Skip to comments.NAPOLITANO: Silencing General David Petraeus
Posted on 11/14/2012 11:29:47 AM PST by jazusamo
Obama administrations dirty hands
The evidence that Gen. David H. Petraeus, formerly the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, the author of the current Army field manual, Princeton Ph.D. and, until last week, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was forced to resign from the CIA to silence him is far stronger than is the version of events that the Obama administration has given us.
The government would have us believe that because the FBI confronted Gen. Petraeus with his emails showing a pattern of inappropriate personal private behavior, he voluntarily departed his job as the countrys chief spy to avoid embarrassment. The government would also have us believe that the existence of the generals relationship with Paula Broadwell, an unknown military scholar who wrote a book about him last year, was recently and inadvertently discovered by the FBI while it was conducting an investigation into an alleged threat made by Mrs. Broadwell to another woman. The government would as well have us believe that the president learned of all this at 5 p.m. on Election Day.
We now know that the existence of a personal relationship between Mrs. Broadwell and Gen. Petraeus had been suspected and whispered about by his senior-level colleagues and by his personal staff in the military, who worried that it might become publicly known, since before the time that he came to run the CIA.
We also know that when he was nominated to run the CIA, that nomination was preceded by a two-month FBI-conducted background check that likely would have revealed the existence of his relationship with Mrs. Broadwell. The FBI agents conducting that background check surely would have seen his visitor logs while he commanded our troops...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The CIA would have asked him directly about affairs or other blackmailable issues. As long as Petraeus was honest about his activities (within limits) then he would get a pass on the security check.
Obama to Petraeus:
“Lie for me or wake up with a horse head in your bed!”
I want to know: WHO WAS PAULA BROADWELL WORKING FOR? She is a SPY for someone.. Possibly just an operative of 0bama performing a HIT on Petraeus, but she was also possibly spying on our counterterrorism activities on behalf of A SOURCE PAYING FOR HER INFORMATION. That source could be indirectly behind the attack on our Embassy.
I am just praying that Gen Petraeus is sufficiently incensed by the actions of the 0bama regime, the fact that he no longer has to hide the affair, and his loyalty to fellow military members, the heroic SEALs of Benghazi, that when he arrives to testify he does so with vengence in his heart! And let the chips fall where they may!
I’m interested in the lie detector test. There are two kinds and to work for this agency the Personal One would likely be used. Why would this test not reveal his personal behavior? Why would the “Director” be immune from the test and others are not? Interesting.
Yep, or maybe Obama’s handler Jarrett.
soetoro isn’t gonna like this.
Was the shirtless FBI whistleblower who contacted Cantor the one to throw a wrench in the deal?
“whispered about by his senior-level colleagues and by his personal staff in the military, who worried that it might become publicly known”
Well, that’s a horse head of a different color - now the potential exists that he would be recalled to active duty for adverse action or court-martial, depending on what UCMJ offenses are supported. Certainly plausible that a grade determination would find the last grade at which he served honorably was something less than 4 stars...
If Napolitano is correct, then by outing himself Petraeus refused to be blackmailed.
The counterpoint to that is that Petraeus took the CIA job even though he knew he was lying down with dogs. That gave the impression he just might be one of the dogs.
Napolitano’s article notwithstanding, Petraeus could still be taking one for the Obama team. There’s no real way to know.
So, when he testifies before Congress is he playing misdirection for Obama, is he playing honest broker, is he playing CYOA....what?
What I do know is that a man who truly did have the credentials to make a presidential run has been ruined. He’s also one who could have given Hillary Clinton hell.
There are layers upon layers to this. I’d be careful with any information gained from anyone with connections to the administration.
Yes, there’s been some written about that and it’s a possibility.
I have no idea of the odds of that happening, would you have an opinion in a case like this?
I fear you may be right about your ‘dog and pony show’ prediction. I just can’t bring myself to hope or expect that Petraeus will do the right thing here.
Well said, xzins. We may never know unless Gen Petraeus spills it all.
At this point, Petraeus has to be in survival mode. He is bright enough to answer questions vaguely enough to not really let any cats out of the bag and get him in doo doo with either side.
That said, don’t the Security briefings have some sort of paper trail that high level Congress critters could demand to see?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.