David Petraeus

Silencing General Petraeus

No keen observer could believe the government's Pollyanna version of these events.

|

The evidence that Gen. David Petraeus, formerly the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, 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 Petraeus with his emails showing a pattern of inappropriate personal private behavior, he voluntarily departed his job as the country's chief spy to avoid embarrassment. The government would also have us believe that the existence of the general's 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 Broadwell to another woman. And 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 Broadwell and 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 Broadwell. The FBI agents conducting that background check surely would have seen his visitor logs while he commanded our troops and would have interviewed his military colleagues and regular visitors and those colleagues who knew him well and worked with him every day, and thus learned about his personal life. That's their job.

And that information would have been reported immediately to President Obama and to the Senate Intelligence Committee, prior to Petraeus' formal nomination and prior to his Senate confirmation hearing.

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.

Petraeus told the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on September 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 Muhammad. 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.

It's obvious that someone was out to silence Petraeus. Who could believe the government version of all this? The same government that wants us to believe that FBI agents innocently and accidentally discovered the Petraeus/Broadwell affair a few months ago and confronted Petraeus with his emails a few weeks ago is a cauldron of petty jealousies. From the time of its creation in 1947, the CIA has been a bitter rival of the FBI. The two agencies are both equipped with lethal force, they both often operate outside the law, and they are each seriously potent entities. Their rivalry was tempered by federal laws that until 2001 kept the CIA from operating in the U.S. and the FBI from operating outside the U.S.

In one of his many overreactions to the events of 9/11, however, President George W. Bush changed all that with an ill-conceived executive order that unlawfully unleashed the CIA inside the U.S. and the FBI into foreign countries. Rather than facilitating a cooperative spirit in defense of individual freedom and national security, this reignited their rivalry. FBI agents, for example, publicly exposed CIA agents whom they caught torturing detainees at Gitmo, and Bush was forced to restrain the CIA.

Isn't it odd that FBI agents would be reading the emails of the CIA director to his mistress and that the director of the FBI, who briefs the president weekly, did not make the president aware of this? The FBI could only lawfully spy on Petraeus by the use of a search warrant, and it could only get a search warrant if its agents persuaded a federal judge that Petraeus himself—not his mistress—was involved in criminal behavior under federal law.

The agents also could have bypassed the federal courts and written their own search warrant under the Patriot Act, but only if they could satisfy themselves (a curious and unconstitutional standard) that the general was involved in terror-related activity. Both preconditions for a search warrant are irrelevant and would be absurd in this case.

All this—the FBI spying on the CIA—constitutes the government attacking itself. Anyone who did this when neither federal criminal law nor national security has been implicated and kept the president in the dark has violated about four federal statutes and should be fired and indicted. The general may be a cad and a bad husband, but he has the same constitutional rights as the rest of us.

No keen observer could believe the government's Pollyanna version of these events. When did the CIA become a paragon of honesty? When did the FBI become a paragon of transparency? When did the government become a paragon of telling the truth?

NEXT: Brickbat: Out in the Open

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And that information would have been reported immediately to President Obama…

    The president didn’t know nothin’. He didn’t know Fast and Furious was a thing until two months after it was in the papers, and he didn’t know Benghazi was a coordinated assault even though the White House was getting real time email messages about it. Hell, he didn’t even know he was re-elected until his daughter Sasha mentioned it at the breakfast table a few days ago.

    As for whether a secretly known adulterer can head our intelligence agency, I hope that’s not true. If it is then the CIA is in real trouble.

    1. The buck stops somewhere else.

      1. What buck?

        1. You didn’t hear “Goddamn America!”, “garlic noses”, “I love Gaddafi” or any of that other shit I said, either. Remember how you didn’t hear it, ever, in 20 years?

    2. @FoE – “As for whether a secretly known adulterer can head our intelligence agency, I hope that’s not true. If it is then the CIA is in real trouble.”

      I don’t see that. I bet most high level officials are adulterers (or something worse), and that it’s known to others at various levels. These people’s lives are too unprivate to have the things that go on not be known/suspected. Thinking otherwise seems to be very naive to me. It’s business as usual, and the CIA (and the country) are no better or worse for it.

    3. And he didn’t know about the repeated requests for increased security, either. VP Biden swears it.

  2. I wonder what they are setting up Petraeus to take the fall for? Running weapons to Syrian rebels? Holding prisoners in Benghazi without telling the boss? Running a full-blown reverse Iran-Contra (exchanging captured AQ members for weapons)?

    Is Petraeus’ fall going to actually protect Panetta, Clinton, and Obama? They are going to try it that way.

    1. Protect them from what? Petraeus has already given them ample cover by agreeing with them as head of the CIA on Benghazi.

      You cons will never gin up real trouble out of this minor incident.

      1. Just a bungled robbery at the Watergate, right? Nothing to see here.

        1. Is that what you are reduced to? Hoping for Watergate Part Dieux?

          You’ve got a lot of image repair to do in the GOP and the geriatric base of your party is dying.

          1. What I want to know is what really happened and why did everyone in the Administration feel the need to lie their fucking faces off for months?

            Why asshole? Why? Tell me the truth and I’ll shut up.

            1. Dude, in the end, you’re arguing with a closed mind that is trapped in circular reasoning. “My side is right because, well, my side is right! Let’s waterboard!”

              1. Christfag! Bushpig!

          2. Here’s the thing: Obama took Libyan weapons, siezed from the Libyan armory as the result of his illegal intervention in Libya and ran them to Syrian rebels who, just happened to be under the control of Syrian Al-Qaeda.

            And you don’t give a shit because YOUR SIDE is in power.

            You’re NO DIFFERENT from a fucking Bushie, you know that, don’t you?

            Why don’t you save us time and come out in favor of waterboarding because if Obama doesn’t waterboard, the Terrorists Win!

            Jesus, the partisan mind sucks beyond measure. It’s like dealing with the GM Board of Directors in 1965. They thought everything was rosy while these little Datsuns were rolling off the container ships and hipsters were snapping them up. But the head of GM said, “What’s good for GM is good for the Country!” That’s how partisans think.

            “What’s good for my side is good for everyone!”

            If Obama took High Value Suspects and did electroshock torture at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, people like you would rationalize what he was doing, because it’s always about YOUR SIDE being right.

            I used to be a Bushtard just like you, only you’re walking around convinced that Obama is “different”, so it’s okay what His Oneness does. So that’s all you’ll ever stand for.

            And it kind of sucks to be someone like you, who wants to be lied to by his leaders.

            1. Obama took Libyan weapons, siezed from the Libyan armory as the result of his illegal intervention in Libya and ran them to Syrian rebels who, just happened to be under the control of Syrian Al-Qaeda.

              Did you read this on wingnut.com?

              1. Please stop feeding this fucking troll. You think you can change the mind of this shilling piece of shit bad faith fuckwad? Really? Just fucking stop. Please. For the sake of all of us, please stop responding to its bullshit. It’s not here to argue, it’s here annoy and disrupt and nothing else ever.

                1. section9, this was not directed at you personally, the threading just makes it look that way.

                2. So you admit that you’re a Bushist christ-fag then, SF?

                  1. Yes, my auto-da-fe is complete and on-going.

                    1. Report to the Great Leader’s People’s Apostate Commission for your Beeing immediately.

                      All hail the Great Leader.

                    2. “auto-da-fe! What’s an auto-da-fe?”

                      “It’s something you shouldn’t do…”

                      …”But you do anyway!”

                3. Please stop feeding this fucking troll.

                  This X 1,000,000. Applies to all the other fucktard trolls around here too.

              2. Is that the same as the Wall Street Journal? Their Op-Ed page has become a little crazy lately, I’ll grant you that.

              3. If you don’t vote it’s a vote for Obama/Romney. FUCK OFF.

                A choice between proven evil and probable evil. FUCK OFF.

                The end result is the same — except for the expectation now that Obama will do for the corrupt D’s what BushW did for the corrupt R’s: make them really popular. YEAH.

          3. I believe that the biggest threat our society faces come from within: partisan shills who who protect their tribal elder no matter what crimes he has committed or who insidious policies he has implemented. Islamic fundamentalists, illegal immigrants, the Chinese…..these are not the real threats; the one-dimensional, armpit-farting, cunt-faced, troglodytic apparatchiks like this asshole are what will inevitably end this republic. I really cannot wait for them to pick up arms…

            1. “Guns are icky and scary!”

      2. You cons will never gin up real trouble out of this minor incident.

        Shriek may actually be correct about this, but only because a complaisant press corps running interference for Obama.

      3. It’s not “minor” to the loved ones of the four guys who were left high and dry to die.

        Why is it always the good guys who die horrible deaths, and never the vile gutter scum like you? There truly is no justice in this world.

        1. Let’s ask the other staff members of the Benghazi consulate. Anyone heard from them?

        2. You’re talking to the palace door chihuahua. Not particularly intimidating, but annoying as hell. Pay no attention to Obama’s Jockstrap’s yapping.

  3. To me there’s a couple things:

    One, there’s nothing they could have on Petraeus that would stop him from coming out with whatever he has right now. He could be on any news show, and spew whatever he wants to. The only person ‘silencing’ him is himself.

    Two, Obama and his staff of dunderheads are way way way too incompetent to pull off anything like this to ‘silence’ him. If anything, it’s a serendipitous occurence for them, which the media is happy to exploit to distract from all the other extremely minor crap that’s going on that no one is interested in anyway, basically an unnecessary maskarovka. Now there’s possibly a gov’t cabal acting nefariously behind the scenes that wants to silence him, but I have a hard time believing he wouldn’t be a part of that, and that they would have allowed him the post anyway if they weren’t 100% sure of him. But that’s pretty far fetched and silly.

    Third, on the constitutional rights stuff, that’s just silly. The military, especially the ones that are lockstep enough to make rank are never outspoken about their rights. They assume they’ve given them up, and would never worry about something like that (unless it came to something like a prison term). He knows he was ‘dishonorable’ and is going to accept the punishment regardless of how the evidence was collected.

    1. The only person ‘silencing’ him is himself.

      “He can’t handle the truth!”

      Seriously, I’d like to see him do the right thing. He’s not “one of them” anymore. Given that it’s just a matter of time before we’re overtly involved militarily in both Syria and Iran (and possibly Pakistan), just what can be so horrible about the truth?

      1. My bet: The affair is the shot across the bow. There’s more to this that hasn’t come out. If Petraeus tears the lid off that, I’d bet you that more, and more damaging, information about him personally will be revealed.

    2. I don’t know about the how and why of the “discovery” of his affair, but I think you are right that he is just doing the honorable thing and wants to protect his wife.

      1. I’d tend to agree with this. Had one friend of mine in the military who’d dealt with Petraeus while he was still in and my friend implied that this was not a one time affair…it’s just the one where he got caught. Maybe he just didn’t want further digging into his sex life.

        I find the conspiracy theories about “silencing” Petraeus to be on the ridiculous side. There’s nothing for anyone but Petraeus to gain by it and he’s still going to testify before Congress. It’s not like he’s facing a prison term or house arrest. He got caught screwing around on his wife, divorce is an expensive proposition for retired military personnel (she would be automatically entitled to 50% of his retirement pay…for life), and he didn’t want the additional scrutiny on his sex life. Seems pretty plausible.

      2. Also, the more he protests and the more people dig, the worse he looks to a future employer. Considering his resume, he’s going to likely have quite a few offers in the contracting sector for a six-figure salary. But companies in that sector don’t like negative publicity with their high-profile hires. Stepping down from a gig (CIA director) where he’d only be in charge for maybe four more years to preserve future opportunities seems like a pretty rational move.

    3. Both parties and all known actors carried out this cover-up in concert. The Repubs yelled durning the election because it was an election.

      If CIA was collecting HVT’s and weapons at the “consulate” they would have had to run it by the House Intelligence Committee. Everyone knew. Everyone except us.

      Now the shite has hit the fan and to keep from being caught torturing combatants (since that’s not american and that’s not what we do) they roll out this day-time-tv desperate housewife BS.

      Carter Ham fought back about leaving the operators to die so he’s gone. Petraeus is just being a good soldier (think Oli’ North).

    4. I agree with these comments to the extent that “forcing” Petraeus out does not silence him, but instead frees him to speak his mind, and even to negotiate for immunity from perjury charges in exchange for “telling the truth.” I do not think Team Obama forced him out.

      More likely is that he was a victim of the bureaucratic rivalry between the CIA and FBI. Which raises an interesting question: if there is not enough crime or threats to national security to keep these agencies busy, and they have the free time to spy on one another, perhaps they are overstaffed and need to be cut back? Just askin’…

      1. “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”

      2. perhaps they are overstaffed and need to be cut back? Just askin’…

        Um…perhaps the entire frigging government is overstaffed and needs to be cut back? 🙂

    5. But they did manage to remove a CIA head who was not “their guy” from power when a fall guy is needed for the consulate attack.

      I wonder what agency will take the fall now.

  4. The FBI could only lawfully spy on Petraeus by the use of a search warrant, and it could only get a search warrant if its agents persuaded a federal judge that Petraeus himself?not his mistress?was involved in criminal behavior under federal law.

    This part of the article might be incorrect. I read in another article that Patreaus and Broadwell were communicating through a specially made for the purpose GMail account to which they both shared the log-in information. One would create a message and save it as a draft, the other could log in later to read it.

    IF this was the same account from which Broadwell sent her ‘harassing’ emails then that could be the means by which the FBI got a warrant to look at it, and later discovered the ‘affair’ emails, potentially without being privy to any other of Patreaus’s accounts.

    1. What I’ve read on a tech-news-and-law site is that you don’t need a warrant to check the “Drafts” section of an e-mail account, unlike the inbox and saved sent messages. The drafts aren’t considered to be “stored” in the same way, and therefore aren’t entitled to the same Fourth Amendment protections.

      Which is fucking insane, but what about the modern Fourth Amendment isn’t?

      1. Insane isn’t the half of it.

        The Drafts are were people keep their most inflammatory emails — the ones they want to reconsider before they send and then forget they left them there.

        I’d love to know whether this is true. It’s the equivalent of being secure in one’s papers, except the papers that aren’t in stamped envelopes.

        1. The way around this one is to send them to yourself instead of saving them in the Drafts folder. The negative side of this is that they go out over the network and can be intercepted, but at least you theoretically get the 4th Amendment protections.

          1. The way around this one is to send them to yourself instead of saving them in the Drafts folder.

            Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose? I would think the emails would then end up on the email servers.

  5. Although I think there’s political skullduggery going on, I would dispute that adultery is no longer a grounds for resignation for spies.

    Congressmen, Presidents, judges, White House personnel, agency personnel – ALL of them can cheat all they want and they’re good. For those people, “…in the modern era…etc.” applies.

    It doesn’t apply to the head of the CIA because anything he does that makes it possible for him to be blackmailed is immediately disqualifying.

    I would say that not only adultery, but in-the-closet homosexual orientation would count too. You can be CIA chief if you’re openly gay, but if you’re gay and hide it you’re out.

    A CIA chief who would be foolish or incontinent or cowardly in his personal life obviously lacks the judgment and character to hold the position – not for any moral reason, but just because we can’t afford to employ a dumbass who would put himself in that kind of vulnerable position.

    1. In a country where being gay or having an affair is not treated like it is scandalous, they are not security risks. In our country with our media, they can be. (And yes I know you said in the closet)

    2. I would dispute that adultery is no longer a grounds for resignation for spies.

      Yes, it is. We should demand better behavior from our leaders. Hang ’em high.

      1. Yes, we should demand better behavior. Who in hell wants a corrupt, unscrupulous son of a bitch for a leader – I mean other than 51 percent of the population?

        1. I think you mean 99%. It’s not like we were given the choice between a corrupt, unscrupulous SOB and a pure, ethical paragon. Don’t let the lameness of one side blind you to the patheticness of the other.

          1. Pfft! Romney may be an unprincipled flip flopper who’d say anything to get a vote, but he’s a choir boy compared to Obama – as far as I know anyway. As bad as Romney might have turned out to be, Obama is a known quantity – and yet 51 percent still voted for him. But you’re right – 99 percent probably don’t give a rat’s ass about character. Not that they get offered much of a choice these days.

    3. Except that once it becomes public, the blackmail potential is lost.

      But the violation would have been engaging in the relationship and not disclosing it in the first place.

      The question is whether subordinate personnel would have faced removal if they had engaged in this conduct. If so, it is only fair that Petraeus go too.

    4. It doesn’t apply to the head of the CIA because anything he does that makes it possible for him to be blackmailed is immediately disqualifying.

      Actually this pretty much applies to anyone who has a Top Secret security clearance. One of the things they look at in your background investigation as well as during the counter intelligence polygraph (if you have one) is whether you have any skeletons in your closet that someone could blackmail you over.

      1. Anyone with Top Secret clearance? Like Presidents, Congressmen, and Senators?

        So Clinton shouldn’t have been impeached for lying under oath, but he should have been impeached for making himself susceptible to blackmail by diddling an intern?

        There are a million things people can be blackmailed with, along with simple threats against friends and family. Should they dismiss everyone with a spouse or children? Brothers and sisters?

        In the case of adultery, it’s trivial to remove the threat – make the adultery public. Done.

  6. All this?the FBI spying on the CIA?constitutes the government attacking itself.

    Good. Maybe it will attack itself into oblivion.

    1. The Chinese plate looked very blue,
      And wailed, “Oh, dear! what shall we do!”
      But the gingham dog and the calico cat
      Wallowed this way and tumbled that,
      Employing every tooth and claw
      In the awfullest way you ever saw—
      And, oh! how the gingham and calico flew!

      Next morning, where the two had sat
      They found no trace of dog or cat;
      And some folks think unto this day
      That burglars stole that pair away!
      But the truth about the cat and pup
      Is this: they ate each other up!
      Now what do you really think of that!

      — from The Duel by Eugene Field

  7. he voluntarily departed his job as the country’s chief spy to avoid embarrassment.

    How’s that coming along?

    1. Nice, but you’re parsing that incorrectly.

      Read: he voluntarily departed his job as the country’s chief-spy-to-avoid-embarrassment.

    2. So far he still has his pension, his wife’s cushy government job, and no criminal charges. If he behaves, it will stay that way.

  8. The agents also could have bypassed the federal courts and written their own search warrant under the Patriot Act, but only if they could satisfy themselves (a curious and unconstitutional standard) that the general was involved in terror-related activity. Both preconditions for a search warrant are irrelevant and would be absurd in this case.

    Mission accomplished.

    1. I think under the new definition, opposing Obama is an a priori terroristic act.

  9. It’s like dealing with the GM Board of Directors in 1965.

    “We’re an EXCELLENT car company.”

    1. In 1965, they were. In 1975….not so much.

  10. It’s sad when someone you respect succumbs to Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    1. Another one?

      The prog trolls seem emboldened.

    2. Meh, Bush Derangement Syndrome seemed pretty effective at poisoning the Republican brand for a generation. Maybe if the Democratic brand can be similarly poisoned, the country will have some kind of future.

  11. I just don’t understand all this parsing of the legality of what the FBI and CIA may have been doing. Secret retroactive executive orders make everything legal. It’s kind of discouraging to see reasonably intelligent people making the ‘but that’s illegal’ argument and apparently believing that matters even a tiny little bit.

    1. It is the appearance of legality that matters to those in power – although things are getting to the point that even that won’t be all that important. After all, what do we serfs know about the law?

  12. Some good points in the article and in the comments, but I can’t shake the feeling that Napolitano has been cutting less and less ice with me lately.

    Unless he can drum up some evidence that there was gun running, or some in house double cross going on, then Benghazi is a minor incident. I’m sorry, it sucks, but unless James Bond has been lying to me all these years: 3 spy’s and an ambassador to a country we’ve been bombing getting killed is pretty much to be expected.

    That said, I do believe the FBI is having all sorts of (probably illegal) fun with this at the CIAs expense. And it maybe it won’t be long before the purges begin. Bring on the night of the long knives!

    1. Look, spies and military getting killed is one thing, but an ambassador getting killed is “minor”? That’s garbage. All civilized nations and peoples have recognized for a long time that ambassadors and diplomats are strictly off-limits, which is why it is so rare that they are murdered in cold blood like this.

      And if you’re dealing with totally uncivilized people who don’t recognize even the most basic laws of combat, like we are in that hellhole of a region, and your ambassador is in serious of danger of being killed (which he clearly knew he was), it’s the duty of a responsible leader to either give him the security he needs, or pull him the hell out of there.

      Obama did neither one of these very simple things, an ambassador is dead, and we’re all supposed to pretend that this is no big deal? I say again, this is complete and total garbage. If it’s not malfeasance, then it is certainly negligence and incompetence of the highest order.

      1. An ambassador in a freaking war zone. Yes. This was part and parcel to his job. Mistakes were made, threats were ignored. But unless you can drum up something bigger than wrong place wrong time, we aren’t through the looking glass here.

    2. Look, spies and military getting killed is one thing, but an ambassador getting killed is “minor”? That’s garbage. All civilized nations and peoples have recognized for a long time that ambassadors and diplomats are strictly off-limits, which is why it is so rare that they are murdered in cold blood like this.

      And if you’re dealing with totally uncivilized people who don’t recognize even the most basic laws of combat, like we are in that hellhole of a region, and your ambassador is in serious of danger of being killed (which he clearly knew he was), it’s the duty of a responsible leader to either give him the security he needs, or pull him the hell out of there.

      Obama did neither one of these very simple things, an ambassador is dead, and we’re all supposed to pretend that this is no big deal? I say again, this is complete and total garbage. If it’s not malfeasance, then it is certainly negligence and incompetence of the highest order.

      1. So what else is new? I don’t think it’s enough for petraeus to be “silenced”. Nothing’s going to happen to Obama over this.

      2. I certainly don’t think our warzone ambassador to puppet/shadow governments in Libya dying in a car full of chuck norris badasses on 9-11 is a bigger deal than illegally hopping in to a civil war in the first place, bombing a bunch of people, and further destabilizing half of Saharan Africa. No one cares about that, either.

    3. Except they jailed a guy for “making the video that started this whole mess”.

      Honestly, I think the major sticking point was that it opened the administration up to a very major critique of its foreign policy with regard to its whole response to the Arab Spring. In effect, we replaced a pro-U.S. dictator and a neutralized opponent with Islamists (I know probably not the most popular term to use around here) hostile to U.S. interests. For an campaign running on “we killed bin Laden) revelations that you’d just effectively resurrected the threat would be…unhelpful.

    4. It’s not that they got killed. People die all the time.

      But not ambassadors and diplomatic personnel at a consulate who had asked for more security, who could have been saved during the attack with a proper response, and whose deaths were lied about at the highest levels of government.

  13. Look, you are fired in D.C. for one thing: you are more trouble or embarrassment to your boss than you are an asset. That would be reason enough to accept Petraeus’ resignation.

  14. Also Patraeus is nice and ancienty sounding, so it will make a nice subconscious connect with Rome when kids are reading about the downhill slide of the American Empire (or are we still in the Republic? Same rules apply)

    1. No, we are in The People’s State now. Try to keep up.

      1. So Solly…

  15. Do I disremember, or did the boots-on-the-ground under his (military) command nickname him Gen. “Betray Us”?

    1. That was MoveOn prior to his testimony on Iraq several years ago. If the boots-on-the-ground guys despised him, I have no doubt they used blunter language that that.

  16. Well, there are two reasons why this might be a problem. 1) My understanding is that adultery is still a prosecutable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 2) The FBI, who is responsible for vetting folks with security clearances, doesn’t like anything which might place the person in a position where they could be blackmailed – drug use, (formerly) homosexuality and (ironically, still) adultery. I don’t agree with that rationale, but as long as the UCMJ and the clearance process are being used to enforce private morality we’re going to end up with shit like this.Well, there are two reasons why this might be a problem. 1) My understanding is that adultery is still a prosecutable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 2) The FBI, who is responsible for vetting folks with security clearances, doesn’t like anything which might place the person in a position where they could be blackmailed – drug use, (formerly) homosexuality and (ironically, still) adultery. I don’t agree with that rationale, but as long as the UCMJ and the clearance process are being used to enforce private morality we’re going to end up with shit like this.

  17. The evidence that Gen. David Petraeus … was forced to resign from the CIA to silence him…

    You need to take off the tinfoil hat judge. You’re in wackaloon land. How does any of this “silence” general Dave? He still has the power of speech yes? Presumably he has access to a keyboard wired to the internet. What’s stopping him from spilling the booga booga?

    1. I used to have the same opinion about trying to silence Petraeus, but I wouldn’t argue about such things with a judge.

      Maybe Napolitano was suggesting that the White House was trying to discredit Petraeus? That’s a way of silencing someone.

      Let me ask you this, Warren: can the president still claim executive privilege on Petraeus, even after he’s resigned?

      I think the answer is yes. In which case, the Obama Administration can still silence Petraeus–but Petraeus is still discredited now, too.

      Especially if those classified files his biographer had continue to look as if they might have been obtained through blackmail.

      1. “but Petraeus is still discredited now, too.”

        Also, he’s in a much worse position to defend himself or the CIA. The one guy in this who wasn’t part of Team Obama was removed from power.

        Guess which agency will take the fall for the consulate attack?

  18. “No keen observer could believe the government’s Pollyanna version of these events.”

    The judge is right. There’s no way the FBI was investigating the head of the CIA, and Barack Obama didn’t know about it.

    There isn’t a GS grade 1 bureaucrat so dumb that he or she would do something that could be potentially embarrassing to the president–and not at least write a CYA memo to the White House for cover.

    That memo is out there somewhere.

    Unfortunately, the American people are not “keen observers”, and I suspect this battle will be lost in the court of public opinion long before we ever find that memo.

    “FBI agents, for example, publicly exposed CIA agents whom they caught torturing detainees at Gitmo.”

    And if the Bush Administration never really paid any significant price for that, then what hope is there that the Obama Administration–with its popular personality cult–will pay a price for whatever they’re hiding?

    The best we can hope for is that Obama will be caught in a lie–probably lying about not knowing what the FBI was doing. But the American people already know Obama is a liar. Forty-seven percent of them just don’t care.

    1. But the American people already know Obama is a liar. Forty-seven Fifty-one percent of them just don’t care.

      FTFY

      1. Well, I was referring to Romney’s 47% specifically. The pigs at the trough don’t care about anything else but keeping the money taps open. If Obama murdered children in a drunken rage, there’s a big chunk of people who continue to support him anyway–so long as he kept the money flowing…

        Romney was wrong not to separate out, say, people who are forced to participate in the Social Security system or people in our armed forces. But Romney was right about the motivations of the 47%. And they’ll support Obama no matter what.

        1. there’s a big chunk of people who continue to support him anyway–so long as he kept the money flowing…

          I think it’s worse even than that – many would support him even if he did not keep the money flowing.

        2. “If Obama murdered children in a drunken rage, there’s a big chunk of people who continue to support him anyway–”

          He actually did do this, and it’s even worse that he was calmly sober when he gave the order.

  19. The government attacking itself is our best possible case scenario. Far better they are embattled in “petty jealousies” than have a unified attack on the American People in my opinion.

    1. Yeah, I kind of like the idea of checks and balances, too.

      Not sure what I think if the government attacks itself includes the president of the United States using the FBI to attack the head of the CIA–because the president doesn’t like what the head of the CIA might say in public.

  20. The issue is that the Obama administration lied to the American public. Not even in a plausible “there are WMDs in a foreign country that is known for political turmoil” kind of way, but an absolutely ridiculous, wholly preposterous, totally unbelievable (to anyone but retarded progressives) kind of way.

    1. This. And frankly, it kind of pisses me off that not one reporter had the brains or the guts to ask our emperor the most simple and obvious question he needs to be asked, which is: “Mr. President, will you unambiguously tell the American people here and now that the attack in Benghazi was a preplanned military-style terrorist attack, and that it had nothing at all to do with some YouTube video?”

      The emperor should be asked this question every time he faces a reporter until he stops ducking, dodging, obfuscating, and lying.

      1. The only “journalists” I’ve seen with the guts to do this are local TV guys who have nothing to lose. The White House press corps is a kennel of lapdogs masquerading as doberman pinschers. They maintain their access by playing the game.

      2. Well, that won’t happen because it would entail admitting they threw the poor chump who made the video in jail to make a plausible story.

    2. Obomber’ll get away with it just like his spiritual daddy WBush got away with it.

      The only way to impeach a modern President is to catch him getting his wee-wee polished by an intern — correction, LYING about getting a BJ, not getting one. Secret wars, war crimes, murders, assassinations, unrestricted secret surveillance activities don’t count.

  21. [:] The Surveillance State backfires.

    [:] Just think of the hundreds of billions of plundered taxpayer dollars funding this comedy. All involved parties — guilty, innocent or otherwise, who can figure it out anymore and who cares — will continue with fat salaries and pensions.

    [:] Don’t worry about Patreaus — he’ll be fine working for a war related lobbying outfit. He’ll probably be sitting on Obama’s knee in the oval office this time next year sharing a joke on the stupid American public.

    1. I think you underestimate the degree to which these clowns take themselves seriously and believe their own bullshit. We’d probably be better off if they were cynical enough to joke about the stupid American public.

  22. Thank God we’ve got Nancy Drew here on the case.

  23. The fbi uses improper relationships to ruin people or to blackmail them, including presidents, congress and military chiefs. In this respect the fbi is a direct and continuing threat to the country that they (fbi/cia)corrupt.

    http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part4-worldinabo.html

    http://www.indymedia.org.au/20…..-to-defend

  24. Yep. Not for nothing is DC our BS capital as well as our city of richest citizens…

  25. First, Judge Nap has a hard row to hoe selling the rule of law to R’s on Fox and elsewhere, and he keeps telling them hard truths. He also did pretty well on the Daily Show the other night.

    Second, no one pointed out that right after re-election is traditionally the time for an Admin to get rid of one-term high level members, whether it is presented as voluntary departure or scapegoating. Colin Powell, Rumsfeld. This is time when the cabinet gets shaken up and people move. Maybe the general liked it where he was too much, declined to resign so somebody pushed him.

  26. “that the general was involved in terror-related activity… would be absurd in this case”

    Hehe. I don’t think it’s absurd to rule out CIA involvement in terror in any case. What exactly do you think the CIA is up to in Libya?

  27. bet most high level officials are adulterers.
    http://www.hqew.net

  28. I wonder what they are setting up Petraeus to take the fall for?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.