General Betray-Us?

Could it be that MoveOn.org and Hillary Clinton knew what they were talking about?

No, that would never happen. But while I can’t quite connect the dots into a full-fledged conspiracy, this is certainly curious:

“I have questions about the whole matter,” Rep. Peter King told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley, pointing to reports that the White House first learned of the affair in a phone call from the FBI to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper at 5 p.m. on election night.

The FBI discovered Petraeus’ affair during an investigation into a complaint that his biographer, Paula Broadwell, was sending harassing e-mails to another woman close to the retired four-star general, a U.S. official said Saturday.

On Saturday, questions arose about why congressional leaders were not informed of the investigation immediately.

According to a congressional aide familiar with the matter, the House and Senate intelligence committees weren’t informed that there was an FBI investigation into Petraeus until Friday.

“It just doesn’t add up,” King, R-New York, said on CNN. “You have this type of investigation. The FBI investigating e-mails, the e-mails leading to the CIA director, and taking four months to find out that the CIA director was involved. I have real questions about this. I think a timeline has to be looked at and analyzed to see what happened.”

The president should have been alerted far sooner if sensitive information had been compromised, King said, particularly since the investigation involved the nation’s top intelligence chief.

“Obviously this was a matter involving a potential compromise of security, and the president should have been told about it at the earliest state. That’s really all I’m saying.”

The head of the CIA is having an affair. The FBI is alerted, but doesn’t tell the President until election day? And doesn’t inform Congress until three days later? All of this against the backdrop of Benghazi, and who knew what when?

Okay…

I don’t see a smoking gun, an obvious connection between the strands of this story, even if it seems suspicious. Petraeus was indeed having an affair, an inexcusable lapse in a CIA Director. The relationship turned Fatal Attraction (minus the boiled bunny), with the other woman becoming mean, nasty, and possessive. Meanwhile, the CIA was up to its eyebrows in Libya, where under-protected American emissaries were left to die, despite real time streams of data revealing their peril.

Oh yeah, there was an election going on, and all of this was effectively covered up until after the votes were in.

Okay…

4 Comments »

  1. judi said,

    November 12, 2012 @ 7:55 am

    Have you watched the video posted at WND of Paula Broadwell’s recent speech? At the end where she is taking questions she reveals some details about Benghazi that were not known to the public. This certainly gives the idea that theres more here than just an affair.

  2. judi said,

    November 12, 2012 @ 7:58 am

    It’s also posted on Breitbart.

  3. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    November 12, 2012 @ 8:00 am

    Judi, Fox has something about it here:

    Now, Broadwell could be facing questions about whether she revealed classified information that she was privy to due to her relationship with then-CIA director David Petraeus.

    At an Oct. 26 speech at her alma mater, the University of Denver, Broadwell was asked about Petraeus’ handling of the Benghazi situation.

    Her response was reported originally by Israel’s Arutz Sheva and Foreign Policy’s Blake Hounshell.

    Broadwell quoted the Fox report when she said: “The facts that came out today were that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements.”

    Broadwell went on to explain more details from the Benghazi attacks.

    “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.”

    The CIA denies holding anyone prisoner, not least because it’s illegal. Curiouser and curiouser.

  4. judi said,

    November 12, 2012 @ 8:28 am

    Doug Hagmann says in his November 11th piece that that there was a kidnapping but not of Libyan militia members, seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent. Many more details on his site Northeast Intelligence Network

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment