras criticized his “slavish adherence to….confrontation with Iran. Blaming Iran for his failed military policies served a double purpose – it covered up his incompetence and it secured the support of” uberhawk Senator Joe Lieberman.

Doing so also served his unstated presidential ambitions. He climbed the ladder of success by being super-hawkish, brown-nosing the right superiors, lying to Congress, surviving the scorn of some peers, hiding his failures, hyping a fake Iranian threat, supporting Israel, unjustifiably claiming Iraq success, and boasting how he’d do it throughout the region.

In other words, he hoped to rise to the top by manufacturing successes and concealing failures. Manipulated media hype made a hero out of what Petras called “a disastrous failure” with a record to prove it.

Petraeus benefitted from supporting Bush imperial ambitions and Israel’s regional agenda. At one time, the Israeli Lobby loved him. Perhaps no longer after March 2010. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he said:

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR (Area of Operations).”

“Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel.”

“Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

“Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.”

In other words, Petraeus echoed others saying Israeli interests often run counter to America’s. The so-called special relationship at times does more harm than good.

At the same time, Petraeus very much supports Washington’s imperial agenda. Apparently he believes achieving it depends on delinking from Israeli interests when they harm America’s.

Anti-Defamation League head Abe Foxman responded angrily, saying:

“Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the US and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived US favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive.”

This may have contributed to his leaving. Challenging Israeli Lobby power is high-risk. Perhaps it decided Petraeus had to go.

Whether so or not, he’s a four-star, now defrocked, failure. Another paper emperor has no clothes. He never did but now we know.

Other opinions surfaced on why he left. WND breaking news said:

“Forget what you’ve heard – could this be why Petraeus resigned?” Speculation “focus(ed) in large part on his role in an alleged cover-up of the attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi this past September.”

Overlooked are secret CIA Benghazi operations. Involved are heavy weapons sent to Syrian opposition fighters. Petraeus left days before his scheduled congressional testimony.

He’ll either come voluntarily or be subpoenaed. What he’ll be asked or say remains to be seen. If it’s too controversial, expect closed hearings.

The Benghazi operation is erroneously called a US consulate. It’s “a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.”

Tasks performed include “collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”

Consulate designation provides cover. Obama and Clinton call the post a “US mission.” The State Department lists no consulate in Benghazi.

WND reported earlier that ambassador Stevens “played a central role in recruiting (anti-Assad) jihadists.” He coordinated with Saudi and Qatari efforts. Fighters go to Syria via Turkey.

Washington claims only non-lethal aid is provided. In fact, the CIA and perhaps Pentagon are actively involved in arming anti-Assad fighters.

Agency efforts to conceal its operations may have contributed to Stevens’ death. Perhaps Petraeus is blamed and was sacked. Letting him resign for any reason is how Washington usually orchestrates exits. Why he chose extramarital sex he’ll have to explain.

Robert Parry said Petraeus’ departure “removes the last high-ranking neoconservative holdover from George W. Bush’s administration and gives the reelected President Barack Obama more maneuvering room to negotiate a settlement over Iran’s nuclear program.”

Petraeus wasn’t an Obama favorite. He had suspect loyalties. An unnamed administration source said “some key figures close to the President wanted (him) out, and there was no sadness” to see him go.

The New York Times and Washington Post said FBI investigations began months age into a “potential criminal matter.” It wasn’t focused on Petraeus.

Information surfaced about a potentially compromised computer he used. Security concerns were raised. FBI agents discussed this with him.

An unnamed congressional official briefed on the matter urged him to fall on his sword and leave. Whether he did or was pushed who knows.

Parry thinks Obama is “clearing the decks (to) move ahead more aggressively with his own foreign policy.” Defense Secretary Gates is gone. Now Petraeus, and word is Clinton and others want out or will be replaced.

Perhaps Obama “learned a key lesson of modern Washington: surrounding yourself with ideological and political rivals may sound good, but it is usually an invitation to have your policies sabotaged.”

A Final Comment

Ray McGovern is a retired CIA officer (1963 – 1990), turned activist and political critic. He’s also a valued Progressive Radio News Hour guest.

In April 2011, he wrote about “Petraeus at CIA – Can He Tell the Truth?” He said Obama picking him as CIA director “raise(d) troubling questions.”

“What if CIA analysts assess(ed)” his Iraq and Afghanistan performance as failure? Would he accept or punish “critical analysis?”

“The Petraeus appointment also suggests that the President places little value on getting the straight scoop on these key war-related issues.”

“If he did want the kind of intelligence analysis that, at times, could challenge the military, why is he giving the CIA job to a general with a huge incentive to gild the lily regarding the ‘progress’ made under his command?”

McGovern compared Petraeus to the “ghost of Westmoreland Past.” His Southeast Asia record included “deliberate distortion and dishonesty.” Intelligence analysts proved it.

Progress he touted was failure. Petraeus appears to be Westmoreland redux. Lots of evidence confirms it. Now he’s gone. Expect lots more said about him. It remains to be seen how much dirty linen will be aired.

<small><em>Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] </em>His new book is titled<em> How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War</em></small>

<small><em>Also visit his blog site at <a href=””></a> and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.</em></small>

<small><strong><em><a href=””></a></em></strong></small>
<h2>Petraeus’ resignation questioned over role in Benghazi scandal</h2>
7:24 pm, November 12th, 2012</li>
<li>7:15 am, November 12th, 2012</li>
<li><a href=”” target=”_blank”>Sun News Canada</a></li>
<img src=”” alt=”Petraeus’ resignation questioned over role in Benghazi scandal” width=”431″ height=”242″ />

<object id=”flashObj” width=”480″ height=”270″ classid=”clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000″ codebase=”,0,40,0″ bgcolor=”#FFFFFF”><param name=”flashVars” value=”videoId=1964316349001&amp;playerID=867119956001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true” /><param name=”base” value=”” /><param name=”seamlesstabbing” value=”false” /><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true” /><param name=”swLiveConnect” value=”true” /><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always” /><param name=”src” value=”;isUI=1″ /><param name=”flashvars” value=”videoId=1964316349001&amp;playerID=867119956001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true” /><param name=”allowfullscreen” value=”true” /><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always” /><param name=”swliveconnect” value=”true” /><param name=”pluginspage” value=”” /><embed id=”flashObj” width=”480″ height=”270″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” src=”;isUI=1″ flashVars=”videoId=1964316349001&amp;playerID=867119956001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true” base=”” seamlesstabbing=”false” allowFullScreen=”true” swLiveConnect=”true” allowScriptAccess=”always” flashvars=”videoId=1964316349001&amp;playerID=867119956001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true” allowfullscreen=”true” allowscriptaccess=”always” swliveconnect=”true” pluginspage=”” bgcolor=”#FFFFFF” /></object>

CIA Director David Petraeus was slated to testify on the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on Thursday, a fact that is raising questions about the timing of his resignation on November 9.

Petraeus resigned Friday citing an extramarital affair with author Paula Broadwell.

<object id=”flashObj” width=”480″ height=”270″ classid=”clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000″ codebase=”,0,40,0″ bgcolor=”#FFFFFF”><param name=”flashVars” value=”videoId=1964364204001&amp;playerID=867119956001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true” /><param name=”base” value=”” /><param name=”seamlesstabbing” value=”false” /><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true” /><param name=”swLiveConnect” value=”true” /><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always” /><param name=”src” value=”;isUI=1″ /><param name=”flashvars” value=”videoId=1964364204001&amp;playerID=867119956001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true” /><param name=”allowfullscreen” value=”true” /><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always” /><param name=”swliveconnect” value=”true” /><param name=”pluginspage” value=”” /><embed id=”flashObj” width=”480″ height=”270″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” src=”;isUI=1″ flashVars=”videoId=1964364204001&amp;playerID=867119956001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true” base=”” seamlesstabbing=”false” allowFullScreen=”true” swLiveConnect=”true” allowScriptAccess=”always” flashvars=”videoId=1964364204001&amp;playerID=867119956001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true” allowfullscreen=”true” allowscriptaccess=”always” swliveconnect=”true” pluginspage=”” bgcolor=”#FFFFFF” /></object>
<h2>Statement by President Obama on the Resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus</h2>
<a href=”” target=”_blank”>White House Press Release</a>

David Petraeus has provided extraordinary service to the United States for decades. By any measure, he was one of the outstanding General officers of his generation, helping our military adapt to new challenges, and leading our men and women in uniform through a remarkable period of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he helped our nation put those wars on a path to a responsible end. As Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, he has continued to serve with characteristic intellectual rigor, dedication, and patriotism. By any measure, through his lifetime of service David Petraeus has made our country safer and stronger.

Today, I accepted his resignation as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I am completely confident that the CIA will continue to thrive and carry out its essential mission, and I have the utmost confidence in Acting Director Michael Morell and the men and women of the CIA who work every day to keep our nation safe. Going forward, my thoughts and prayers are with Dave and Holly Petraeus, who has done so much to help military families through her own work. I wish them the very best at this difficult time.