viagra online pharmacy cialis price viagra on sale canadian generic viagra online viagra 100mg canada guaranteed cheapest cialis pfizer viagra 50 mg online viagra pfizer

Streetwise Professor

November 13, 2012

Just When You Thought The World Couldn’t Get Any Weirder

Filed under: Military,Politics — The Professor @ 6:57 pm

When the Petreaus resignation originally broke my take was that the administration had tried to blackmail him into backing up its official line on Benghazi, but he had refused and resigned instead.  That seemed courageous.

I am now of a different opinion.  Given the lack of concrete information, this is speculative, but my current speculations run as follows.

First, the Benghazi and Petreaus-Broadwell strands of the story were and are for the most part completely independent, and that the administration didn’t use the latter to try to dragoon Petreaus to stay on the reservation regarding the former.

My take is that AG Holder and FBI Director Mueller would have just sat on the investigation of Broadwell and Petraues hadn’t the wacked out FBI agent gone telling tales to Congressmen.  They didn’t really care about Petraeus’s personal life, and judged that it was not a security threat.  Once the story had escaped into the wild, however, all bets were off.  They definitely managed it so that it would not go viral until after the election, but I now doubt that Petreaus’s resignation and the revelations had anything to do with his impending Benghazi testimony.  They just didn’t want his resignation to create turmoil immediately before the election.

(And by the way.  Why in hell did the FBI even care about some nasty emails sent to some diva?  If you or I received some “back off, varmit” emails, and went to the FBI, would they really launch a full-scale federal investigation?)

Second, insofar as Benghazi is concerned, it is evident that the annex in that city was engaged in a variety of highly sensitive covert activities.  For one, attempting to scoop up weapons that could flow to Islamists/terrorists, in Syria and elsewhere.  (Note: those who believe that the CIA was smuggling guns to the Syrian opposition are logically challenged.  They “reason” as follows: 1. The CIA was collecting weapons in Benghazi.  2. Weapons were shipped from Libya to Islamic extremists in Syria.  Ergo, 3. The CIA was shipping weapons from Libya to Islamic extremists in Syria.  Er, no.  It’s far more plausible that concerns about weapons going to Islamists in Syria and elsewhere caused the CIA to try to stem the flow, and that’s what they were doing in Benghazi.)  For another, there are reports from Jennifer Griffin claiming that “multiple sources” confirm that the CIA was holding prisoners at the Benghazi annex.  Indeed, Broadwell made the same claim in a speech at the University of Denver on the same day Griffin first made a rather ambiguous reference to prisoners at the site: interestingly, this was after Broadwell had been questioned by the FBI. (Warning shot across the bows of the administration? Dunno, but this can’t be coincidental.)

Evidently, the CIA was trying desperately to get the people it held there out of the facility.  Given the events that transpired, this is totally understandable.  The facility was obviously terribly vulnerable.

There is considerable outrage over Petraeus’s testimony before the Joint Intelligence Committee, during which he allegedly endorsed the MoVid story.  Take note: the source of this information is a statement by a member of the committee, not a video or transcript of Petreaus’s testimony.  Thus, people are jumping to conclusions regarding the entirety of Petreaus’s testimony.

Take this with considerable skepticism.  Here’s what makes most sense to me.  Revelations about the activities at the annex would have been explosive, especially given that they would have been in violation of an Obama executive order.  A secret CIA facility would also have been an obvious target for attack, especially if it was interfering with the operations of local jihadis, and was indeed holding some prisoner. Meaning that a failure to anticipate an attack, or to be prepared for it, would have been extremely embarrassing.

So my conjecture is that Petraeus gave a frank appraisal of what happened, and what the CIA was doing in Benghazi.  He and the Committee agreed that this could not be disclosed, so they went with the story du jour-the MoVid-to obscure the inconvenient truth.  Given that this is a joint committee, such an understanding could explain the bipartisan efforts to paint Broadwell as a crazed seducer/stalker, rather than a smart and distinguished USMA grad, triathlete, and Harvard PhD.  (I won’t hold the WooPoo and Harvard connections against her.)

As an aside, Krauthammer’s claim that Petraeus gave misleading testimony (a) in order to support the administration line, because (b) the administration had him in a compromised position, doesn’t make sense, precisely because of the evidence Krauthammer cites to support it.  Krauthammer cites in support of this view the fact that Patreaus’s alleged testimony (which again, we have only been told about by an Intel Committee member) diverged from that of Panetta.  But this story would require that Panetta was going rogue, because that is the only reason he would have diverged from the administration line.

So where does this leave us?  Well, we should leave the Petreaus-Broadwell story behind.  This should be about Benghazi first, last, and foremost.   In particular, if the CIA was running some highly sensitive operations out of the annex there, the lack of preparations for an attack become even more outrageously negligent.   The place was in Indian country, and if the reports are correct, it was doing things that were highly inconvenient to the jihadi Indians in the neighborhood.  Meaning that an attack was likely, not merely possible.  Further meaning that the facility should have had better defenses, and more importantly, robust backup at the ready.  But none was at hand, with fatal results.

This situation demands thorough Congressional audit-which in turn demands Petreaus’s testimony.  The outcome could be explosive, because it potentially implicates Obama’s actions in Libya going back into 2011, and because it could reveal that the Candidate Who Ran on Closing Gitmo (and who issued an EO banning detentions) is the President Who Perpetuates the Policies of the Evil Bush.

Prior to the election, I feared that the worst outcome would be that Benghazi would not be resolved before 11/6; that Obama would win; and that his second term would be consumed by a bruising battle over the  festering issues of the before, during, and after of 9/11/12.  Immediately after the election, I believed that would not in fact happen, because it appeared that the Republicans were content to bury the matter in the aftermath of their bruising defeat.  Now I think it is a very real possibility, though it will unfold in a way that I-nobody, actually, could have anticipated before Petreaus’s resignation.

Another long, national nightmare?  It could be.

Print Friendly

15 Comments »

  1. Someone just nipped Eisenhower II in the bud. That is all. Or maybe Grant II, we’ll never know anyway.

    Comment by So? — November 14, 2012 @ 4:32 am

  2. @So? More like Ridgeway II or Abrams, IMO. I made that comparison at the time of the Surge.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — November 14, 2012 @ 11:32 am

  3. Those two were never Presidents.

    Comment by So? — November 14, 2012 @ 4:58 pm

  4. @So? Ah. Didn’t know that’s what you were going for. Petreaus’s presidential prospects were always pretty remote, IMO. We don’t do generals anymore. So I doubt that he was really a political threat, or even perceived as one. Burying him at CIA took care of that, if he had any prospects before, which I kind of doubt.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — November 14, 2012 @ 6:38 pm

  5. Bush Sr was the head of CIA once. Anyway, if what you say is true, then only empty suits have prospects.

    Comment by So? — November 14, 2012 @ 8:07 pm

  6. Here’s another take from Judge Napolitano: Silencing General Petraeus

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/15/silencing-general-petraeus/

    In the modern era, office-holders with forgiving spouses simply do not resign from powerful jobs because of a temporary, non-criminal, consensual adult sexual liaison, as the history of the FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton presidencies attest. So, why is Petraeus different? Someone wants to silence him.

    Gen. Petraeus told the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on Sept. 14, 2012 that the mob attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, three days earlier, was a spontaneous reaction of Libyans angered over a YouTube clip some believed insulted the prophet Muhammed. He even referred to that assault — which resulted in the murders of four Americans, now all thought to have been CIA agents — as a “flash mob.” His scheduled secret testimony this week before the same congressional committees will produce a chastened, diminished Petraeus who will be confronted with a mountain of evidence contradicting his September testimony, perhaps exposing him to charges of perjury or lying to Congress and causing substantial embarrassment to the president.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/15/silencing-general-petraeus/#ixzz2CIw8cwPu

    Comment by elmer — November 15, 2012 @ 9:11 am

  7. Another take – silencing General Petreaus – from Judge Napolitano

    In the modern era, office-holders with forgiving spouses simply do not resign from powerful jobs because of a temporary, non-criminal, consensual adult sexual liaison, as the history of the FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton presidencies attest. So, why is Petraeus different? Someone wants to silence him.

    Gen. Petraeus told the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on Sept. 14, 2012 that the mob attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, three days earlier, was a spontaneous reaction of Libyans angered over a YouTube clip some believed insulted the prophet Muhammed. He even referred to that assault — which resulted in the murders of four Americans, now all thought to have been CIA agents — as a “flash mob.” His scheduled secret testimony this week before the same congressional committees will produce a chastened, diminished Petraeus who will be confronted with a mountain of evidence contradicting his September testimony, perhaps exposing him to charges of perjury or lying to Congress and causing substantial embarrassment to the president.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/15/silencing-general-petraeus/#ixzz2CIw8cwPu

    Comment by elmer — November 15, 2012 @ 9:12 am

  8. It is weirder than anybody could make up in a novel… and the real truth may or may not be available for a while. However, it is obvious that the administration’s story of consensual infidelity and honorable discharge (nothing happened in Iraq or Afganistan) is as believable as the YouTube video causing the Benghazi attack… Really?, even the NYtimes smelled a skunk. the maestros in Obama’s inner circle better start making up more complex lies, or they will get caught. There is no doubt that Petraeus was forced out in a power struggle- we just don’t know the players yet. The Chicago mafia bosses must be rolling in their graves with disappointment over Obama’s amateur moves.

    Comment by scott — November 15, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

  9. How did Broadwell know that prisoners were housed at the Benghazi annex?

    Comment by Blurtman — November 16, 2012 @ 10:30 pm

  10. SWP, you were on the Bengahzi story early… the Patraeus affair improves the likihood that there much more under the surface wrt to the Obama coverup. What they are covering up in not know yet, but there is 4 more years of intense scrutiny and I bet some terrible events are revealed. Gitmo prisons in libya, arms deals, all sorts of sordid affairs that Obama directed without a moral compass. Squashing a military hero like Petraeus only suggests the transgressions are terrible.

    Comment by david — November 17, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

  11. @david. Thanks. As soon as it happened I believed this was a story of historical significance. It could indeed be the equivalent of the Watergate break-in, or Iran Contra.

    Yes . . . there is much more to be learned. So much smoke. So much. I’ve held off from posting on it in the last couple of days because everything is so obscure. There are so many possibilities. All of them rather sinister, IMO.

    A huge problem is that Petraeus’s appearances before the Intel Committees is non-public and we only have the inevitably politicized characterizations of Congressional participants.

    The reports re his Friday testimony only increase the number of questions. The questions metastasize. Then answers vanish.

    @Blurtman. The coincidence (in the literal sense of the word) between the Griffin Fox News report and Broadwell’s speech suggests the following possibilities:

    1. Multiple sources telling this story, some to Griffin, some to Broadwell.
    2. Same source talking to both. Petraeus? Maybe. But given that this was *after* Broadwell and Petraeus had been interviewed by the FBI I discount that possibility.
    3. Griffin gets the story from Broadwell who gets the story from ????
    4. Broadwell gets the story from Griffin who gets it from ????

    Later Griffin refers to “multiple sources” re prisoner story. Did she develop additional sources after 10/26? Or did she have multiple sources all along?

    See what I mean about questions metastasizing?

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — November 17, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

  12. @scott. Totally.

    How freaking stupid do they think we are?

    Very stupid, obviously. And sadly, with good reason.

    Given the credulity of the media, they have every reason to believe in the cosmic stupidity-and willingness to suspend disbelief-of vast swathes of the populace.

    Did you see that Obama said that “And we’re after an election now. I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants.”

    After an election he is willing to talk. Accountability? Fuck that.

    And hardly anybody calls him on this.

    I have an offer to anybody who believes he’ll actually “cooperate in any ways that Congress wants.” I have some very, very attractive seaside property in Uruguay for sale.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — November 17, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

  13. I have an offer to anybody who believes he’ll actually “cooperate in any ways that Congress wants.” I have some very, very attractive seaside property in Uruguay for sale.

    Don’t you mean Paraguay?

    Comment by Tim Newman — November 18, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

  14. @Tim- LOL. Yes. I was thinking landlocked and became brain locked. I knew Montevideo, Rio de Plata, etc. are in Uruguay but had a halfheimer’s episode. I was thinking Paraguay or Bolivia.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — November 18, 2012 @ 1:58 pm

  15. So why is the media totally silent about the CIA prisons in Benghazi? They shoud be all over this story even if for the wrong reasons – Petraeus’ hottie discloses secrete prisons, etc. Why is there a total black out?

    Comment by Blurtman — November 18, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress