Benghazi Index
Posted on 11/14/2012 7:59:38 AM PST by IbJensen
How long does it take to tell the president that his CIA director is under investigation?
Here is the answer Americans are now supposed to believe: longer than it took for the White House to discover that a YouTube video did not inspire the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
In June 2010, President Obama fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the U.S. commander in Afghanistan because McChrystal had criticized civilian administration officials in the presence of a writer from Rolling Stone. Obama immediately named Gen. David Petraeus — hero of the Iraq surge — the new field commander in Afghanistan.
While Petraeus was in Afghanistan, a woman named Paula Broadwell "embedded" in his staff. She was a West Point grad, an Army reserve officer, the married mother of two children — and was working on a biography of the general.
Petraeus served only one year in Afghanistan, leaving more than a year before Obama's surge there was completed. The president apparently believed it was more important to bring this famous field commander home and make him director of the CIA than to leave him in Afghanistan in command of the enlarged military force Obama had deployed there to theoretically complete America's by-then already 10-year-old war.
On March 19, 2011, while Petraeus was still in Afghanistan, Obama unilaterally ordered the U.S. military to intervene in Libya's civil war, involving the United States in the internal affairs of yet another Muslim nation. Congress never authorized Obama's act. He said he did it because "the writ of the international community must be enforced."
In June 2011, the Senate confirmed Petraeus as CIA director.
On April 6, 2012, as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform would later learn, two Libyans fired as security guards at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, tossed a bomb into the consulate compound.
On May 22, 2012, when Petraeus was CIA director, terrorists taking credit for attacking the office of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Benghazi issued a direct threat to the United States.
"Finally, now we are preparing a message for the Americans for disturbing the skies over Derna," they said in a Facebook posting, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
On June 6, 2012, when Petraeus was CIA director, terrorists used an IED to blow a massive hole in the wall around the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
On June 10, 2012, when Petraeus was CIA director, a terrorist fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy carrying the British ambassador through the streets of Benghazi.
On Sept. 11, 2012, the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and then a nearby "annex" used by the CIA.
At 4:05 p.m. that day, a State Department email informed the White House that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was being attacked. At 5:00 p.m. that day, as the attack was unfolding in Benghazi, Obama met with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The terrorists would eventually kill four Americans in Benghazi. Two of them — former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty — were killed seven hours after the State Department first told the White House the attack was underway.
On Sept. 16, 2012, five days after the Benghazi attack, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said on national television that the attack grew out of a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.
On Sept. 25, 2012, two weeks after the attack in Benghazi, Obama spoke at length in the U.N. General Assembly about the YouTube video.
On Nov. 6, 2012, Obama was re-elected president of the United States.
On Nov. 9, 2012, CIA Director Petraeus resigned because an FBI investigation discovered he had had an extramarital affair with biographer Broadwell.
At a briefing on Tuesday, Nov. 13, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that no one had informed the president that his CIA director was under investigation until Wednesday — the day after the presidential election.
How long do you think it took to tell Hitler that Rommel was under investigation?
About as long as it took Himmler to pick up a phone.
That’s what I’m thinking. And he didn’t even have a cell phone, but I’ll bet he ran to the nearest office.
09/14/12 Petraeus testifies under oath that killings started as protest over video
10/26/12 Broadwell reveals secret CIA prison in Benghazi during Denver speech
directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/11/food-for-thought-petraeus-broadwell.html
Everyone in the democrat party and the media knows that it’s their solemn duty to protect the commander in chief. All will do what it takes to protect him, even if it means lying.
The Saudis go whichever way their bank accounts nudge them so they might be on either side.
Obama probably ordered Petraeus to be spied on.
So the affair between Petraeus and Broadwell is supposed to have been eight months long. And halfway into it, Broadwell sends the e-mails to Kelley.
I can see how a powerful man can still be swayed by exposure of a secret that could topple an empire. Once the secret is exposed, what othe reason is there to keep a fallen powerful man from straying from the lie?
If Petraeus does expose the truth about Benghazi, and implicate Obama in the process, we would be heading into resignation territory. Since the election hasn't been certified by the Electoral College yet, how will the Electors feel when they are accused of voting for a President who did these things, and then covered it up by blackmailing a top General and the CIA Director just to save himself, using mob tactics?
How do we pressure the states to release their committed Electors to vote their own conscious in December or be labeled an accomplice to Obama?
-PJ
It is more likely that the information was obtained before the General was appointed to the CIA. It would have been seen as a "handle," to control him--for a variety of possible reasons--including an ability to shoot him down, if he became a political rival.
For those who remember what happened to Vice President Agnew, my point will seem obvious. Agnew had been a member of the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, before Nixon put him on the ticket as Vice Presidential candidate in 1968. Agnew then moved to the right, and became something of a Conservative spokesman. Then suddenly in 1973, when it began to look like Nixon might be impeached, a pre-1968(!) tax investigation, suddenly came to a head, and Agnew was forced to resign--preventing the possible elevation of a Conservative to the Presidency. (It was obvious that someone had contol over that investigation, and had held same as an "ace in the hold," as it were.)
William Flax
My sense is that the FBI is under Holder’s thumb.
They would be investigating Petraeus because Obama never really trusted him.
Broadwell entered the picture, I’m thinking, because someone was leaking Benghazi stuff.
In Denver Broadwell, according to Fox News “confirmed in October that the CIA annex in Benghazi asked for reinforcements when the consulate came under attack on September 11. She also acknowledged that “there was a failure in the system.”
This is at: http://nation.foxnews.com/gen-david-petraeus/2012/11/12/broadwell-video-raises-questions
I’m wondering if she was Jennifer Griffin’s source, and if Griffin’s past travels had her and Broadwell become acquaintances.
That has her as an anti-Obama mole with access to info who would have to be purged. It could call into question Petraeus’ loyalty to Obama.
She became an easy takedown since Holder’s FBI knew of the affair.
I also tend to think of Broadwell as probably being anti-Obama - or at least, not an Obama shill and not controlled by him - and I can’t imagine Petraeus would actually have become that involved with her if he hadn’t shared some of her outlook (or she his, perhaps).
The information on the affair was just held in reserve for the time when Obama needed it to get rid of or at least destroy the credibility of both of them.
I’m sure Obama has dirt on everybody in his regime and uses it to intimidate and control them.
One hypothesis is she's not as smart as she wants everybody to believe and is just another girl under the desk!
According to her publisher, she is a Ph.D. candidate in the Dept. of War Studies at King’s College London. I find that little tidbit very interesting. I wonder what her dissertation topic is? Or could it be just a cover for gathering info?
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.