FBI: PATRAEUS WAS VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

MUTINOUS WHISPERS AMONG THE RANKS – In an unprecedented purge of military command, General David Patraeus is the third high ranking member of America’s military intelligence structure to be removed from office indicating a massive effort by the White House to disrupt a recalcitrant culture in the wake of Obama’s massive failure as a fraudulently elected commander of the military.  Patraeus’ departure, after admitting an extramarital affair, follows the firing of the U.S. Navy’s most senior officer, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, and Africom Commander, General Carter Ham, who is believed to have circumvented White House orders in an attempt to send response forces to help personnel of the besieged U.S. mission in Benghazi.

by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - On September 14, 2012, General David Patraeus, then Director of the CIA, provided testimony to a Congressional House Intelligence committee in which he stated that he believed the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya, three days earlier, which resulted in the murder of four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was the result of a spontaneous mob protesting an anti-Islamic YouTube video.

However, prior to Patreaus’ shocking resignation on November 9th, testimony from the National Counterterrorism Center about the attack suggests that he was vulnerable to blackmail by the Obama administration and, therefore, could have been coerced to go along with the video protest narrative despite evidence of terrorism.  At the time of his original testimony in September, Patraeus was the subject of a secret FBI investigation into allegations that he was involved in an extramarital affair with biographer, Paula Broadwell.

Patraeus and Broadwell met in 2006 but private emails and correspondence show the affair probably began sometime in early 2010, 14 months before Patraeus was appointed as CIA Director which raises critical questions about whether or not the White House or CIA was aware that Patraeus was vulnerable to exploitation because of the affair. 

Did Obama and his administration know about the affair between Patraeus and Broadwell before Patraeus was appointed as CIA Director?  If not, who failed to vet Patraeus’ relationships before giving him access to America’s most critical national security information?  If Obama and the administration knew about the affair, why did the Obama Administration proceed to appoint such a vulnerable individual to the most critical national security post?

Patraeus’ original testimony conflicts with briefings from both the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center two days earlier in which officials said the intelligence about the attack indicated that Al-Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were involved.  The FBI and NCTC also told the House Intel committee that there were several al-Qaida training camps just outside Benghazi. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant group, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al-Qaida in North Africa., according to reports from Fox News.

Despite his recent resignation under duress, Patraeus has announced that he will provide further testimony on the Benghazi scandal when congressional committees convene next week.  It is expected he will provide details about his correspondence with Africom QRF personnel and investigators he met with in person in Benghazi just weeks after the attack. 

According to reports, the Benghazi mission complex was previously attacked in April and June, apparently unbeknownst to Barack Obama.  Administration officials have repeatedly defended Obama saying that he was not aware of previous attacks on the Benghazi complex but members of congress say his lack of knowledge of the previous attacks is implausible because it would indicate incalculable incompetence and lack of leadership.  

Senator Lindsay Graham (R. SC) indicted Obama's claims of disconnection with the situation in Benghazi saying, "Imagine if a reporter had asked Barack Obama to comment a day after the first attack on the Benghazi consulate in April.  Would he have said, 'I'm sorry, I have no knowledge of that'? It's ridiculous.  The president did not know America was under attack?  According to those defending him, that is what he would have had to have said.  He didn't know about the previous attacks.  This president's lack of connection with these events is unprecedented."

Based on this timeline, it becomes inconceivable that the Obama Administration, the State Department, the FBI and the CIA were willing to allow Patraeus to assume the position as the nation’s top national security official knowing he was at risk of being blackmailed.  Or, worse, that no one vetted him well enough to discover his affair with Broadwell, which began a year and half before hiring him.

The investigation of Patraeus began when a friend of Patraeus, Jill Kelley, notified the FBI that she had received threatening emails from an anonymous individual expressing jealousy about Kelley's relationship with Patraeus which, by all accounts, was not intimate or sexual.  The subsequent investigation revealed the emails were sent by Broadwell using anonymous email accounts. 

The FBI knew in May, 2012 of the harassing emails sent by Petraeus' mistress to the Tampa party thrower, Kelley, who was a volunteer event planner at MacDill AFB Central Command, which Petraeus commanded.  This raises serious questions about whether or not the Obama administration was aware of the investigation during the seven months leading up to the election, or did it intentionally hide the details about the affair from the public until after the election in order to protect Obama. 

Upon learning of the details after Patraeus sudden resignation, officials immediately expressed concern about a connection between the Patraeus' affair and the Obama administration's failure in Benghazi.  Given Patraeus' testimony on September 14 in light of what is now known about the attack, it is reasonable to conclude that Patraeus would have known the attack was the result of terrorism, not a video protest.       

During his September 14th testimony, Patraeus said, “The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack.”

 

Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”

 

“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus.

 

“At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”

 

Four days after Patraeus' original testimony in September, Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice was asked by Obama to appear on multiple networks defending the administration's claims that the video was to blame, also.

 

Now, following Patraeus’ resignation, congressional leadership is openly questioning whether Patreaus’ original testimony was the result of his fear of being blackmailed by someone in the Obama Administration seeking to cover up the facts about the Benghazi debacle.

 

Fox News’ Charles Krauthammer questioned circumstances surrounding Patraeus saying, “I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.”

 

He continued, “And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 14. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?”

 

While Petraeus prepares again to give his side, congress is openly questioning when Petraeus first knew about the investigation that uncovered his affair -- and whether it impacted his statements to Congress on Sept. 14 about the Libya terror attack.

Petraeus briefed lawmakers that day that the attack was akin to a flash mob, and some top lawmakers noted to Fox News he seemed "wedded" to the administration's narrative that it was a demonstration spun out of control.

 

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News he now questions whether Petraeus' statements -- which were in conflict with both the FBI briefing and available raw intelligence -- were in any way impacted by the knowledge the FBI was investigating his affair with Broadwell.

 

King questioned whether the investigation "consciously or subconsciously" affected his statements to Congress.