I am being very bold with the heading because the subject is David Petreus and his alleged affair with Paula Broadwell. I am not about to cast any form of judgement on Petreus, because what he did was rather stupid. A lot of men fall for very pretty women, and Paula is a very attractive woman. I do think that there are underlying issues. The posts at HotAir are somewhat amusing with all of their suggestions – some of the suggestions might be accurate, but the writers are really struggling when coming to terms with the whole scandal.
I am going to comment upon a portion of the latest revelations first because I think that this will lead to something else, and certainly might support my own thoughts as to the timing of the revelation of the affair to the public. This revelation was about a speech given by Jill Broadwell, where she talked about the Libyans that had been held captive and were handed over to the Libyan government. In all of the things that I had read about the terror attack at Benghazi, I do in fact recall the CIA agents making a comment about handing over some Libyan prisoners and they were not happy in having to hand them over. This was public knowledge. In a post today, HotAir made a comment about the same thing, concerning the prisoners. However, the writer at HotAir is making some interesting speculations, and I am not certain that this is the case. I will say this, when I first saw mention of the Libyan prisoners, I thought that they had been captured during the terror attack… perhaps I was being dumb!!
There seems to be a lot of intrigue in this story. First of all Paula Broadwell is an Intelligence Officer, and she has access to classified material, even if it does not come directly from David Petreus. The story that has been circulating is that Broadwell was having a cat fight with the other woman (who was not involved romantically with Petreus) and had warned her off. The person who has lawyered up is not Paula Broadwell but this other woman. Why? Hmmm…. perhaps it is because she is an American born Lebanese woman!! Do you think that should ring alarm bells? I am going to assume that her family is Christian Lebanese. I am not going to infer anything about her family background… but let’s face it, a background check via the CIA might be worthwhile. Anyway, Jill Kelley’s relationship with Petreus is interesting because Jill was the one who more or less initiated the friendship… there might be nothing but I keep thinking about the Lebanese background.
Moving on from this tidbit of information is the next tidbit where it turns out that the email sent to Jill Kelley from Paula Broadwell was pretty much harmless. It would barely rate a mention on the richter scale when it comes to threats. However, Kelley talked with a friend who was an FBI agent and told him about the email that she received. He was the one who initiated the investigation. He was the agent who informed Eric Cantor about the matter. As another interesting twist, it seems that this man sent pictures to Jill Kelley of himself topless!! Oh the twists and the turns… but is such information in any way relevant about David Petreus resigning?
Like a lot of other people, I find the timing of the resignation to be questionable. The wording of the announcement from David Petreus is quite intriguing. He has gone on record admitting to the affair and he did this a week before having to go to Congress to testify about what took place in Washington at the time of the attack in Benghazi. I think that there is no such thing as coincidence.
Something else to consider here is that there is no real way that the FBI could be allowed to investigate the head of the CIA without permission from a higher authority. We have no idea as to when people had knowledge of the affair, but like some others I do believe that this affair started when Petreus was in Afghanistan and that it was known. I am going to suggest here that it was known at the highest levels and that it was part of a dirt file, to be used if and when necessary to assert pressure upon Petreus to keep his mouth shut.
David Petreus is on record as stating that no one in the CIA gave any orders to stand down and to not assist those who were being attacked. That means any such order came from someone else. The only person who can countermand David Petreus is the POTUS. He is the only one who can give such an order. When David Petreus first appeared to give evidence about the attack he went along with the video demonstration story but he was not under oath. This is the point, because this time, whoever gives testimony will be under oath, and he or she must tell the truth about what took place, or face the consequences.
Here then is a possible scenario: David Petreus knows the truth. Prior to the election he was being blackmailed into telling the bogus story about a demonstration against a video (the demonstration did not happen in Benghazi). It is highly likely that was being held over the head of Petreus was the knowledge of this affair. The POTUS wanted Petreus to keep up the lie when he was being questioned by Congress again, but this time Petreus was saying NO. Perhaps there were words between the two men, but in the end Petreus resigned rather than lie to Congress.
This still leaves the matter of Jill Kelley. (to be continued at some future date)