The FBI knew about the affair
some time ago and, under strict orders, kept their mouths shut until just after
Election Day. If they hadn’t, the scandal would have blown up during Obama’s
campaign run.
During the period the FBI knew about Petraeus’ affair, they also knew he was
completely vulnerable to blackmail. In FBI and CIA circles, to have done nothing
about it is considered treasonous. Putting a gag on these FBI people had to been
done by the White House.
The latest word is that Petraeus will not testify before Congress about what
really happened in Benghazi. He “may be called” on the carpet at a future time,
which could mean never.
His absence will help conceal details of the Chris Stevens murder and the
build-up of US-sponsored terrorists in the Benghazi sector of Libya.
In fact, Petraeus’ initial statements to Congress, behind closed doors on
September 14, led legislators to believe that absurd film trailer was the cause
of the “uprising” at the house where Stevens was attacked and killed. Was the
General’s ridiculous declaration made under orders from the White House, who had
the blackmail goods on him?
Then, finally, on October 26th, Petraeus, perhaps fed up at how he was being
used by the White House to provide cover for the president, stated: “No one at
any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need [in Bengazi]. Claims
to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
In this whole scenario, we would be looking at a potential case of double
blackmail. First by the White House, who knew of the affair sometime ago, and
second, by whoever might have wrung CIA and military secrets out of Petraeus
because they knew about his affair with Broadwell.
What does that make Paula Broadwell. In intelligence parlance, she would be a
classic “honey trap.”
By circumstance, by accident, or on purpose?
She has a long military background. A graduate of West Point, she directed
counter-terrorism studies at Tufts University. She worked with the FBI Joint
Terrorism Task Force. She is no innocent.
She very well knew that, during the time of their extended affair, Petraeus was
vulnerable to any number of blackmail vectors. This did not make her waver.
She knew this wasn’t just some fling with a lieutenant colonel or even a
run-of-the-mill general. Petraeus was head of all forces in the Afghanistan war.
Then he was CIA director.
There are a lot of ways to write a biography that don’t involve sleeping with
the subject and opening him up to blackmail at a very high level.
People from both sides of the aisle in Washington are expressing deep sorrow
that an American hero had to resign. What nonsense. They’re building cover for
Petraeus. They’re intentionally avoiding the question of what compromises he may
have agreed to during his peak military service and intelligence directorship.
In Afghanistan, Petraeus was Obama’s choice to replace Stanley McChrystal, the
general who blew his career during a Rolling Stone interview in which his men
took pot shots at the president.
It is quite fair to ask whether Petraeus served as Obama’s man in Afghanistan
under the unspoken but implied threat that, if there were any kerfuffles, any
deviations, any criticisms of the White House Afghan policy, Petraeus’ affair
would become public knowledge.
Despite claims by a friend that the affair with Broadwell began after Petraeus
assumed leadership of the CIA, there is a strong possibility it started earlier,
when Broadwell was “embedded” with the general in Afghanistan.
Was Paula Broadwell covertly working for the White House during her affair with
Petraeus? Was she working for somebody else? Did she start out as an agent? Was
she drawn into becoming one because she, too, as a married woman, was open to
blackmail?
The public and the mainstream press, playing the part of “oh isn’t this too bad
but of course nothing really serious or weird or compromising could have
happened here,” doesn’t want to know how the spy game is actually played. They’d
rather watch Jeopardy and pop Zoloft.
“Two people, both married, couldn’t resist a great passion. It happens. All of
us make mistakes. We understand. Even great men can succumb. And she was
obviously smitten. What a shame.”
Yeah. Sure.
Petraeus, the man, is now a legitimate target for serious questions. If he
entered into the affair, knowing full well the blackmail it opened him up to,
what is he all about? Where have his loyalties resided?
Some starry-eyed people will think asking about this is “impolite,” because,
after all, “the man is an American hero.” Nonsense.
Then we have questions about Petraeus’ potential political career. The press
went after him with all sorts of questions about what he might do in the 2012
election. The idea was out there. Could he run for president against Obama?
Could he become the next Eisenhower?
If he had decided to make the move, he would have had a formidable number of
supporters. But he adamantly said no. Was this a genuine expression of
disinterest, or was Petraeus already compromised and under the thumb of the
White House?
“All right, David, you’re gone from Afghanistan now. You’ve retired from the
Army. The hero returns. Don’t get any ideas about running for president. You
know what we know about you. By the way, the director of Central Intelligence is
open. How would you like that job?”
“Oh no,” people say. “This kind of thing would never happen.”
Really? What kind of world do you think Washington is? The Peace Corp with
martini lunches? The Unitarian Church with occasional brandies and cigars?
Remember Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s famous remark when she was
asked about the devastation the US was wreaking in Iraq through its economic
sanctions?
May 12, 1996, 60 Minutes. Lesley Stahl says: “We have heard that half a million
[Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima.
And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price
is worth it.”
Now that’s the real world of Washington, once the PR people get out of the way.
Blackmail of a famous general, a director of the CIA? That’s nothing.
A famous general falling under the power of blackmail? A general who knows some
of the deep dark secrets about Dope Inc., the trillion-dollar opium growing
operation in Afghanistan, a general whose troops have helped to restore the
planting of the poppies there? A general who knows about the longed-for oil
pipeline running through Afghanistan and the various persons whom it will
benefit?
Could Petraeus have been a target for all manner of blackmail mounted by
numerous parties?
Is the Pope Catholic?
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate
for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a
Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing
articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin
Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon
has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and
creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free
emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Jon Rappoport
Infowars.com
November 12, 2012
It’s absurd to think the FBI just found out about CIA Director Petraeus’ affair
with Paula Broadwell, his biographer. The timing is too convenient.
This article was posted: Monday, November 12, 2012 at 1:29 pm