Now that the dust has settled on the Petraeus thing, let us revisit.
Bottom Line Up Front: The Petraeus Affair is part of the Obama Administration's cover of the whole Benghazi mess - that one of our overseas missions was attacked by al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9/11, and that rescue forces were ordered to stand down in order to avoid a failed operation ala Carter's hostage rescue. Such a disaster could have cost Obama the Presidency.
Hence the pervasive myth of the attack being a mob infuriated by an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube. We know from the timeline of events in Benghazi on September 11th that this is not so.
Incredibly, the main point of this entire affair still eludes our self-appointed Keepers of Conventional Wisdom out there in the mainstream media, and that is:
WHY was David Petraeus fired?
Petraeus was not fired for an extramarital affair. Consider; by the Democrats' own standards, there is nothing wrong about an older man in a position of power and influence having an affair with a younger, starry eyed woman.
Why ruin a good man's career over something as irrelevant as getting a little on the side? In '98, the Democrats and their willing minions in the press even went so far as to claim that lying to cover oneself over such an event - to the point of committing perjury under oath in a court of law - was okay, that it happens all the time, that in fact telling such lies are good for everybody concerned.
So why was Petraeus fired? More to the point - why was he not fired when it first became apparent that the Director of the CIA was having an affair and that his mistress may have gained access to classified material?
I have offered a timeline - as best as we know it - HERE. A summary follows:
According to Petraeus friend Colonel Steve Boylan, the affair with Paula Broadwell began in November 2011. This is significant, because it clears Petraeus of any possible violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Personally, it doesn't bother me that General Petraeus was getting some on the side - I'm no Boy Scout. The only issue I have is the concept that Petraeus might have been banging this Broadwell bird - somebody else's wife by the way - while he was supposed to be leading troops in theater, in Afghanistan. That would not only have been illegal, but extrememly disgraceful.
Colonel Boylan's convenient revelation is what buddies are for in the military; to help cover your ass when you step on your dick. Thanks, Steve - you're a good wingman!
Then, in May of 2012, Tampa socialite Jill Kelley notifies a friend in the FBI that she's been receiving harassing emails, and a formal FBI investigation begins soon after.
(The fact that Jill Kelley's FBI friend was a guy who shared shirtless photos of himself with Dr. Kelley's wife is just another juicy morsel on the side of this whole thing, and is essentially irrelevant. Also, the 20-30k worth of naughty emails General Allen shared with Jill Kelley is also irrelevant; simply more dirt to muddy the waters.)
Sometime in the summer of 2012 the FBI determined that the email trail leads to Broadwell. The investigation reveals a private Gmail account using an alias that belongs to Petraeus, and agents believe the two are having an affair. FBI Director Robert Mueller is notified. At some point during the investigation, the FBI interviews Petraeus and Broadwell.
In July of 2012 we are to believe that the affair between Petraeus and Broadwell came to an end; this according to Petraeus' friend Boylan. Again, this is irrelevant. However, we are told that Attorney General Eric Holder was not notified until late summer 2012. The official timeline offered by the Obama Administration is that the President was not informed until after the election, and that Petraeus submitted his resignation letter shortly thereafter.
This is where I have a problem with the official line of crap we're being fed, and this is where things get sinister.
We are expected to believe that the Director of Central Intelligence was being investigated by the FBI over an affair - with concern over possible leak of classified material or the potential for blackmail of the nations' highest intelligence officer - and the President of the United States was NOT informed?
Let me ask another question: is the word "STUPID" written across my forehead?
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Of course Obama knew about the affair. Such a potentially damaging issue at the height of the campaign was absolutely radioactive, and as such had to be managed with extreme care.
So they covered for Petraeus, let him stay in place for two reasons: A) potential fallout from the scandal could cost Obama the election, and B) now they had something to hold over the head of the Director of the CIA - this is the way Team Obama conducts business.
Then Benghazi happened. We now know what occurred on the night of September 11th, and we also know that the story of Muslim mobs enraged by a YouTube video was a complete fabrication. It is not exactly clear who exactly cooked up this myth, but this is also irrelevant. The way everybody from the President of the United States on down was parroting this bizarre talking point makes it obvious to me that this cover story was propagated from the very top.
Essentially; the President of the United States masked from the American people a lethal terrorist attack on one of our overseas missions. Furthermore, somebody from within the National Command Authority - that is, either the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense - ordered rescue forces to stand down from responding to the attack on the consulate.
It was necessary to hide the truth about Benghazi from the American people, because Obama had made so much political capital from the killing of Bin Laden. A lethal al Qaeda attack on a US target overseas threatened his re-election chances, and so the lies.
General Petraeus himself participated in this cover-up, when he gave “misleading” testimony on 14 September to the House Intelligence Committee on. In that session, Petraeus pointed to a protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video as a primary reason for the attacks on the US facilities in Benghazi, despite an abundance of intelligence pointing to a preplanned terrorist assault on the US consulate and CIA annex there.
Once Obama's re-election was was in the bag, however, uncomfortable questions remained about the events in Benghazi. And so now the Petraeus Affair becomes a convenient red herring to throw out there. Something as big and juicy as that was enough to suck all the oxygen out of the Benghazi story, and so it was time to play that card, throw it out there on the table.
The tale of the General and his hot mistress is made-for-supermarket-tabloids material on steroids. And the Democrats get two for the price of one; not only is this an effective smokescreen to the mess that is Benghazi, but this also takes a very charismatic and respected Republican out of the field of potential candidates for 2016.
The actions of Obama & Co are disgraceful enough, but we expect this kind of behavior of them. This is what they are, this is the Chicago Way.
Petraeus? To me his biggest crime is being stupid enough to think that, as Director of the CIA, an electronic email trail could possibly remain uncovered. General Petraeus was obviously doing all his thinking with his little head, when he should have been thinking with his big head.
To me the greatest travesty is being perpetrated by the Left-leaning Mainstream Media; the Benghazi cover-up is potentially a far greater crime than Watergate ever was, and this time the media is a willing participant in the cover-up. Obama plays them like a Stradivarius, and they wittingly pounced on Petraeus and served him up as raw meat for the masses.
There you have it, people; the total exploitation of General Petraeus.
- STORMBRINGER SENDS