Posted on 11/09/2012 9:12:17 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
'Affair': Paula Broadwell and David Petraeus, pictured, reportedly had an affair that led to his resignation
CIA Director David Petraeus dramatically resigned today after allegedly having an affair with his biographer, it has been claimed. The alleged affair was uncovered after the FBI launched an investigation into the biographer, Paula Broadwell, for allegedly hacking into the former general's email, NBC News and Slate reported. Broadwell, who researched the book 'All In' for three years, had extensive access to Petraeus in Afghanistan. Yet sources told NBC it is unlikely she will face criminal charges after the alleged hacking, stressing that Petraeus himself is under no investigation. Petraeus stepped down today after confessing to cheating on his wife of 37 years, Holly - behaviour he explained was 'unacceptable' for a senior administration official.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Perhaps he is a SUPER GENIUS - SUPER PATRIOT, that considered the potential future need for a plausible cover story to remove himself from a position of public accountability in order to SAVE THE REPUBLIC FROM A THREATENING TRUTH.
So, as a SUPER GENIUS - SUPER PATRIOT, he preemptively sacrificed everything he valued and dutifully made whoopie with a beautiful woman for a few years, paying “next-to-the-ultimate-price’ for his country.
Perhaps he did all this for us, without knowing for certain that his sacrifice would ever be necessary. /sarc
Seriously - I think this situation amplifies the importance of the biblical principle that leaders should strive to be above reproach...cause if they ain’t, there will be far-reaching repercussions.
Perhaps, in view of this, the Committee chairman should direct all questions to an empty chair.
So Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton is conveniently out of the country next week and won't be testifying before the Committee, either......
Perhaps, in view of this, the Committee chairman should direct all questions to another empty chair.
Perhaps the Committee chairman should invite Clint Eastwood to administer the oaths to the empty chairs before the questioning begins.
Leni
He was thinking with the wrong head.
This is very depressing to me personally. I'm a 29+year retired military and to see a senior officer compromise his integrity like this is devastating. By the way, as many of you know, adultery is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course he is retired so the UCMJ doesn't apply here.
I wonder how many Commanders under him ever prosecuted that offense. I never have personally but I would have if the opportunity was there. I look at it this way. Any soldier, officer or enlisted, that would cheat and lie to his wife would cheat and lie to you. Trust, honor, integrity are potentially life and death issues in combat.
First the election of a Marxist then weeks later this!!! Damn this is painful!
I’ve reiterated those same words to my spouse. Doesn’t matter if your military or in the business world. Those that cheat on their spouses, will cheat in business and their employers.
No one here really thinks that this corrupt administration suddenly cares about someone’s moral life.
It’s because he told the truth about Benghazi. It’s a blatant use of power.
The firing happened right after the election so it wouldn’t embarrass the corrupt chief.
“The alleged affair was uncovered after the FBI launched an investigation into the biographer, Paula Broadwell, for allegedly hacking into the former general’s email.”
The FBI was investigating HER
Working title "Sacked".
-——The FBI was investigating HER——
Ha...... she was the prism bending the investigative beam on the General
Perhaps she could be useful....
The link seems to be dead, so I couldn’t read the source story. When did this “investigation” start? Obviously this was held back until after the election. The “e-mail hacking” sounds like an excuse to open a fishing and plumbing expedition. Why did they really want to get rid of him? Why now? What do they want him not to see or do? Was the girlfriend a backchannel?
Did Paula Broadwell’s Cuckolded Husband Write a Letter to Chuck Klosterman in the The New York Times?
By Taylor Berman
November 9, 2012
In the July 13th edition of Klosterman’s The Ethicist advice column for the New York Times, an anonymous reader wrote in seeking advice about an affair his wife was having with a “government executive” whose job “is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership.” The anonymous reader went on to praise the government executive as “gracious” and “absolutely the right person for the job.” He then asked if he should acknowledge the affair or let it continue until the project succeeds. Sounds like the government executive could hold a position like, say, the director of the CIA, right? In other words, did Paula Broadwell’s husband know about her affair with David Petraeus and then turn to, of all people, Chuck Klosterman for advice? Maybe!
Let’s look at the facts. The reader says he’s “watched the affair intensify over the last year,” which matches the Wall Street Journal’s timeline of the affair (August 2011 until “several months ago”). It also makes sense that Broadwell’s husband would have some idea about the affair considering she apparently was always off jogging with Petraeus, not to mention the fact that she’s spent a good deal of her career worshipping/writing “fan fiction” about the former general.
Read on...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/magazine/a-message-from-beyond.html?_r=1&;
Published: July 13, 2012
MY WIFE’S LOVER
My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1211/09/pmt.01.html
MORGAN: Let me turn to Ronald Kessler.
Mr. Kessler, you have got lots of good FBI contacts and you posted tonight a story about this, which contains some fascinating detail. We’ve been unable to corroborate it.
But give me in broad brush strokes what you believe to be the circumstances behind what has happened to David Petraeus. RONALD KESSLER, AUTHOR (via telephone): What happened is last spring, the fact that he was communicating with this woman on his military e-mail account was uncovered by the FBI because of a general filtering system of government e-mails which uncovered a reference to something going on under a desk. Well, it actually meant he was having sex with her under the desk, but the FBI thought it might refer to corruption — in other words, doing something under the table. And that’s how this investigation started.
The FBI then went back and traced all of his e-mails and ascertained that he was having this affair with this woman, and, of course, that is a total violation of top secret security rules. You are not supposed to compromise yourself in any way where you could be blackmailed, especially the CIA director. There is almost nobody in the government who knows as many secrets as he does, and people are routinely fired for putting themselves in this position when they have a top secret security clearance.
What was even worse is that the FBI found that she broke up with him several months ago, and he continued to pursue her, sending thousands of e-mails to her. And again, this raises even more questions about his judgment.
The FBI thought that he would be immediately asked to resign. That’s what would normally happen with a government employee. But, in fact, the White House said, no, we want to wait until after the election. So, agents were furious.
I’ve been given insight to the actual agents that were doing the case, and they think it’s inexcusable that this was allowed to continue for months without firing him.
MORGAN: Let me — let me just jump in there, Ronald. Obviously, this is all your independent claims and reporting. We’ve been unable to corroborate this in the time scale we’ve had tonight but you do have very good FBI sources.
I want to turn now to Bob Baer. He’s the CNN contributor.
Bob, from everything you just heard there from Ronald Kessler, does this make sense to you that this could be the sequence of events?
BOB BAIER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, I think absolutely. But I tend to attribute more significance to the FBI of getting into his emails — into Petraeus’ e-mails.
The FBI, as a matter of course, doesn’t look at affairs, doesn’t read military officers’ e-mails or CIA officers. They have to be alerted to some sort of crime or counterintelligence problem. I can only speculate what that would be. Maybe it was something in the book that Broadwell wrote. There was some classified information.
It could have been other leaks to the press they looked into, and then once they opened a relationship like this, they found the rest of it, and that they’re able to get a warrant to continue to read his e- mails or hers. But something sparked this, something that we don’t know about so far.
KESSLER: What started it was a general filtering system not by the FBI, but probably by NSA, which looks for any abuse or problem with use of government e-mails.
Can we say P-whipped?
My husband was in the army. He tells lots of storys of cheating going on by they officers and the officers wives. This is merely a distraction from what really went on in Benghazi so the pressure is off Obama
Not sure if or how this fits in, but thought I’d post it.
http://dawn.com/2011/09/06/petraeus-battles-fears-of-cia-militarisation/
Non-military chief of staff
To that end, sources tell Reuters that a long-time CIA insider — not one of Petraeus’ “guys” — has been named as his new chief of staff. One person familiar with the matter identified him as Rodney Snyder, who has previously worked on the White House national security staff. But US officials would not immediately confirm that name.
With Petraeus, there was particular concern that an imported staff would give the military too much influence in a civilian agency that has increasingly assumed paramilitary functions. That concern helped prompt Petraeus to retire and remove his uniform before taking the job.
During his decorated U.S. Army career, Petraeus was known for being followed by an extensive staff of advisers as he moved from one command post to another. He may add new hires after he settles into the job, but U.S. officials said his immediate staff is already intact.
His chief of staff is Rodney Snyder, a CIA analyst who also served as the intelligence chief for the Department of Homeland Security. Michael J. Morell, who served as acting director of the CIA after Panetta stepped down, will resume his deputy role.
http://m.startribune.com/news/?id=129304758&c=y
But Petraeus has insisted he will be serving the president and the policymakers, providing information, but not shaping policy.
And the White House and Petraeus both have taken steps to make peace.
Obama has promised Petraeus regular, weekly access in a capital where face time with the president equals influence.
Petraeus agreed to hire Obama White House veteran, and longtime CIA employee Rodney Snyder to be his chief of staff. Snyder has spent the past few years at the NSC, as a senior official on intelligence and counterterrorism issues.
“The FBI thought that he would be immediately asked to resign. That’s what would normally happen with a government employee. But, in fact, the White House said, no, we want to wait until after the election. So, agents were furious.
I’ve been given insight to the actual agents that were doing the case, and they think it’s inexcusable that this was allowed to continue for months without firing him.”
Great info Maggie!
It is not hard to imagine why he wasn’t fired. Obama liked having something to hold over his head. It’s the Chicago Way. Makes you really wonder how many other government officials, congress people and media elites have the same damocles sword hanging over their heads.
Makes one wonder how long Petraeus may have been blackmailed.
What or when did Vernon Loeb (co-writer of “All In”) know about the affair. He’s back with the WaPo, since early 2011.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0111/Vernon_Loeb_named_WaPo_Local_Editor.html
November 1, 2012
Note: Suzanne Kelly and CNN are important in this story. Per Erin Burnett she was the ONLY television reporter invited to the briefing
The CNN Manipulation of Benghazi Cover Is Getting, Well, Silly…
And now, our fifth story OUTFRONT: Breaking new, new details on the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. An intelligence official this afternoon holding a very rare briefing with reporters to defend the CIA, giving a detailed timeline of events leading up to the attack. And this afternoon,our Suzanne Kelly was the only television reporter invited to the briefing and she’s OUTFRONT tonight.
November 5, 2012
General David Petraeus’s Rules for Living appears.
Author? Paula Broadwell
November 9, 2012
Peirs Morgan Tonight has an interesting exchange bewtween Bob Baer (ex-CIA operative) and Suzanne Kelly
PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT[/URL] (excerpted)
MORGAN: Tonight with breaking and shocking news of General Petraeus' resignation that an affair has cost him his job as the boss of the CIA.
BAER: I've never seen it happen. I've seen the CIA think it has a problem and they go to the FBI and file a crime report saying, look, you know, there's something has happened here, look into this, and there is complete cooperation between the FBI and a the CIA in a criminal investigation.
But the idea the FBI is investigating a CIA director for an extramarital affair is just extraordinary. I have never seen it happen, and it smacks of George Orwell, really. You know --
(snip)
MORGAN: Ostensibly, how big a security risk would that be if that was, indeed, what it was? I mean, it's hard to construct a massive security breach, isn't it?
BAER: It's virtually not. I mean, I could -- you know, I'm not going to, but there are four or five CIA directors I know carrying on extramarital affairs while they were director. The FBI was never brought in. The Office of Security was never brought in. It was ignored, it went away quietly, we'll never know about them. So, this is absolutely extraordinary. I'm telling you, there's more to do than with sex. There's something going on here which I can't explain, and I think we're going to find out very soon.
[Interuption by Suzanne Kelly)
KELLY: I just -- I hate to be so aggressive against Bob, but that was spoken like a true man. I mean, if there were other people who had security clearances at the level of David Petraeus who were sleeping with people outside of their marriage, I would want to know who they were. I would want to make sure they weren't trying to exploit that relationship in any way or that national security secrets were going to make that person vulnerable. I feel like -- to think that's just an affair and pass it off is a little bit --
(snip)
KELLY: ....You cannot have an affair if you are the director of the CIA or the president of the United States because of the quite obvious risk of blackmail or like being the president when particularly in this modern era, you just cannot go there. You cannot have an affair if you are the director of the CIA or the president of the United States because of the quite obvious risk of blackmail or just being held to ransom in some manner by whoever it may be.
BAER: No. No, it's an American citizen. It's different.
KELLY: I know Bob is going to disagree with me on this.
MORGAN: Let Suzanne go first. I'll come back to you, Bob.
KELLY: Yes.
MORGAN: Bob, let Suzanne say something first. I'll come back to you.
KELLY: If somebody has a level of national security like that, they are trusted by the American people to do what's right. That doesn't mean, of course, they're not going to make mistakes in their life, no. But if they're carrying on an affair for an extended period of time and they're using their government's addresses and things like that, which are all accusations at this point, but if any of that turns out to be true, the FBI would have to look into that, right? Wouldn't you want someone to look into that and see if that person were being exploited? The American deserve it.
MORGAN: Bob, if you don't agree, why?
BAER: No, no, no. It's the way it works is when it's found out that the CIA director or whoever it is goes to the president and says, listen, this is going on, it's done very quietly. It never ends up in a political resignation like this. It's all done very quietly.
The above examples are a glimpse of what has been going on under the radar. It is no coincidence Broadwell's article appeared after the intelligence briefing. I don't know if it is a response to the briefing or a response to the coming storm.
Baer knows what is and is not the norm based on his experience in the CIA. He also knows how to read between the lines. Suzanne Kelly did everything in her power to put sex and extra-marital affairs back in the realm of political sins. She is carrying someone's water.
The stench is growing
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.