Where did you get YOUR information, Graeme? Is it speculation or fact? Why would Obama and Petraeus stand back to let the Libyan Embassy get trashed and the ambassador die of smoke inhalation? Are you suggesting it was a CIA hit on a U.S. embassy???

I guess I'll go read your blog. Cheers, Graeme.

There IS a CIA cooking academy...who knew? ;3

(though this one probably wouldn't be attacked by jihadists and cheered on by sombunall Westerners...)

Ah: 

You say:

1. The annex to the embassy in Libya was a CIA prison (a very small one, but a prison), and was used for torture.

2. The major CIA base for Libya, well-stocked with specially trained troops)  was nearby.

3.The attack on the embassy had nothing to do with a movie - and the CIA knew it. The attack was on the annex, in an attempt to free the prisoners.

4. The defenders of the embassy and the prison made an urgent appeal for help. Obama refused. So, apparently, did Petraeus.

5. The American embassy and the CIA were both seizing weapons from rebels in Libya, including heavy weapons, to send to Syria.(That's not only contrary to what Obama was saying; it's also illegal for an embassy to be doing that.)

What are your sources here, Graeme?

I found a piece (more allegations)…

Fox News reported that the CIA annex had taken some Libyans into custody following the attack — a report that later turned out to be false — but Paula Broadwell appeared to say that the attack was, in fact, an attempt to free already-taken prisoners.

Did Broadwell get the Fox report wrong? Or is this evidence that Petraeus gave Broadwell access to classified intelligence?

But, by all accounts, Petraeus had broken off their affair months before this video, shot in October:

http://gawker.com/5959747/did-petraeus-mistress-reveal-a-secret-cia-prison-in-benghazi

The trouble with ALL of this sort of stuff is that we never know for certain while it's being bandied around in the media. History maybe will out all, but I'm not holding my breath.

Why don't you just link to it?

I think I just posted the pertinent bits, Chemgal.

I'm computer-stupid.

I found some information in the wall st. journal, Daily Mail (of all places), Telegraph, Oserver, others..

Parts of this have been kicking around for weeks. There's been enough of this around for so long that congress has a major investigation of it all this week. There appears to be no question that reinforcements wer asked for, and no question that they were refused. I h ave no idea why. That's really old news, though many agencies have skipped it.

As well, the story that the attack had nothing to do with a movie but was aimed at the prison has been around for weeks. It was no longer a security secret when Broadwell mentioned it in her talk.

there was no honour code that forced the general to resign. Senior officers of every army I have ever heard of have had affairs, often quite public ones. Eisenhower had a long affair with his British driver in England. Patton had one with his niece.

The suggeston to resign came from an advisor to Obama. It is not possible that an advisor took that decision on his own. The general was told to resign.

What it's all about is more difficult to say. Did Obama know about that prison? (It had only two or three prisoners.) Did Obama know that weapons were being shipped to Syrian rebels? It's hard to believe he didn't.

As to why reinforcements were denied - I have no idea. The main CIA headquarters ws not far away - but they may have feared an attack on the headquarters if they sent the reinforcements off.

Why the general would lie about the motive for the attack is easier. He couldn't reveal he had an illegal prison doing illegal torture. The question will be whether Obama knew that, too.

There are also bigger questions lurking in the back of this. Apparently, the US used and supplied a great many jihadists to overthrow ghadaffi (as it is now doing in Syria). The result is a stunning mess with no real sign of democracy or even government of any credibility.  That has been a characteristic of american foreign and military policy for decades.

For all its cost and size and technology and killing, the US military has been a walking disaster for a good fifty years, and it's foreign policy has taken it from being the most admired country in the world to being the most despised.

The Republicans may well have Obama in a box in this one.

Oh, no. I'm not saying it was a CIA  hit on a US embassy. I read some speculation about that. But I don't believe it.

So why the resignation if some sort of cover-up was required? Why not "business as usual"? Why not supply weapons to Syrian dissidents directly? Or not at all? It's certainly complicated, which suggests an incompete picture….

Obama has repeatedly insisted he is not interfering in Libya. that's his insistence, not mine. obivously, it's important to him. And it's always been a lie. He has also been lying about Syria. You and I may not know why he's lying. But he has been.

It is an imcomplete picture. And I suspect it always will be. Obama has never said that he started the rebellions in Libya and Syria. But of course, he did. And, of course, he supplied the rebels in both cases (along with the Arab league.) Both rebellions are frauds.

One possibility is that the US, over the past twenty years or so, has actually created the holy war it accuses Moslems of starting. It has built enormous, popular resentment in the Moslem world. If I were him, I would not want that behaviour known to the American public. The US has created the formidable force that is opposed to it. In fact, that goes back to the support it gave long ago to ghadaffi and saddam. At the same time, it supplied and trained the Taliban to fight against the USSR, and actually made bin Laden a major force.

It is now fighting secret wars - in Yemen, Somalia, Latin America, all over the world with assassination squads and drones, provoked protests, etc.. Almost none of that is reaching our news media. And I note that much of the news media still plays this as a sex scandal - when sex is close to irrelevant.

According to the New York Times, the info about the real nature of the raid in Benghazi was found in Broadwell's computer.  The White House has known about it for a long time,but kept it secret. That last thing Obama wants now is for the general to appear before congrssional investigators.

Oh, there is a happy note. Petraeus is the first major figure to be caught as a result of the right now given to American poice and the army to investigate anybody's private affairs without warrant. in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Expect it to come to Canada.

I'm not into conspiracy theories as a rule but do agree that the sex scandal as reason for resignation seems bogus.  Who bloody cares if the head of CIA had mistresses?  There's got to be a more compelling reason than that.

There's also the timing - just before the general was to testify on the embassy attack. And, according to the NY Times, Obama had to know all about almost as soon as the attack happened.

I'm playing the sleuth but I doubt I've discovered anything really new.

Resigned or Sacked...?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/petraeus-resignation-or-sacking/5311499

Cover Benghazi

http://grtv.ca/2012/11/petraeus-affair-and-benghazi-cover

One major question for lawmakers on Monday that could play into Lesser’s mention of conduct outside the U.S. was Petraeus’s travel in recent months. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on MSNBC that Petraeus had flown to Libya since the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, which was a hub for CIA activity in North Africa. Feinstein said she wanted to see the “trip report,” but CIA has not been cooperating with her or her committee.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83728.html

As the executor of the new Obamaite policy of sidling up to Islamists, not only in Libya but also in Syria and Egypt, Petraeus was no doubt seen by the Israelis as an enemy to be neutralized.

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1352707299.html

Multiple sources tell NBC News that Mike Morrell, the deputy CIA director and a longtime CIA officer, would likely be offered the job as acting director, with the understanding that he may be elevated to the job permanently.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/09/15054517-cia-director-david-p...

It seems bogus to us up here, because Canadians, as a rule, don't much care who our politicians sleep with.

Down south is a different story, the American public seems to think the sex lives of politicians is the most important thing in their lives, way beyond their performance on the jobs.

He was not a politician. He was director of the CIA.
.
Latest from WSJ here.
.
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732443980457811541018...
.
Lots of confused comments. A few funny ones.

Thank you for argueing an irrelevant point

Traditionally the concern in such cases is twofold:

a) that secret information will be shared as "pillow talk" (because we know how sexy that information would be )

b) the fact of improper behaviour opens an individual up to blackmail.

HOwever there are lots of times when it is simply ignored....

Something it does reveal is some serious decadence and wiilingness to break faith with "nearest and dearest" in the sorts of places where one might — in a different world, I guess — hope for a little integrity… and now General Allen's involved in all the cavortings too. They must have quite the social life. Sad, really. Stupid and sad and pathetically self absorbed…

Hi EO

I was thinking about you. As Rev. John might say I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer  in this dept......

My google research is along the lines that the news  media may be giving us a certain amount  of  BS.   I believe thats  what is  on graeme's mind as well as in the thoughts of some TV commentators. Nobody really knows what's cookin'.

Was the gov't  looking to oust Petraeus  for some other reasons and this kissy kissy one  turns out to be  quite convenient ?  I do understand the blackmail theory  that GordW mentions.

I agree with Witch.

Whatever happens in personal affairs does not mean that one cannot do a great job in public office, or private industry (wherever one works is what I am trying to say)

There is a kind of moral attack going on, which seems really odd to me, considering that many Presidents (both Democratic and Republican) from Washington and Jefferson right through to Clinton (and time will tell if GWBush....) had affairs, and offspring...

It seems that certain US media streams, certain politicians, and a portion of the gen pop give a crap about this issue. 

That said, I suspect that many people (from the common citizen to the elected official), in private, and quietly, would not like to be under the same scrutiny for fear of losing their jobs because of an extra-marital affair.

My puter is in the living room while I have the  news on TV  roaring in the background. CNN is sensationalism but its a lot of fun. The update is that Paula's house was searched, boxes taken out and computers...by concensus. Mike Morell - sp - is the acting CIA director. John Allen was trying to warn Kelley about whatever ...lol.

The opinion of historian Juan Cole, Un. of Michigan on Gen. Petraeus

http://www.juancole.com/2012/11/juan-cole-real-petraeus-failure-was-coun...

CNN - Piers Morgan - Michael Hastings rant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qRXZ0GntrtM#!

On Monday evening, "Piers Morgan Tonight" welcomed legendary filmmaker and documentarian Oliver Stone. "There has been no success in Iraq," continued Stone. "The so-called surge has been over hyped by the media as a success, when, in fact, Iraq was trashed almost from the beginning to the end, and it was in worse shape when he left. He didn't leave it well."

Stone also had issue with Petraeus' military campaigns in Afghanistan. "He conned Obama into adding 30,000 troops it was into Afghanistan, with a plan that he would win with this counter-insurgency program," Stone said. "Where is it? Where are the results? They're nonexistent. Afghanistan is worse off."

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/13/clips-from-last-night-oliver...

Cynical comment:

Some have lamented, via social media, that wars, occupations, assassinations are not reasons to lose one’s job in the United States government. Indeed, such service gets you praised and promoted, while an extramarital affair will kill your career.

All this stuff about his affair seems like a distraction to me. Sure it's crappy to his family, but it's not 24/7 news. CNN right now is treating it like it's the only thing happening in the world.

everybody in the US is now liable to the same scrutiny - without their knowledge, without any warrant. And all the information is kept for some day when I might be handy.

J. Edgar Hoover held his post long after retirement precisely because he had the goods on everybody - expecially JFK. The Nazi Himmler did the same thing.

The idea is to gather information to be used against somebody when it comes in handy. That is now enshrined in American law. The US is a police state complete with secret lists, secret arrests, prison with no charge or trial, even official assassination, with the most thorough domestic espionage system in history. I don't think we begin to realize the seriousness of what has happened.

I fully expect Harper to introduce the same measures. (Indeed, a good deal of it already happening without waiting for changes in the law.)

In this case, I think the man who is covering up is Obama. The suggestion to resign came from his office. It came immediately the election was over. And it came just before the general was due to testify before Congress. And Obama did NOT have to accept the resignation.  Indeed, in all of american history, I cannot recall an occasion when an official like the CIA head or a general has offered such a resignation or had one accepted. But Obama did, right after the election.

There are Just too many coincidences.

Hmmm hadn't thought about the blackmail/pillowtalk/indescretion angle - and this is the country that impeached a President for lying about an affair...

As GordW pointed out-
1. there is fear that "top secret" info is shared with bed-mates.
2. there is the risk of "top secret" info being shared with blackmailers.
 

I would add a few-
3. the bad press in a public fascinated with bringing others down or like a pepping Tom peering into their privacy... It can be pot smoking or cheating. (Cheaters, Maury, you name it reality show) There is also a curiosity about lives of famous people, especially sex lives...like politicians. Knowing about their affairs is a window into their sex lives. Sex sells and they gobble it up.
4. the feelings around "cheating". The person is "bad" and "a liar" and "no good", "a cheat"... and folks think that if someone breaks one vow or promise they will break all. People tend to think those governing or leading who cheat will also cheat "the people", "the rules".... In a public where infidelity runs rampant maybe them pointing fingers at others means fingers are not pointed at them...
5. politics... the ability to cite something, anything, from college years and drinking to anything to discredit someone. That extends outward, "if they picked/appointed/socialize with... what does that say about them?" We still believe birds of a feather flock together...
6. The military is held to ridiculous standards ...

I could go on and on at what the American people believe about their officials, celebrities and even their fellow human beings. I could go on and on about what many people think  the word "affair" liinked to someone means about that person.

Americans are not the only ones obsessed with other people's business. They are not the only ones fixated in their confusion about issues of a sexual nature.

IMO the affair made sense to ask someone already not living up to your expectations to resign without being asked what was he not doing or how was he doing it?

It is not something to do right before an election, it will be used against you. It is the thing to do right after one. One cannot entertain those talking about a cover-up before an election, but after an election you step away from it or let it dog you.

IMO anyone heading up the CIA should maybe know email is not secure. Need I say "Duh"? I am afraid I too would hint at a resignation, just because of that.

Good lord, now there's a story about John Allen  caught up in all of it, connected to the first scandal to another 'scandal' involving Allen sending "flirtatious" emails to a different woman. Who cares!? Just tell us athe real story please. I have the TV on as I am typing this. Now, just heard something about shirtless photos...blah, blah...please! And this is coming from their "chief poliical analyst"...?! Gossip analyst is more like it. Any of us can do that. we need the real  news.

Okay, not 'who cares'. Their families care. But it isn't the story. Oh, they've let up on Patreus for a few minutes just now...talking about The Fiscal Cliff....look out! ...oh, oh, now back to the Top Story...new 'shocking revelations' about the Sex Scandal...it's comical if it weren't for the fact that that there are real wars going on, and the Sandy survivors are stil trying to recover or survive without power..and a million other things that are more newsworthy.

Please note that in my comment it was specific to the topic.  But to be clear, historically, for thousands of years, with documented evidence, in every level of society, affairs happen.

Throughout written history it is a subject.  It is of great concern to poets and lyricists.  Adultery plays out in plays (forgive the pun but I had to write it), from Ancient Greece through to Shakespeare through to daytime/prime television today.

The topic of an affair is universal, and socioligists, biologists, anthropologisists probably agree that there is enough evidence to support that both parties in a committed, monogamous relationship "stray", at least once while in the committed relationship.  This is one of the reasons that marriage counselling exists.

If I were to believe the news reports, Obama respected and worked well with Petraeus; it does appear historically to be true.  It also appears that the General did a really good job in his role as Director of CIA (although who really knows what the hell the CIA does)

I suspect that there are other issues at play, and if we are alive fifty years from now, we would recieve more info  ;)

It gets worse - and sometimes comic.

Today's The Guardian tells a story that it was all a plot by an FBI agent to get Obama. (He was a very right wing agent.) He was also having an affair with Jill Kelley who had been having an affair with petraeus and is now having one with General Allen. (She's also married. Busy girl.)

This version is that obama didn't know what was going on until the day he accepted the resignation. And the FBI agent was the one who forced the story into the open.

Politically, the only thing we know for certain is that the raid on the embassy was not part of a popular protest, but was organized by jihadists to free prisoners. We also know, I think, that either petraeus whithheld the true story from the president , or Obama lied about it.

There's still the puzzling bits about why reinforcements wre not sent to the embassy, about the shipping of arms to Syria, the CIA maintenance of an illegal prison carrying on illegal torture.

There are comic aspects, for sure. But there is also and obviously a very important story to uncover.

Hi Kimmio.....!!!!!...You like it.....I'm teasing you...look how excited you are....LOL.

I'm thinking re your other comment about non- important news on TV ... how very difficult it is to keep the  TV news rolling 24/7 ; ditto for newspapers. I get the Toronto Star since some years . After a time there's a lot of repetition, the  same articles printed over and over again,  almost as repetitive as CNN.

My sister and I often talk about life in the  small villages and towns in N.S. where we grew up, days long gone by. We didn't have TV until the mid 50's . Prior to that people got together at the local grocery store to talk about the neighbors. Of course we were concerned about each other re community  because people lived miles apart and not everyone had a phone. My point though is that in the big cities and highrises a lot of the time we don't know our neighbors very well so we've taken to talking/gossiping  about the celebrities, politicians etc. The bad gossip makes us feel good.....we're not as bad as they are ...pun.

Whatever, I'm reminded of this program I just watched on gossip. Its very informative. Its off topic but I don't want to start a new thread. People can skip over it unless they are truly interested.

Gossip- documentary http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/ID/2301962802/

People care and it doesn't look good, let alone repercussions, risks and the like.

BTW ask active US service people about their personal lives. They are not allowed them. They are military first and humans second.

The military has a written code of conduct prohibiting extramarital affairs. Thus, they are disciplinary. They are under rules developed around public perception and negative impact on the unit, the military. So, the rule is ignore them, condemn them in others, deny your own... when busted do not say a word. Fraternization is a violation fo the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It ends careers.

It is why the Commander in Cheif is held to a ridiculous standard.

That we are or act surprised shows we do not know US laws.

Ask all those with an Article 15 or court martial, it is the way if you are reported, busted or they want to pay attention to it. That they cannot ignore it is reason enough to Article 15 it.

We have to remember it was not long ago he was in uniform. It invites the question....

The CIA sees affairs as risky for intelliegence agents. It disciplines misuse of personal email accounts—not only official accounts—because there have been multiple instances of foreign hackers targeting personal emails.

So, how can he discipline others when he is doing it?

BTW I do not support ridiculous expectations placed on the military and others.

As far as in the CIA, I read before any of this hit the fan that Petraeus was a military leader (not said as a good thing). He gave orders and was not well liked (that can and does differ from being respected). I also heard Hillary was not his biggest fan.

I am neither surprised or ill-informed by US law and governance.

As I have stated above, there is a way of being human that for many (not all), given certain situations and circumstances, means that a person will step out of a marriage vow or a commitment to army, navy, marine, political office, or any other employment.

It is interesting that such moral conduct is written into military conduct, considering the US Fathers emphatic separation of religion and state in the formation of the Declaration of Indepenence.

And further evidence of conduct from the average soldier in foreign territory are the many babies in Korea and VietNam that we all know about through media reports, books and made for tv movies, etc

So, were those soldiers held accountable, stripped of any honours they may have recieved, and forced from their jobs ?

WSJ writer James Taranto summarizes what we know about the indirect light shed on Benghazi and other things here (although he is not an Obama supporter the reporting is professional). The greater scandal may be Benghazi, not Petraeus (an old, old scenario, as others have noted).
.
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732473510457811715244...

And just as important, immediatly AFTER the re-election of Obama.  Some theorize that the White House wanted Petraus to quit before he had to testify before congress, because they know he wouldn't lie to cover White House butts while under oath.  

Graeme you should read/watch Fox news.  They have been reporting about Benghazi-gate for weeks, while CNN, CBS, NBS, ABC and of course CBC didn't say a word about it for fear of hurting their hero Obama (so much of objective news).  

It is only now that the sex angle has come out and the election is over that the rest of the media has got on board. 

Conservative websites such as http://www.drudgereport.com/  have been writing many stories about Benghazi since Sept 12, 2012.    They are still one of the best sources on information on this matter.

I'm simply amazed that you are interested in this story.  

It doesn't make any sense that the CIA would hold prisoners in Benghazi.  If they were going to hold prisoners, it wouldn't be there.    It is a very unstable part of the Libya and the CIA compound there only had a handful of Americans to guard it.  It had already been attacked twice, and they had repeatedly asked for more security but were turned down.  

Mely

Some of the stories on Drudge give me the heebie jeebies. In the comments they are writing that Paula's drivers license was found in the same park where Chandra Levy's  body was found  ( she was connected to a congressman) . That's too creepy.  I hope the players in this tragic drama come through it  safely.

EO - your link.....EEKS.....!!!

I'll add the story of  Gen. Allen and Jill  Kelley which is serious and people are getting hurt, not funny at all. Its all too sad. Graeme can't post links so I post some of these as a News source for him.

Quote:

Obama suspended plans to transfer Allen to Europe, where he was to be the top commander of U.S. and allied forces in the region. Both Allen and the official due to replace him in Afghanistan, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate before they can take their new posts in February. Top lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee said they would go ahead with a confirmation hearing for Dunford on Thursday. Allen's appearance was canceled.

Allen had just submitted recommendations on what role the United States should play in Afghanistan after most American combat troops withdraw by the end of 2014. The investigations raised questions about how top U.S. officials in sensitive national security posts allowed themselves to become so personally involved with the women.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-usa-petraeus-investigation-...

My comment on not knowing US laws (military rules) is when people are surprised about their existence or acting like they do not exist or are unaware they do.

It was also meant as a general statement and not to one person in particular. It was not an insult to anyone or as a general insult. When I do mean to reply directly, I try to make note of that by mentioning the person by name.

I do not support the ridiculousness of some moral conduct military rules.

They do however exist.

They may not be present in other employment, but they do exist in the military and one signs up and agrees to them....

Again, the standard OP on affairs in the military is ignore/deny/condemn/cover up...

The disciplinary action usually comes into play when it is proven  or when there are other issues and this works as an excuse for a disciplinary action or a way to court martial or drive out (the same applies when being lesbain or gay was against the moral code of conduct).

The US military also seems to care less about military, single or married, having affairs with civilians (domestic or foreign). It more cares about those of higher rank and those who have affairs that are with fellow servicemembers (and only when they are caught).

The rules are ridiculous and they are definitely unevenly applied.

1. The existence of a prison and interrogation centre at the  Behghazi embassy has been confirmed. It was a secret prison of the CIA, something obama had banned. He had also banned torture. Did he know what was going on? Or was Petreus disobeying his head of state?

2. Whatever the rules may be, illicit affairs involving senior officers are quite common. In the British armies up to the second world war, a rapid rise in the higher ranks was often assured by homosexual affairs. That included the British supreme field commander in World War One, Earl Haig. His marriage, in the later stages of his rise, to a lady of the Queen's household, came after a two day courtship - and was purely a matter of form and connections.

The affairs of Eisenhower and Patton were well known - and nothing ever happened

3. Never believe Fox News. In the world of journalism, it is generally regarded as a joke, and one with a long record of h eavy bias and lying.

4. Both Petraeus and Hilary clinton have refused to testify to congress about Benghazi.

5. It has been confirmed that at least the Attorney General knew all about Bhanghazi and the affairs almost as soon as they happened. The claim is that he did not tell Obama until election day.

If so, that is one hell of a dangerous sign of division, dishonesty at the highest levels. It raises the possibility that Petraeus was conducting his own foreign policy.

Either Obama is lying about everything or, if he's telling the truth, he should thank God at bedtime for letting him live one more day.

Either way, there are strong signs that this is a very serious situation, indeed - and dangerous for all of us.

And most of the news media are acting as if they were gossip tabloids.

graeme

See # 1 Above :

Where are you getting your information from?  You say Fox News is a joke but that's the only place I can find that agrees with what you are saying about what happened at Benghazi. They don't appear to give sources for their information. I can't find any if so? What are your sources?

Its possible that Paula got her information in the video below from Fox News. Paula's left town for now. If its true what she's saying in the video perhaps she should stay away or risk being boiled in oil or worse?

http://rt.com/usa/news/petraeus-benghazi-attack-cia-535/

Stardust,
I don't use Fox News. My link was to WSJ, which is somewhat conservative but has as good a reputation for reporting as anywhere. Taranto said there MIGHT have been a CIA prison at Benghazi and elsewhere, but that he does not know it for sure. He lists the incriminating evidence.
.
His daily report consists of reporting on several top items of the day, combined with a humorous section based on headlines. That's just for jokes.
.
So it's 7:30 am PST and I haven't checked the news yet. Just wanted to let you know about the humour section.
.
The other aspects, the affairs, are starting to resemble a bad soap opera. Not to mention bad judgment on the part of men who should have know better (if one must have an affair, use discretion).
.
So I am agreeing with Graeme on most points (the one disagreement: although it does appear that the CIA was running these prisons, with or without Obama's knowledge, it is not conclusively proven).
.
There is definitely something odd about Benghazi. The repeated insistence that the attack was due to the movie is obviously not true, yet the administration spent two weeks saying it was.

Fox news goes along with the Benghazi story because they can use it to embarass obama. As a news service, it freely lies, and hires people who are known for the their biases than for their knowledge. Perhaps the most famours one was a columnist of the Bush years who had a card to attend Washington press conferences though he wasn't a journalist at the time. He became famous for questions that got Bush out of tight spots.

Then he went to Fox as a commentator on matters he clearly knew nothing about.

Then he was discovered as a site on the net in which he was "soldier Joe", advertising himself as a hooker for men. That's when Fox let him go.

The owner of Fox has been disgraced in Britain where he was found involved in the use of phones to tap the calls of prominent people (including Prince Charles), of illegally influencing the government, and possible blackmail. He's an interesting guy.

He built his fortune of on sex and scandal newspapers,then used his fortune to peddle his far right political ideas.

The first time I saw Fox News, I thought it was a comedy take0ff.

The prison at Benghazi has been confirmed. The torture has not, though there has been reference to "interrogation". Apparently, it was an interrogation centre for prisoners from all over Africa - mostly in countries where the US has no authority to arrest anybody.

Nobody in press or politics in the US is very anxious to dig deep on this story. That's why we're getting so much on the sex aspect. The Republicans are anxious to embarass Obama. that's it. But they have to be careful because Petraeus has is a Republican, and one with close connections to the party leadership. The Democrats are willing to throw the general to the wolves - but are afraid of some odd behaviour by Democrats in the case.

At least two things seem possible

1. Petraeus is a loose cannon who is conducting his own war agenda, perhaps in defiance of the president.

2.Even more serious - the CIA has long ago ceaased to be an intelligence agency. It has become the private army of the CIA director, used by him to conduct military rather than intelligence campaigns. Remember, it was the CIA that directed the genocide of a quarter million Guatemalan civilians. That's not intelligence gathering.

The CIA has become a private army that not only conducts its own wars, but my be doing so without knowledge of the president - of even in direct defiance of him.

This is very, very dangerous. It has become the roman imperial guard that, late in the empire, auctioned off the emperorship, then, after a short time, killed the lucky winner.

EO

Thanks. I have CNN roaring but I mostly tune half of it out . My bad....I like the scandals..... but I hope this one will be over before too much fallout damage is done. Petraeus will testify. Will he tell the truth?  Paula....???...I worry about her but at least they can't send her to Gitmo. Poor little Jill has no money but after all its not so funny. Poor Petraeus gets paid $220,000. something a year whether he works or not. He'll go on to some important position.

The ABC's of today:

A source familiar with the case also told ABC News that Broadwell admitted to the FBI she took documents from secure government buildings. The government demanded that they all be given back, and when federal agents descended on her North Carolina home on Monday night it was a pre-arranged meeting.

Prosecutors are now determining whether to charge Broadwell with a crime, and this morning the FBI and military are pouring over the material. The 40-year-old author, who wrote the biography on Gen. Petraeus "All In," is cooperating and the case, which is complicated by the fact that as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Military Reserve she had security clearance to review the documents.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/petraeus-scandal-paula-broadwell-classified-doc...

Paula has an impressive list of credentials:

http://www.penguinspeakersbureau.com/speakers/page/paula_broadwell

it's a total soap opera

someone's gone and tried to make a  video 'summing up' the narrative so far

(located at the bottom of the story in the link)

i really like this guy's riff

I suspect there is something more there than an affair. Why? Because there usually is, the military adds it on to a list of charges or it is a take-down charge. Reservist Charles Graner, Abu Graib,  had an adultery charge added and then dropped. Army Capt. James Yee, a chaplain, was accused of smuggling documents out of Guantanamo Bay and had an adultery charge added which he was convicted of.
 

Some disciplinary charges are not severe enough to get you prison time or discharged, adultery is.

It can also be a way to take down someone.

It took down Petraeus.

Any speculation on my part about what all is involved is just that, speculation. I uphold that he is innocent until proven guilty.

I simply refuse to negate the reality of those who have been charged (rightly or wrongly), convicted, done time, been dishonourably discharged, lost their pension….

I refuse to negate the reality of partners who when their spouse was convicted, they lost their benefits and share of a pension.

I refuse to negate the experience of those who were charged with adultery even after getting a legal separation. (Rogan)

I refuse to see it as rare.

Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair
1^st Lt. Kelly Flinn
Gen. Joseph Ralston
LCDR Snyeeda Penland
Maj. Gen. David Hale
Sgt. Maj. Gene C. McKinney
Col. James H. Johnson III
Chief Master Sgt. William Gurney (he was convicted of adultery, among other charges, even when some of the sexual relations were threesomes WITH his wife)

I especially refuse to forget Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Tew, who committed suicide in 1997 after pleading guilty to having an affair with an enlisted man. She was one year shy of retirement. Her daughters would get nothing unless she died before being discherged....
She was not alone in 1997 as being a soldier who took their life after these kinds of charges.

http://www.militaryreporter.org/om041397.html

It was a take-down for countless LGBT military members.

Is it uniformly applied? Hell no. In fact, Bush Jr. by executive order said rank should be considered in whether to level charges or prosecute or not.

BTW I do not think anyone's sex life is my business (celebrity, political, neighbour, military...)

I support people's rights to privacy.

I do not believe consentual sex between adults should be a crime.

I do not support adultery laws in the 27 states that have laws making it illegal. It is a felony in Wisconsin and you could get life in Michigan. I do not support drumming people out of the military for an affair.

For me, the affair is between the people and partners they may have and children they have... not the whole world.....

I don't think the affair has anything to do with the real case.

The issue is that the CIA has become virtually an independent army which answers to nobody but the chief of the CIA. It is in the business, among other things, of creating wars, and of fighting secret and illegal ones. It carries out illegal assassinations.

There seems to be a power struggle in an American government which has long since lost any semblance of what the constitution created. There is very big money and very big power involved. We're pretty close to Julius Caesar and the ides of March. And you're not going to see anybody convicted of anything because this isn't about law. It's about power and wealth.

So far as I'm concerned, Petraeus can have affairs with women who, if laid end to end (figuratively speaking), would reach coast to coast.

What this is about is something far, far bigger. And the more time we waste on moralizing about it, the less our chance of ever understanding what this is about.

You're living in the past.  The CIA is a political lap dog of the White House these days.  Petraeus got thrown under the bus because he wouldn't tote the party line.  

Gee, you must know more than all the experts do. So they didn't have a secret prison in Libya? They don't take prisoners and torture them? They aren't directing guerilla forces in Latin America? The don't carry out assassinations?

Neat. What do they do now? just arrange White House teas?

Petraeus certainly got thrown under the bus. But it's not at all clear who threw him. Partly, at least, he got thrown under as part of a Republican attack on Obama for lying about the Benghazi storming of the US embassy. And that's what the Republicans are concentrating on now.

Obama didn't tell the truth about that attack. And who was the one who was supposed to tell him? Hint - his name starts with a P.

Did he tell Obama the truth? And was Obama lying for two weeks after that? Or, even more dangerous, did he lie to Obama?

and thanks to the internet, we'll all (well, those of us with internet access) be able to 'talk' with the people themselves...oh, glorious world...

Mely being able to talk with jihadists...graeme being able to talk with Conrad Black...[name] being able to talk with [name]

this global telepathy thing is neeeeet

Pay close attention to who replaces him.