Posted on 11/10/2012 12:19:37 PM PST by RoosterRedux
The collapse of the dazzling career of CIA Director David H. Petraeus was triggered when a woman with whom he was having an affair sent threatening e-mails to another woman close to him, according to three senior law enforcement officials with knowledge of the episode.
The recipient of the e-mails was so frightened that she went to the FBI for protection and help tracking down the sender, according to the officials. The FBI investigation traced the threats to Paula Broadwell, a former military officer and a Petraeus biographer, and uncovered explicit e-mails between Broadwell and Petraeus, the officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Getting better by the minute?
Have u noticed the story is not about 4 murdered Americans anymore.
And it won’t be. The MSM will cover the sex story, not the lies about
Bengazi.
The BroadWell is likely working on the sequel - “Sacked”.
I find it hard to believe that a man of his quality would
send emails and incriminate himself. Maybe he had a lapse
of judgment and had an affair, but I can’t see him leaving
such a trail of evidence.
How to explain the ('rat) WasserWoman then?
, liWhat if Mittens’VP nominee had instead been PETREUS and not Ryan?
Then instead we would have heard of all this in the week BEFORE the election and not after:
I’m sure that as soon as soon as speculation mounted that the choice might end up as Petreus, that very millisecond every info rat and honeypot in Chicago went onto a full war footing.
Given recent political history I find it highly implausible that the original reason why the FBI launched down this sensitive path was because a “jealous and possessive female” tried to scare away a RIVAL.
That notion stinks to high heaven of the ole vaguely Arkanasas, “nuts and sluts” defense.
Even here at FR today people are swallowing that bait hook
How to explain the ('rat) WasserWoman then?
All that mayonnaise on her hair penetrated her skull.
“Though he let the wrong words slip while kissing persuasive lips...”
the related issue of gunnrunning through Libya and assasination of the Ambassadors mission is not even making a paragraph on page twelve
But Benghazi is the backdrop to this entire story. If it weren’t for Benghazi, this story would already be below the fold or back on page 7.
These dumb GOP house members should have put all these hacks under
Oath before the election. I guess they did not want to offend all these moderates and independents before the election.
You know, these moderates and independents that was the key to Romney’s victory. Big mistake by Romney and Bonehead not to call them
All before the election. I’m guessing the GOP will bring it up again right
Before the 2014 elections to use it as a campaign tool. Of course, the GOP
Never make anyone pay, they just like using scandals as campaign tools.
The GOP got hoodwinked again. Bigtime!
She’s hot, but the sex angle is a red-herring:
The real story is Bengazi, MANPADS, and Al Qaeda.
Look Nation of Islam was openly returned for his re-election —that’s two times, now.
We do NOT know what dirt the muzzies have on this gay man, but we do know how much it would benefit them to put a Salafist into the White House —we might have that, now.
I like sex, but THAT IS NOT REALLY THE POINT OF THIS STORY.
How many of these scandals happen daily that we never hear about? This thing could have been contained. The rationale that the White House and DNI might use on the FBI, would be that only minor crimes were committed, that Petraeus was irreplaceable, that the scandal would impact the morale of the CIA, and be an international embarrassment. Obama’s first term has been full of scandals that barely reached the surface because the administration stonewalls and the news media sticks its head in the sand. In the case of Petraeus the DNI told him to resign just before the story was fed to the media.
If you think Christopher Stevens was really a "U.S. ambassador" over there -- in a country that doesn't even have a real functioning government -- then I think you're being naive.
That’s a very good point. Obama evidently believed at one point just before the GOP convention that Romney was going to ask Petraeus to be his VP, so this was probably going to be the classic Obama-style October Surprise (always something sleazy and personal).
However, it was a win-win for Obama, because he probably now feels that this discredits Petraeus and anything he might say about Benghazi. That said, I think people here are seriously overestimating Petraeus. He’s a military man, and thus loyal to whoever is in charge. Right now, that’s Obama.
I don’t think Petraeus’ civilian status as CIA director and now as just plain civilian is going to change his loyalty to Obama.
But it would be nice to be proved wrong.
This is already infinitely bigger than Watergate...and still growing.
Don’t forget hs headline!
Petraeus on Benghazi: It Wasn’t Me
I KNOW!!!
Not defending Patraeus at all, but I about spewed my coffee this morning when I read one article that talked about how terrible it was to have someone as important as the head of the CIA be put into a position in which he could have been blackmailed!
Ding! Ding! Ding! The MSM seemed not to realize this when Mr. BJ Stainman was doing his thing.
It’s almost always about power (or money). She had a beautiful family. Feel sorry for her children.
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.