Was David Petraeus blackmailed over Benghazi?

By 49 Comments 4,837 views

CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus Resigns After Affair

The Benghazi affair is on fire and it could possibly go nuclear soon.

It is now very clear that the Obama regime scrubbed the truth from the Benghazi talking points.

Politics: It would be naïve to expect any White House to ignore the political implications of a foreign policy crisis occurring two months before a presidential election. But there is a reason why no White House admits to finessing a tragedy: It’s unseemly. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland injected politics into the U.S. response to Benghazi when she raised objections to draft “talking points” being prepared for Rice’s television appearances.

One paragraph, drafted by the CIA, referenced the agency’s warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months prior to the attack, as well as extremists linked to the al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. In an email to officials at the White House and intelligence agencies, Nuland said the information “could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.

It was the Obama regime who politicized Benghazi:

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my building’s leadership.” With that sentence, one in a series of emails and draft “talking points” leaked to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, the Obama administration was caught playing politics with Benghazi.

We are still speculating as to who altered the talking points but there are hints that Steven Hayes might know:

[O]ne previously opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points…

Nuland wrote that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” She did not specify whom she meant by State Department “building leadership.” Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national security​—​including State, Defense, and the CIA​—​as well as senior White House national security staffers…

According to the email, several officials in the meeting shared the concern of Nuland, who was not part of the deliberations, that the CIA’s talking points might lead to criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA’s warning about an attack. Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Denis McDonough, then a top national security adviser to Obama and now his chief of staff, deferred on Rhodes’s behalf to Sullivan…

The sender of the email spoke with Sullivan after the meeting, reminding him that Rice would be doing the Sunday morning shows and needed to receive the final talking points. Sullivan committed to making sure Rice was updated before the Sunday shows.

The blame for the changes, clearly done at the White House level, was then dumped on the CIA:

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

It is also well known at this time that David Petraeus was astonished to see how his assessment was freed of the truth:

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.

Petraeus has even called the altered talking points “useless.”

Petraeus twice briefed members of Congress and on both occasions the event was closed to the public. The first assessment for Congressional members came a few days after the September 11 attack in Benghazi and the second one came on November 16, 2012.

Note that it was back in November when the disparity in initial and final talking points was discovered:

House Intelligence Committee member Peter King, R-N.Y., told reporters that the original CIA talking points regarding the attack clearly attributed the incident to al Qaeda affiliates, but that the talking points changed after being vetted by several agencies, including the Justice Department and State Department. “No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final talking points,” King said.

“The original talking points prepared by the CIA were different than the final ones put out,” King continued. Originally, he said, they were “much more specific on al Qaeda involvement.”

Apparently Petraeus offered two versions of the Benghazi situation:

Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill Friday that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September was an act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked militants.

That’s according to U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, who spoke to reporters after a closed hearing in the House, which lasted an hour and 20 minutes.

King said Petraeus’ testimony differed from an earlier assessment the former CIA director gave lawmakers just days after the September 11 attack, which left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“He (Petraeus) … stated that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement, and that is not my recollection of what he told us on September 14,” King said.

“The clear impression we were given (in September) was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, and was not a terrorist attack,” he said.

What changed in between the first briefing and the testimony?

Paula Broadwell.

A timeline:

Benghazi attack: September 11, 2012
Petraeus briefing for Congress: September 14, 2012
Presidential election: Novermber 6, 2012
Petraeus resigns: November 9, 2012

Was David Petraeus being blackmailed to toe the line? Here’s why it could be possible. The FBI discovered that Petraeus was having an affair with his biographer and when he was confronted with the evidence, Petraeus asked that he be allowed to “step down” on his own.

The CIA Director being under investigation is no small deal, yet the White House did not notify Congress:

Some lawmakers wonder why the FBI didn’t notify the White House and relevant congressional committees earlier – before the election – that the CIA director was under investigation.

“The FBI should have had an obligation to tell the president,” Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King (R) said Sunday on CNN. “It just doesn’t add up.”

“I have real questions about this. I think the timeline has to be looked at,” Rep. King said. “I’m suggesting there’s a lot of unanswered questions.”

King also says Petraeus still should testify before his committee this coming week on the Benghazi attack.

That the FBI did not notify Obama of an investigation of the Director of the CIA is simply and utterly incredulous. Eric Holder knew of the affair since late summer 2012:

The FBI apparently was sitting in two inquiries. One involved the extramarital affair uncovered between Petraeus and biographer Paula Broadwell. The other involved “inappropriate communications” between lead commander in Afghanistan Gen. John Allen and Jill Kelley, a woman tied to the Petraeus scandal.

Though the FBI investigation that stumbled onto Petreaus’ affair had been underway since as early as June and Holder knew since late summer, the Justice Department did not loop in Director of National Intelligence James Clapper — who then told the White House — until last Tuesday.

“Last Tuesday”- election day. So Obama learned of the affair on Tuesday.

Or maybe it was Wednesday.

Still, the timing of the notification was curious. The Justice Department reportedly told Clapper about the probe on Election Day. Clapper told the White House the following day, and Obama learned the day after that, according to administration officials.

Holder knew of the investigation of the Director of the CIA and he didn’t tell Obama? You believe that only if you are a complete idiot.

One wonder whether more scrubbing has taken place than was know.

At the Washington Times, John Curl warns of the re-emergence of David Petraeus:

Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.

With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.

Very possible.

Petraeus is known to be a team player yet the White House holding Petraeus’ affair as a sword of Damocles over Petraeus’ head would help assure of his participation. He was conveniently kept quiet until after the election and then resigned almost immediately afterwards. Once Petraeus resigned in shame over the affair anything he had to say about Benghazi would then be tarnished. Now he and the CIA serve as the Obama’s patsies for the removal of the truth from the talking points.

It’s all too convenient.

By the way, have you heard about the IRS scandal?

That’s also way too convenient.

doug squirrel

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

49 Responses to “Was David Petraeus blackmailed over Benghazi?”

  1. 26

    Tom

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    So they blackmailed him with the affair, but the affair is out… that’s not very good blackmail. Pulling the trigger on the threat means he now has no disincentive to keep the secret; rather he has the overwhelming incentive of revenge, amongst others incentives, to let the secret out. So what is holding his tongue now? More blackmail? The imagination really does run wild.

  2. 27

    Tom

    @DrJohn:

    He already is a right wing icon and now another victim of Obama fascism.

    Then why doesn’t he do something about it? Like tell the world that Obama blackmailed him? What on Earth is holding him back? All the ODS drones might not ask, but anyone who has watched one b-movie sure knows when a plot has a hold the size of the Grand Canyon in it.

  3. 28

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Scott in Oklahoma
    HI,
    I think HE was intimidated, and surprise OBAMA when he left, THEY never expected him to quit
    after the BENGHASI failure of OBAMA, he just left OBAMA cold claiming the affair,
    but that was to spare him more of shame he OBAMA already was in,
    bye

  4. 30

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Lehmon
    you know I heard a bit of it around the after attack
    and the way you explain it ,I find it make a lot of sense,
    so that tell us who order the STAND DOWN, must be OBAMA,
    that his gimmick style as real as a spit.
    I had heard that STEVEN was returning from a meeting with some one in TURKEY
    about a deal on weapons given probably sold to the REBELS in SYRIA,
    so your talk is even more plausible, and that transaction would have had very few involved in,
    OBAMA secret way of doing his murky transactions,
    we know he will do anything and sell anything for money that is his torment,
    he always want money,

  5. 32

    Scott in Oklahoma

    @Tom: And the good liberal soldier again missed the question. In addition to Petraeus, why haven’t the others come out? Out of loyalty to Obama? Or out of fear of reprisals. After seeing the initial treatment of Petraeus, it became obvious that the Obama administration has no fear of backing up threats. And Petraeus probably decided it would be in his own best interest to shut up before something else happened.

  6. 35

    ilovebeeswarzone

    TOM
    why did he not tell he was blackmail,
    why is OBAMA still on the THRONE after so many failures,
    the answer is that the CLASS of those who know he should be taken out but they have too much class to do it until the extreme end,
    THAT IS WHY

  7. 36

    Tom

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    And the good liberal soldier again missed the question. In addition to Petraeus, why haven’t the others come out? Out of loyalty to Obama? Or out of fear of reprisals.

    I didn’t miss the question. I’m just not going to speculate on your pure speculation, because it’s pointless. How can I present an argument against something you’ve imagined? If you have any concrete facts that prove threats, blackmail or coercion, then please present them. Until then you’re inventing entirely fictional scenarios to match a desired outcome and you can’t expect someone to argue against that; or I should say, the only argument is ‘please show me your factual evidence”.

  8. 37

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Tom
    you have nothing to show yourself,
    why do you expect anyone to show you anything,
    after all you are not in the secret here,
    but you would not tell what you find with the WHITE HOUSE talking head.
    found with their feet in the crap.

  9. 38

    Marla Hughes

    @Budvarakbar:
    I don’t think Brennan is a closet Muslim so much as a sympathizer of radicals, especially Islamists. I’ve heard his speeches and he sounded like more of an apologist than a true believer to me. Which can be worse. I know moderate Muslims. I don’t know any apologists for radicals that aren’t harmful to me and/or my nation in their actions and words.

  10. 39

    Marla Hughes

    @ilovebeeswarzone:
    The meeting with the Turk was at the consulate. He left minutes before the attack happened. Because there is only one main ‘drag, he would have had to see the barricades being set up and the armed men moving up the street toward the consulate. He didn’t call Stevens and warn him. No one has asked him why he didn’t as far as I know.
    re: Others who have questions about why the attack happened. I have questions myself. Such is who were the two ‘Arabs’ in the CIA annex right before the first attack? Were they prisoners as some Benghazi residents said or were they rebels from ‘some place else’ being armed with the ManPADs that were being collected (and supposedly destroyed) by Doherty :http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/glen-doherty-navy-seal-killed-libya-intel-mission/story?id=17229037
    My next question is when the attack occurred, what happened to the ManPADs that had been collected? The consulate and the annex was left abandoned for 17 days before the FBI was finally sent in. Everyone had full access, including news crews and locals.
    Another question: Was Brennan in charge of more than the drone program? I’d like to see him put under oath for more than one reason.

  11. 40

    Richard Wheeler

    @DrJohn: Petraeus,who I consider a great leader,is a victim of only one thing—his little head doing his big head’s thinking. He’s free to tell the truth as he knows it. I believe he will. Chips fall where they may.

  12. 41

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Marla Hughes
    hi, wow, you have new things and those we did not hear before,
    and they mean a lot to the resolution of the BENGHASI,
    and it made me remember that someone mention around here
    that some guy was taking pictures, how , what camera what kind of camera, still or moving video,
    I do not know these answers, the person did not say,
    you sure have some good clues, I hope it get taken by HANNITY or one of the FOX,
    best to you. thank you for the infos,

  13. 42

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Marla Hughes
    I just recall a fact coming from someone while I was watching the attack at FOX,
    those 2 ARABS might have been the supose security provided by the LIBYAN LEADER.
    he did not want any AMERICAN SECURITY,and send some who ran away when the saw the ALQAEDA
    pointing his weapon at them they ran away pleading for their innocence,
    it was mentioned at the time of the attack.
    just a thought
    bye

  14. 43

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Richard Wheeler
    PETRAEUS was a GREAT GENERAL, admire by his troops
    he was taking the protection of his MILITARY AT HEART,
    and a big head he had in order to have that CAREER he had to be super good.
    no one can say anything wrong about him,
    he also was a human been, and his personal busyness belong only to him,
    I strongly think he came public to tell his affair , because OBAMA try his intimidation on him
    after BENGHASI, so he told his story publicly to counteract the threats, to silence him.

  15. 47

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Marla Hughes
    hi,
    well we have not answer your QUESTION, what where they doing there?
    why would they be there? where they waiting to have a paid request
    to go and get something for the people in the annex,
    or are they the ones who wounded the one still in hospital
    badly wounded, which no one talk to yet,
    well maybe KERRY did, but he did not say about his conversation,
    then how else would he be wounded, if it’s far from the CONSULATE,
    oh, might they have been with THE TURKISH WHO had business with STEVEN the AMBASSADOR,
    AND INVITED BY THE ANNEX TOP GUY, who would be RICK?
    bye

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *