David Petreus – tell me again about why he resigned

The timing of the resignation of David Petreus as head of the CIA has always been curious. The real circus was his admission of an affair, followed by the FBI swooping on the house of his lover (she had the right to access those documents but hey, that is not what the Obama Administration wanted people to believe). Now we are starting to get a little bit closer to the truth.

Gregory Hicks, the man who acted as Ambassador after the death of Stephens made some statements about how the attacked was viewed on the ground in Tripoli. What I had not seen revealed prior to today was the fact that the Tripoli Embassy was also getting ready to evacuate out of fear that they would also come under attack. Of course that never eventuated but that is another story.

In context this means that David Petreus as head of the CIA always knew that it was Ansar al-Shariah that had attacked the US consulate in Benghazi. He also knew the mission of his own agents and their attempts to retrieve weapons that had gone “missing”.  Is it any wonder that David Petreus was more than upset when the fact that this was an attack by Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda was scrubbed from the talking points about the attack.

So why again did David Petreus resign? I continue to suggest that the White House thought that they could hold the affair over David Petreus and that they fully expected him to agree to their wishes and to not fight the misleading information that was being given. I suspect that David Petreus had a very fiery meeting with Obama in the Oval Office, and that Obama told him to accept the change or he would go public about the affair with Paula Blackwell. I suspect that David Petreus pulled the pin and resigned as a result of the blackmail attempt and then he went public with the information about the affair to circumvent anything that Obama and Valerie Jarrett might try.

David Petreus has given closed doors testimony to Congress, meaning that the Congress has already heard from him about what allegedly took place. The question is, will Congress require David Petreus to give open testimony now that others have come forward?

It has been revealed that David Petreus was not a happy little vegemite over the changes that took place, because the changes meant that the public was getting misleading information. It meant a lot more than that, because those changes also soured any Libyan government relationship with the USA. The lack of co-operation soon became apparent.

Whilst I am not fully engaged with the gun running to Syria option, as to what the CIA operatives were doing in Benghazi, I am certainly starting to wonder why Ambassador Stephens met with the Turkish Embassy official prior to the attack. What business did they actually discuss?

During the Libyan civil war Turkey took on a different role for a NATO country. It was for the most part neutral or at least had the appearance of neutrality, yet Gadhafi troops fired upon the Turkish hospital ships. Turkey was removing the wounded from Misrata but at the same time was delivering weapons to those who were boxed in by the Gadhafi loyalists and foreign “soldiers”. This means of course that Turkey had been involved in gun running in Libya during the civil war. Interesting to think about that for a moment.

At the same time that Turkey was providing a service to those trapped in Misrata, Qatar was also busy providing the guns etc to the rebels.

It would seem to me that the USA does not need to get involved in any gun running because there are other nations willing enough to take on the role, but USA is involved because the equipment supplied came from allied stocks!!

As the Libyan civil war wound down, the Syrian civil war was continuing to ramp up. In the Syrian case, Assad has been using the Iranian Republican Guard to repel the “rebels”, plus Syrian forces had been firing upon villages without due cause. Thousands of people have fled across the border between Syria and Turkey, and those people remain in the camps on the Turkish side of the border. People are being slaughtered in their thousands. Both sides have been guilty of abuses and what is called “war crimes”. Over the period that the war has been raging many soldiers deserted from the Syrian army and became what is known as the Free Syrian Army. This is a group separate from the “rebels” controlled by Al Qaeda and Salafists.  The Salafists have been responsible for some of the atrocities that have taken place.

It would seem that Turkey, being on the border with Syria has the opportunity to pass out weapons to the Free Syria Army. Perhaps, the meeting between the Ambassador and the Turkish official was related to guns. We are simply not being told what took place.

If the CIA activity was an issue then David Petreus would know the purpose of that meeting. Therefore one can imagine that the pressure was being placed upon him to not talk to any Congressional Inquiry or he would be exposed for having the affair.

If this is what went down, then Obama deserves to be impeached.


10 responses to “David Petreus – tell me again about why he resigned

  1. jordan2222

    How many people will be sacrificed in order to protect Obama and Hillary?


    • Hopefully not too many. I do think Hillary should go before Congress and begin to start answering questions with the truth (if that is possible).

      Meanwhile I ask the question: who killed Vince Foster?


    • jordan2222

      Vince Foster? I have not heard his name since forever.

      Alleged to have been Hillary’s lover and it was also alleged that he was murdered., IDK the truth about either issue. Do you? Would enjoy reading your usual insightful perspective.


    • At this point it is a rhetorical question…. but I would look more closely at the involvement of both the Clintons.

      Vince Foster was more than just a lover, he was also a law firm partner. He was also involved in the Whitewater scandal and he was about to give documents to the inquiry…. those documents went missing at the same time as his death.

      The information that I have just given is on the Internet.


    • I read a lot about Bill at one time, including his white/black son, and knew a lot more about this but “what difference does it make?”

      Vince Foster was more than just a lover, he was also a law firm partner. He was also involved in the Whitewater scandal and he was about to give documents to the inquiry…. those documents went missing at the same time as his death.
      Vince became another “man who knew too much.”


    • Yes, Vince was a man who knew too much….

      back to the rhetorical question: Who killed Vince Foster?

      Someone killed him because it was not a suicide. There was a witness who placed another man at the scene of where Foster’s body was found.

      In any given situation, “the difference” is almost always due to the transparency of those involved.

      In this case one can easily see the lack of transparency. When Clinton was President, and especially over the Whitewater scandal that involved both of them, there was no transparency and neither wanted Foster to testify.

      There is one other possible scandal never brought up, but I did read about it. Who allowed hazardous waste to cross through Arkansas when Clinton was governor. I am not sure that looking at Bill would provide the answer.


    • Long ago, I read an article about who killed Vince, but actually do not recall. I also saw a pic of his offspring, that looked exactly like him.

      (insert Hillary’s reply here.. lol)

      Check to see how marijuana imports in Arkansas became the fourth in the nation while Bill was governor and then it abruptly stopped after he left.

      I do NOT know the facts or truth about this:

      Who allowed hazardous waste to cross through Arkansas when Clinton was governor.


      change of topic:
      Do you think there is any truth at all to ANY of the “false flags” stories? My dentist is well educated and he is convinced that a lot of them are true..so I began to check them but will wait to tell you what I found after I hear what you say.


    • The story about the hazardous waste came from an interesting source. The author is now dead… I have the book but it has not been liberated from removal boxes (ha ha after a year)….

      The author of that book was stating that Hillary was the one making the decisions and wearing the pants and that she knew about those trucks of hazardous waste… and if my memory serves me correctly she was also very rude to people who tried to ask questions.

      I had not heard about the increase in marijuana sales during the Clinton reign as governor but it would not surprise me because of the talk about people and aircraft having accidents. There was some kind of drugs scandal…but I am not up on all of it 🙂


    • change of topic:
      Do you think there is any truth at all to ANY of the “false flags” stories?

      I have read about a lot of conspiracies in my life. I am always amazed at how well they write and document what they say. Well. sort of document…

      Seems hard to believe that people sit down, think these things through and then write them in what seems to be a logical and credible manner. They might be the best fiction writers in the world or OTH, I guess some of their accounts could be accurate.


    • How do we really know if any of the stories are false flags?

      What someone else calls a false flag might be an attempt to deflect from finding the truth.

      On the other hand, there is one false flag story that needs further analysis and fleshing out. That false flag story concerns whether or not there really was a demonstration in Cairo against a C-grade documentary.

      We always need to discern what we are reading because sometimes people start spouting stuff that is simply not true. I see that mostly with the stories surrounding Obama and his mother. It is simply not possible to know what is and what is not true, but that does not make them false flag stories.

      The stories about the Clintons were not necessarily false flags either. There is something very fishy, especially with Bill Clinton. He was one of those characters that got me offside immediately. I never liked him at all.

      It is better to call these stories rumours until they are verified by the facts when they finally come out.