The long knives are out! Petraeus Resigns!

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The plot continues to thicken...

Paula Broadwell claims about Benghazi attack dismissed as 'baseless' by CIA

Woman who had affair with David Petraeus gave speech about the CIA chief's handling of the Libya assault last month

The CIA has dismissed as "baseless" and "uninformed" claims made by the former lover of ex-agency chief David Petraeus that Libyan militants were held in secret US prisons prior to the deadly Benghazi consulate attack.

Paula Broadwell, the biographer whose affair with Petraeus led to his abrupt resignation Friday, alleged that the assault, in which US ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed, was an attempt to free men being detained in a covert CIA annex.

Speaking last month at the University of Denver, Broadwell further alleged that Petreaus knew about the secret holding cells.

President Barack Obama stripped the CIA of its power to take prisoners through an executive order signed soon after his inauguration in January 2009.

It put an end to the controversial network of secret jails that operated under the administration of President George W Bush.

The 11 September attack on the US consulate in Benghazi resulted in the deaths of four Americans. The assault – and what the White House was told about the need for additional security prior to the attack – has since been the subject of political debate in Washington.

Congressional bodies are due to hold hearings about the incident on Thursday. Petraeus had been expected to give evidence but his resignation has seemingly robbed lawmakers of the chance to grill him over what he knew, and what he passed on to senior administration figures prior to the attack

Broadwell's allegations over the motive of militants in attacking the consulate are likely to fuel speculation over the timing of Petraeus's resignation.

In an answer to a question reading the CIA chief's handling of the incident, the biographer said: "Now, I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted."

She added: "The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he's not allowed to communicate with the press. So he's known all of this – they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening."

The comments were recorded and posted in a YouTube clip which has since been taken down.

On Monday, the CIA was quick to shoot down Broadwell's claims.

"Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless," agency spokesman Preston Golson said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/12/paula-broadwell-benghazi-cia-petraeus

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

So the Petraeus scandal widens and gets even more interesting. You have to go through this line by line to keep it all straight.

The whole story started with Jill Kelley, the woman who received the so-called threatening emails from Paula Broadwell. Kelley is described as a "socialite," a "party planner," and an "unpaid social liaison to Tampa's MacDill Air Force Base."

Kelley (nee Khawam) is of Lebanese heritage, daughter of Lebanese Christian immigrants to the U.S. Kelley and her husband Scott, a Tampa surgeon, apparently hosted frequent parties for CENTCOM top brass at their $1.2 million dollar mansion, and served as "go-betweens for Central Command officers with Lebanese and other Middle Eastern government officials."

Interestingly enough, Kelley and her husband are deeply in debt, facing foreclosure on several multi-million dollar real estate investments, as well as a lawsuit for unpaid credit card debt. They also allegedly ran a fake cancer charity that spent most of its collected donations on "parties, entertainment, travel and attorney fees" before going out of business.

Kelley has a twin sister named Natalie Khawam, who is an attorney specializing in whistle-blower lawsuits. Natalie is also in deep financial straits - she filed for bankruptcy this year citing $3.6 million in debt, including an $800,000 "personal loan" from her sister and brother-in-law. She is involved in several nasty court battles, including a very bitter child custody fight. She was called "psychologically unstable" by the judge in that case, and has been accused of lying to state and federal courts.

Both Generals Petraeus and Allen submitted letters to the judge in Natalie's child custody case, testifying to her abilities and qualifications as a mother.

Both Jill and Natalie took part in shopping trips with Petraeus' wife Holly.

When Kelley began receiving the threatening emails from an anonymous account, she alerted a friend who worked for the FBI, and the investigation got underway.

During the investigation, as well as the emails between Petraeus and Broadwell, the FBI turned up "inappropriate" emails between Jill Kelley and Marine Gen. John Allen, who happens to be the top commander in Afghanistan and a nominee to become the new NATO supreme allied commander for Europe.

The emails from Broadwell to Kelley were apparently not "stay away from my man" messages, but rather harrassing Kelley for her behavior - according to one source, they said stuff like "Who do you think you are? You parade around the base. You need to take it down a notch."

And now the latest - the friend who worked for the FBI apparently sent "shirtless" photos to Kelley before the investigation started.

Could use a flow chart for all this...

This has drama mama's written all over it. It's like watching a bunch an aged out Kardashian's.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Also they're never going to get anything on Benghazi. Just look at the the JFK assassination. Those records are still sealed over 60 years later and most everyone is dead and gone. The CIA will take whatever secrets, if any, to the grave and beyond.

[SMR 368]

I love how being "pro choice" is used against me when the choice is not the same as what the other person wants. No matter the issue.

Simple "pro choice" means the government does not dictate to you what you must do. It also means I feel that way even when, especially when, I do not agree with that choice. RIGHTS protect unpopular behavior. We do not need a "defense of marriage act" we need a "defense of Gay marriage act" GAYS are not trying to BAN heterosexual marriage.

I am on record saying many times that I do not even want the government involved in marriage at all. I am not against two people lying to each other and saying they will be sexually exclusive (not the same as "faithful") for the rest of their lives. But then they spend the rest of their lives covering that lie and opening themselves for blackmail, coersion, and the destruction of people they love most. Brilliant idea

So Gary, I'm curious. How many times have you gone to Alla and said, "Wow, such and such chick is hot; I think I'd bang her."? Or, better yet, how many times have you gone to Alla and said, "That such and such chick is hot; I banged her. Everything is good right."? What would you do if Alla came and said this to you, substituting "dude" for "chick"?

And if you come back with something about how you sleep naked with Alla and don't notice other women, not only is that BS (when a 10 walks in, dressed up and strutting her stuff, you notice), it flies in the face of what you are trying to say. You claim that monogamy is unrealistic, but then claim you are so in love that you would never have a reason to cheat on Alla or even notice good looking women. Or, have you cheated on Alla? Maybe you're aware that she cheated on you and you're trying to tell yourself it's okay? Really, this whole line from you about polyamory being normal really seems to fly in the face of what you have previously claimed about your relationship with your wife. I'd just like to know to what extent you think it applies to you personally.

[SMR 368]

The plot continues to thicken...

I love how someone suggests that the CIA is holding prisoners and their response is, effectively, "We're not allowed to hold prisoners." Sort of like how you ask a kid if he stole a cookie, he won't deny it but instead tell you that he isn't allowed to steal cookies. One of the classic signs of guilt is denying it without denying it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So Gary, I'm curious. How many times have you gone to Alla and said, "Wow, such and such chick is hot; I think I'd bang her."? Or, better yet, how many times have you gone to Alla and said, "That such and such chick is hot; I banged her. Everything is good right."? What would you do if Alla came and said this to you, substituting "dude" for "chick"?

And if you come back with something about how you sleep naked with Alla and don't notice other women, not only is that BS (when a 10 walks in, dressed up and strutting her stuff, you notice), it flies in the face of what you are trying to say. You claim that monogamy is unrealistic, but then claim you are so in love that you would never have a reason to cheat on Alla or even notice good looking women. Or, have you cheated on Alla? Maybe you're aware that she cheated on you and you're trying to tell yourself it's okay? Really, this whole line from you about polyamory being normal really seems to fly in the face of what you have previously claimed about your relationship with your wife. I'd just like to know to what extent you think it applies to you personally.

I can say to my knowledge that neither Alla or I has ever "cheated". Neither of us have broken the vows we made. There would be no reason to.

I love how someone suggests that the CIA is holding prisoners and their response is, effectively, "We're not allowed to hold prisoners." Sort of like how you ask a kid if he stole a cookie, he won't deny it but instead tell you that he isn't allowed to steal cookies. One of the classic signs of guilt is denying it without denying it.

Define "steal" Does it mean "take from the store without paying" or does it mean "take from the cookie jar on the counter without asking" ???

Define "cheat" does it mean "ever have sex with anyone else?" Or does it mean sneak around, lie and break trusts to have sex with someone else? That's what Patreaus did and to do that he risked our nations security and his family. THAT's stupid.

Who defines these things? You? The bible? Or gownups in a marriage? Again we have the case that if Gary supports something it MUSt mean Gary does it. Why? Why not ask me how many men I have had sex with because I think gay men should be able to marry. Maybe I need to have been married to another man to have that opinion? Why not ask me how many times I have smoked pot? Maybe ask me if I am a drug dealer?

Edited November 14, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[SMR 368]

I can say to my knowledge that neither Alla or I has ever "cheated". Neither of us have broken the vows we made. There would be no reason to.

Define "steal" Does it mean "take from the store without paying" or does it mean "take from the cookie jar on the counter without asking" ???

Define "cheat" does it mean "ever have sex with anyone else?" Or does it mean sneak around, lie and break trusts to have sex with someone else? That's what Patreaus did and to do that he risked our nations security and his family. THAT's stupid.

Who defines these things? You? The bible? Or gownups in a marriage? Again we have the case that if Gary supports something it MUSt mean Gary does it. Why? Why not ask me how many men I have had sex with because I think gay men should be able to marry. Maybe I need to have been married to another man to have that opinion? Why not ask me how many times I have smoked pot? Maybe ask me if I am a drug dealer?

But then why are you so bent on blaming this on society's preconceived notions of right and wrong? Nobody forced Petraeus or Broadwell (or Allen or Kelley) to marry their respective spouses. Judging from the responses of their spouses, I don't think either was in an open relationship or cleared this beforehand. The vast majority of people prefer fidelity in their own relationships, even if they don't really care what other people do in theirs. This isn't society forcing individuals to do something. This is each individual thinking about what he or she wants in his/her own relationship. I imagine that even many people that are unfaithful would prefer that their partner be faithful (except in the case where that might help them alleviate some of their guilt). I'm just trying to understand why you want to blame society for the fact that most people strive for monogamous relationships. It's just what most people prefer for themselves, even if it doesn't always work out. It doesn't seem like you are any different.

I do think that marriage means certain things in terms of fidelity. To clarify, sex with another is always infidelity although infidelity doesn't always involve sex (I don't think this belief is way out in left field). And when someone else with ostensibly the same expectations and understandings of marriage breaks that, I won't defend him or her by blaming society and hetero-monogamy or whatever else. The Bible, the vast majority of grownups in marriages, and I all agree. If two adults want to get together in their marriage and change their expectations through mutual agreement, no one should stop them. I suppose you would have a case to say that's not cheating. But that's quite clearly not what happened here (or hardly anywhere else). It's the sort of hypothetical that makes for good TV and arguments but doesn't really have much of an intersection with reality.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

But then why are you so bent on blaming this on society's preconceived notions of right and wrong? Nobody forced Petraeus or Broadwell (or Allen or Kelley) to marry their respective spouses. Judging from the responses of their spouses, I don't think either was in an open relationship or cleared this beforehand. The vast majority of people prefer fidelity in their own relationships, even if they don't really care what other people do in theirs. This isn't society forcing individuals to do something. This is each individual thinking about what he or she wants in his/her own relationship. I imagine that even many people that are unfaithful would prefer that their partner be faithful (except in the case where that might help them alleviate some of their guilt). I'm just trying to understand why you want to blame society for the fact that most people strive for monogamous relationships. It's just what most people prefer for themselves, even if it doesn't always work out. It doesn't seem like you are any different.

I do think that marriage means certain things in terms of fidelity. To clarify, sex with another is always infidelity although infidelity doesn't always involve sex (I don't think this belief is way out in left field). And when someone else with ostensibly the same expectations and understandings of marriage breaks that, I won't defend him or her by blaming society and hetero-monogamy or whatever else. The Bible, the vast majority of grownups in marriages, and I all agree. If two adults want to get together in their marriage and change their expectations through mutual agreement, no one should stop them. I suppose you would have a case to say that's not cheating. But that's quite clearly not what happened here (or hardly anywhere else). It's the sort of hypothetical that makes for good TV and arguments but doesn't really have much of an intersection with reality.

Infidelity is like trespassing...it is not always a bad thing. Whenever you enter someone's private property you are trespassing. If the trespass is invited by the owner, there is no violation. Infidelity is not necessarily "cheating". "Cheating" as we all know is not following the rules. The couple should make the rules and not assume what the rules are.

I have no doubt that the people here involved did not have an open and honest relationship with their spouses, at least Patreus did not. Yet he knew he could not keep his vows. Instead of telling his wife the truth and risking, of course, that she may not agree to that, instead he risked his family, national security and everything else over sex.

But, but, but...yeah I know most people prefer...yada, yada. BULLSH*T. Most people prefer a fantasy. Monogamous heterosexual marriage is a joke in this country. The divorce rate and incidence of infidelity proves it. In fact nearly as many people have extramarital sex as have PRE marital sex. It is easier to find a 25 year old virgin than find a wife that will be faithful for 50 years. It has been trashed not by Gays and Lesbians but by Kim Kardashian, General Patreaus

It is already coming out that this woman had confidential documents. Hell, I would not be surprised to find out she is a sparrow. If you do not know what a sparrow is, ask your Russian wife. The KGB made an industry of humiliating foreign diplomats and suspected spies and forcing them to be removed from Russia. Any foreign person working there more than a couple years could expect that to happen. Why? Why was it so effective...because they all needed to hide the truth. Instead of being able to say "Hey, yeah sweetness, why not come home with me? My wife would like aq piece of you too"

Anyway, I am pro choice. We will see more of this.

[SMR 368]

Infidelity is like trespassing...it is not always a bad thing. Whenever you enter someone's private property you are trespassing. If the trespass is invited by the owner, there is no violation. Infidelity is not necessarily "cheating". "Cheating" as we all know is not following the rules. The couple should make the rules and not assume what the rules are.

I have no doubt that the people here involved did not have an open and honest relationship with their spouses, at least Patreus did not. Yet he knew he could not keep his vows. Instead of telling his wife the truth and risking, of course, that she may not agree to that, instead he risked his family, national security and everything else over sex.

But, but, but...yeah I know most people prefer...yada, yada. BULLSH*T. Most people prefer a fantasy. Monogamous heterosexual marriage is a joke in this country. The divorce rate and incidence of infidelity proves it. In fact nearly as many people have extramarital sex as have PRE marital sex. It is easier to find a 25 year old virgin than find a wife that will be faithful for 50 years. It has been trashed not by Gays and Lesbians but by Kim Kardashian, General Patreaus

It is already coming out that this woman had confidential documents. Hell, I would not be surprised to find out she is a sparrow. If you do not know what a sparrow is, ask your Russian wife. The KGB made an industry of humiliating foreign diplomats and suspected spies and forcing them to be removed from Russia. Any foreign person working there more than a couple years could expect that to happen. Why? Why was it so effective...because they all needed to hide the truth. Instead of being able to say "Hey, yeah sweetness, why not come home with me? My wife would like aq piece of you too"

Anyway, I am pro choice. We will see more of this.

First off, you're wrong about the definition of trespassing. I sort of get your analogy to 'cheating,' but in the English language the word 'trespass' implies uninvited and/or unlawful. Your dinner guests aren't trespassing.

I get the national security problem and I suppose you have a point that Petraeus and Broadwell should have come clean to their spouses and said that they wanted to have sex with someone else. I don't know much about this particular circumstance, but if you think that's really a meaningful solution to most affairs, I don't think I am the one living in the fantasy land. People who have affairs typically want to maintain their marriage and like the secrecy. I don't think that it's just about the sex, so I don't think they would really get the same thing from a mutually agreed affair.

In terms of 25 year old virgins and 50 year long faithful marriages, I know quite a few of both. Maybe you're right; maybe people are just lying. But it doesn't seem like it to me. I don't believe that pre or extra marital sex have to be the norm.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

This has drama mama's written all over it. It's like watching a bunch an aged out Kardashian's.

You mean like all the people who blamed the attack on a silly video. BTW you where the ring leader of that hue and cry.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

You mean like all the people who blamed the attack on a silly video. BTW you where the ring leader of that hue and cry.

Corr: It's like watching a bunch of aged out Kardashians*

RHR - I don't get it. What's your point and what does this have to do with anything?

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

The shirtless FBI agent has been named. He's Fredrick Humphries. Link

Then there is this. Enjoy! http://www.someonewritethisdown.com/lilsarg/PETRAEUS_CHART.pdf