Showing posts with label Paula Broadwell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paula Broadwell. Show all posts

Monday, November 12, 2012

“General Betray Us” And The Cries For Help In Benghazi


“And so Petraeus was seduced by a Democratic political operative. Hubris. Now his mighty reputation is soiled beyond repair, his marriage is likely sundered, his prospects on the lecture circuit zilch. This is what Democrats do to the gullible, and the prideful. Don't ever get in bed with these scorpions. They are vile creatures, with no conscience and no soul.”—Velociworld

Paula Broadwell, the alleged paramour of CIA Director David Petraeus, was speaking at her alma mater on October 26th when she confirmed the information that Fox News had been reporting just days after the September 11, 2012 attack on the “consulate” in Benghazi where four Americans were abandoned to die at the hands of savages.

In her “Alumni Symposium 2012—Paula Broadwell”, she said the CIA annex asked for a special unit, the Commander-in-Chief’s In Extremis Force, to come and assist it.  She also said that the force could indeed have reinforced the consulate, and that Petraeus knew all of this [within 24 hours], but was not allowed to talk to the press because of his position in the CIA, according to Israel National News.

During the symposium, in a question and answer session, Broadwell was asked about the fatal September 11 attacks against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

She said, “Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually taken a couple of Libya 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.”

Did you get that?  There was a U.S. prison or CIA detention center in Benghazi.  This is the smoking gun.  This is clearly why the West Wing sent out Susan Rice to lie on all five Sunday talk shows claiming our countrymen were brutally murdered because of a video.

A spokesman for the CIA said, “The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”

The CIA’s denial came just hours after Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news outlet, first published a partial transcript of Broadwell’s speech.

The Daily Beast reports, “On Friday, her personal website and Facebook page were scrubbed from the Internet. (The Washington Post reported Sunday that “Officers close to Petraeus grew concerned about her posts on Facebook, which they believed sometimes divulged sensitive operational details.”)

In my post of November 10th, I covered the assertion made by John Batchelor that when Petraeus testified on the Hill he was not under oath and did not correct the public record regarding the attack.

During an October 16th interview, Denver’s WUSA-TV reporter Kyle Clark asked President Obama a two-part question: “Were the Americans under attack at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya denied requests for help during that attack, and is it fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation until after the election?” 

“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

If the president did, in fact, issue those orders where are they?  Let’s see them.

There is a bitter irony that, on this Veterans Day, when our military heroes are honored for their service that one of America’s most vaunted generals has become “General Betray Us.”

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Petraeus Will Not Walk “The Benghazi Plank” For Obama Regime


On CNBC’s Kudlow Report, John Batchelor revealed that when David Petraeus testified on the Hill about the Benghazi attack he was not under oath.  You read that right—he was not under oath.

Batchelor is reliably ahead of news cycles and he informs that “Petraeus did not resign because of the affair he mentions in his resignation letter.”

Batchelor boldly asserts that Petraeus did not want to return to the Hill under oath next week to be confronted over the inconsistencies in his remarks about the CIA’s part in the fiasco.

The White House developed the hateful video talking points which Batchelor describes as “nakedly fallacious” and Petraeus did not, did not correct the public record.

At risk right away is the administration's plan to seat Susan Rice as the next Secretary of State in Obama’s cabinet.  However, all the principals of the national security apparatus are at risk:  Tom Donilon, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs, the President and Vice President.  It appears that the American people were purposefully misinformed by the Obama administration.  

The Senate Intelligence Committee will proceed at all possible speed in the Lame Duck session and this will go far and high in the administration.  We already see that the leaking is brutal as it reveals Obama’s secret policy of aiding strongmen and warlords regardless of their Jihadist connections.

Ever since the story broke that four Americans were left to die in Benghazi, the only news outlet that covered the tragedy was Fox News.  It is inescapable now for the media lapdogs to ignore the story since infidelity on the part of Petraeus is part of the new narrative.

Did Petraeus resign to outmaneuver the White House that was making threats against him and Broadwell about security?  Did the White House get surprised by the resignation?  

Only a fool would accept a White House-engineered resignation about an affair of the heart with a glamorous mother of two.