Jill Kelley Claims “Honorary” Diplomatic Status In Latest Twist In Petraeus Scandal

Last night, while discussing the Petraeus scandal on CNN, the network played a 911 call from one of the four major figures in the scandal: Jill Kelley. The call is perfectly bizarre in which Kelley, a Florida socialite, claims “honorary diplomatic” status to get the police to stop people from walking across her lawn. The dispatcher listens patiently and appears to resist the temptation to tell her that he will be sending over some honorary police to protect their honorary diplomatic residence.

Kelley is the woman who went to a friend in the FBI to complain about threatening emails from an anonymous source — emails that led the FBI to Paula Broadwell and ultimately Gen. David Petraeus. She and the agent are a rather odd couple. He sent her shirtless pictures of himself and was eventually removed from involvement in the case. She is described as a “nice, bored, rich socialite” who volunteered with the military as a self-described “social liaison” and cultivated relationships with generals. This included a questionable relationship with Gen. John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, involving a remarkable number of emails described by some sources as a bit raunchy and “like phone sex.”

Just when you thought the scandal could not get more weird, it did. Last night, we heard this 911 call for “diplomatic protection:”

“Thank you and you know, um, I don’t know, but by any chance because I’m an honorary council general, so I have inviolability so I should… they should not be able to (cross) this property, I don’t know if you want to get diplomatic protection involved as well.

Kelley has been described as invoking her diplomatic status previously. She was given the unpaid title of “honorary ambassador” to CENTCOM, the Department of Defense Central Command. This gives her about the same diplomatic status as the hostess at an International House of Pancakes.

What is strange is that she is protected by the non-honorary title of a citizen of Tampa from trespass. She is allowed to demand the removal of people from her property so long as it is not a public space or a private space with a form of constructive easement.

She might want to stick with the Tampa title because “Honorary ambassador” does not fit neatly into the the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). However, if she wishes to claim to be an honorary diplomat, it would allow Tampa to declare her persona non grata but it is not clear what country she would be expelled to since she is claiming diplomatic immunity in her own country. It might be just easier to get a “No Trespass” sign at Home Depot.

284 thoughts on “Jill Kelley Claims “Honorary” Diplomatic Status In Latest Twist In Petraeus Scandal

  1. Then by all means the tooth fairy should be called in for ultimate protection….they are the unrecognized super force…..

  2. Jill Kelley is about as much a Diplomat as I am which is to say “NOT” …

    A. Have the State of FLA. revoke those BOGUS VANITY PLATES IMMEDIATELY.

    B. ARREST this FRAUD for exactly that — BEING A FRAUD …

    C. Open up the 20,000 to 30,000 e-mails she got from GEN. Allen to see what she had to say on all this

    D. Calling 911 and professing to have some form of Diplomatic Immunity and then demanding Diplomatic Security keep the “riff-raff” off of her lawn must be some form of crime — if not make it so.

    Next she’ll be headed to NYC to use those Diplomatic Plates so she can park in front of Tiffany’s on 5th Ave. to go in and shop and not worry about a parking ticket ….

    One word for this woman …. — FRAUDSTER ….. !!!!!

  3. Dear Anonymously,

    What’s the Tooth Fairy’s going rate these days ….??

    Ms. Kelley is a nice, bored, rich socialite prone to partying with the likes of shirtless FBI Agents and wayward Generalissimos — I am sure she can afford the Tooth Fairy ….!!!

  4. I am SO glad I’m not a 9-1-1 phone operator! Aside from this military camp-follower twit wasting their time, I am amazed at how many patients on the psych ward where I work wind up there because they’ve called the emergency line to report that their neighbours have installed listening devices in their houses, or they’re being stalked by Hell’s Angels or similar deranged tales. Sometimes they even make their oddball calls from the telephone inside the ward. I used to think that the life of a 9-1-1 operator (or “Triple Zero” in Australia) would be full of life-and-death drama. Now I wonder whether irrational calls make up more, or less, than 75% of what they deal with.

  5. P.S. Would Piers Morgan give similar air time to the phone call of a panicked person in Pakistan or Yemen or somewhere who was pleading for authorities to stop a flying American killer robot from raining hellfire on their wedding party? I think not. (Unless it was a phone call that one of his reporters for a British tabloid illegally hacked into, eh?) Because the reign of terrorism from the air (airrorism?) that Centurion Petraeus oversaw both as a top military and spook service man was his real crime, not the extramarital boinking.

  6. This seems to be a bizarre grown up version of “tots with Tiaras” of course the “o” in tots should be changed to am “I”
    Somebody misinterpreted their Barbie dream house as real. Including the Generals and FBI agent. I envision Ms. Kelley moving the action figures around the dream house and devising roles for them.
    Yes … I can hear her having the general whisper into scantily clad Barbies ear, ….”you know I can give you honorary diplomatic immunity”

    There is enough stuff here for a 10 year soap opera. :o)

  7. GEE! Yet another wealthy, well-connected, putz with an inflated sense of entitlement. Who could have guessed? If she was not providing occasional riding lessons for Generals you can bet the suggestion that she was willing was implicit but regardless she stroked their inflated egos in ways that got her the attention and perks she adores.

  8. And then there’s this, if there’s any truth to the report. Foreign Policy and TPM were running this story last night. South Korea???


    “Kelley’s social efforts on behalf of the military earned her the unpaid title of “honorary ambassador” to Coalition Forces in Afghanistan, and she was also named honorary counsel for South Korea.”

  9. TPM Editor’s Blog

    Jill Kelley, An Embarrassment to Honorary Consuls Everywhere



    “It turns out that Kelley is actually an “Honorary Consul” of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). At first, I thought this was just another one of Kelley’s ridiculous faux titles, something you get for throwing a party or perhaps for anything as long as the ambassador drunk.

    But I was too quick to dismiss this. ‘Honorary consuls” are a real thing. Or at least they can be, whatever Kelley was doing with the title. I talked this evening to a diplomatic from an Asia nation (not Korea) who explained that they’re often used when a country doesn’t have consular representation in a particular city or region. So for instance if you’re from Country X and you’re visiting Florida and you get into a jam or lose your passport you can contact the ‘Honorary Consul” to help you get a new passport or help you out in much the same way your embassy or an official consul might.

    Again, who knows if Kelley was actually doing something like this. (Kelley and her twin sister who is also tied up in the scandal are each in debt for roughly $4 million a piece.) But it’s a real title and even a job of sorts. My source says that the embassy of the foreign country actually has to register these people with the State Department.”

  10. What follows is the article that started the “South Korea” story, I believe. I’m certainly having a hard time believing it


    ” Jill Kelley, the Tampa socialite connected to ISAF Commander John Allen and former CIA Director David Petraeus, is an “honorary consul” of South Korea, a diplomatic official with direct knowledge of the arrangement told The Cable.

    “She is an ‘honorary consul’ of the Republic of Korea,” the official said. “She assumed this position last August thanks to her good connections and network.”

    The position of honorary consul is symbolic and has no official responsibilities, the official said.

    “She does not work as a real consul. They play a role to improve the relationship between the ROK and the U.S.,” the official said. “Jill Kelley helped to get support for [the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement] and she arranged meetings between the ROK Ambassador to Washington and local businessmen when the ROK Ambassador visited the Tampa area.”

    There’s no implication that the South Korean government has anything to do with the growing scandal that involves Kelly, Allen, Petraeus, and Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’s biographer and alleged mistress. But her work on behalf of the South Koreans may explain some of the 20,000 to 30,000 pages of e-mails between her and Allen that the Defense Department’s Inspector General’s office is investigating now. “

  11. Jill Kelley, Woman Who Sparked Petraeus Scandal, Ran Questionable Charity
    Posted: 11/13/2012

    WASHINGTON — Tampa, Fla., socialite and military hostess Jill Kelley, one of the women at the center of the ever-expanding scandal that brought down former CIA Director David Petraeus, founded a questionable charity for cancer patients with her surgeon husband, Scott Kelley.

    Based out of the couple’s mansion, the Doctor Kelley Cancer Foundation claimed on its tax forms that it “shall be operated exclusively to conduct cancer research and to grant wishes to terminally ill adult cancer patients.”

    From the records, it appears that the charity fell far short of its mission. While the origins of the seed money used to start the charity in 2007 are unclear, financial records reviewed by The Huffington Post reveal that the group spent all of its money not on research, but on parties, entertainment, travel and attorney fees.

    By the end of 2007, the charity had gone bankrupt, having conveniently spent exactly the same amount of money, $157,284, as it started with — not a dollar more, according to its 990 financial form. Of that, $43,317 was billed as “Meals and Entertainment,” $38,610 was assigned to “Travel,” another $25,013 was spent on legal fees, and $8,822 went to “Automotive Expenses.”

    The Kelleys also listed smaller expenses that appear excessive for a charity operating from a private home, including $12,807 for office expenses and supplies, and $7,854 on utilities and telephones.

    Jill Kelley’s sister, Natalie Khawam, was listed as the only other officer of the charity. This past April, Khawam filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing more than $3.6 million in liabilities, including $53,000 owed to the Internal Revenue Service and $800,000 owed to her sister and brother-in-law.

    Efforts to reach the Kelleys and Khawam were unsuccessful.

  12. “I envision Ms. Kelley moving the action figures around the dream house and devising roles for them.
    Yes … I can hear her having the general whisper into scantily clad Barbies ear, ….”you know I can give you honorary diplomatic immunity”” -David Blauw

    lol. I completely missed your first comment.

  13. “The more you read the more they sound like grifters.” Swarthmore mom

    Yep. (Love the painting. lol )

    Worth skimming:


    “The curious case of the Kelley family is explored by the Tampa Bay Times, where Jill Kelley’s social activities meant “the Kelley mansion became the place to be seen” for military personnel stationed nearby in Tampa.

    But the Tampa Bay Times article also shows an unhappier side to life:

    Just three months after they posed with David and Holly Petraeus, strands of Gasparilla beads hanging from their necks, the Kelleys were hit with a foreclosure lawsuit.

    The suit, brought by Central Bank against the Kelleys and Kelly Land Holdings, centered on a three-story office building at 300 E Madison St in downtown Tampa. Court records show they owed the bank nearly $2.2m, including attorney fees.

    In 2011, a judge ordered the property to be put up for sale.

    And there’s more:

    Since the Kelleys have been in Tampa, records show, one or both have been subjects of lawsuits nine times — including an $11,000 judgment against them that originated in Pennsylvania.

    Ongoing cases, the court records show, include an indebtedness case from Chase Bank; a foreclosure case from Regions Bank; and a credit card case from FIA Card Services.

    Not long after the couple arrived in Tampa, Jill Kelley and her identical twin sister, Natalie Khawam, appeared for a taping of the Food Network’s reality show, Food Fight.

    The segment featured sibling rivalry, with the twins cooking off against two brothers.

    12.33pm ET

    Those US generals and CIA directors appear to have more time on their hands than you’d imagine. According to the New York Post, both David Petraeus and John Allen intervened in a child custody law suit involving Natalie Khawam, the twin sister of Jill Kelley.

    The Post has copies of both letters the two men wrote to the court as character testimonials for Kelley’s sister – which reveal that Petraeus hosted both sisters and their families for Christmas dinner in 2011.

    Soap opera and telenovela writers everywhere are throwing their hands up in dismay, complaining that there’s no way they can top this stuff.”

    (And there’s more… See link above.)

  14. Elaine is correct, this appears to be just the surface of this scandal. Broadwell’s father claims this stuff isn’t the story, there’s a much bigger one. He may be blowing smoke, but as I’ve said when this first broke, the timing is a big red flag. I don’t think this is going away and unlike many of the “scandals” in DC, this appears to be a real one. The press conference today should be interesting.

  15. ” Petraeus’s Icarus flight began when he set himself above President Obama.

    Accustomed to being a demigod, expert at polishing his own celebrity and swaying public opinion, Petraeus did not accept the new president’s desire to head for the nearest exit ramp on Afghanistan in 2009. The general began lobbying for a surge in private sessions with reporters and undercutting the president, who was trying to make a searingly hard call.

    Petraeus rolled the younger commander in chief into going ahead with a bound-to-fail surge in Afghanistan, just as, half-a-century earlier, the C.I.A. had rolled Jack Kennedy into going ahead with the bound-to-fail Bay of Pigs scheme. Both missions defied logic, but the untested presidents put aside their own doubts and instincts, caving to experience.

    Once in Afghanistan, Petraeus welcomed prominent conservative hawks from Washington think tanks. As Greg Jaffe wrote in The Washington Post, they were “given permanent office space at his headquarters and access to military aircraft to tour the battlefield. They provided advice to field commanders that sometimes conflicted with orders the commanders were getting from their immediate bosses.”

    So many more American kids and Afghanistan civilians were killed and maimed in a war that went on too long. That’s the real scandal. ” Maureen Dowd NYT

  16. SWM, “Never let them see you sweat.” It’s going to get a lot hotter so pace yourself, this is a marathon, not a sprint.

  17. Jill Kelley and her twin sister obviously don’t worry about the 3rd amendment. Soldiers are more than welcome in their homes.

  18. A lot of layers…

    “Petraeus famously warned his staff that the White House was “(f)ucking” with the wrong guy.” -Michael Hastings

    “General David Petraeus’s fatal flaw: not the affair, but his Afghanistan”surge

    “The CIA director’s resignation over a sex scandal has obscured how badly his counterinsurgency strategy failed in Afghanistan”

    by Michael Cohen
    Tuesday 13 November 2012


    “The greatest indictment of Petraeus’s record is that, 18 months after announcing the surge, President Obama pulled the plug on a military campaign that had clearly failed to realize the ambitious goals of Petraeus and his merry team of COIN boosters. Today, the Afghanistan war is stalemated with little hope of resolution – either militarily or politically – any time soon. While that burden of failure falls hardest on President Obama, General Petraeus is scarcely blameless. Yet, to date, he has almost completely avoided examination for his conduct of the war in Afghanistan.

    In an age in which military officers are practically above public reproach – glorified and exalted by politicians and the media – the repeated failures of our military leaders consistently escape analysis and inquiry. This can have serious national security implications. As Joshua Rovner, associate professor of strategy and policy, US Naval War College, said to me in an email conversation, this lack of scrutiny has had grave consequences:

    “[W]e have misunderstood our recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan; we have created new myths about strategy that will persist for many years despite their manifest flaws; and we may make bad decisions about intervening in other civil wars based on these myths.”

    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were more than just bad strategy; they reflected poor military tactics and generalship. Self-interested and incomplete interpretations of what happened in Iraq led to predictably disastrous results in Afghanistan.

    Perhaps we should spend a bit more time looking at that issue, rather who was sleeping with whom.”

  19. “Paula Broadwell and I clashed a few years ago when, in the course of shadowing Petraeus for her biography (which is also the topic of her dissertation, and on whose dissertation committee Petraeus sits), she wrote glowingly of a decision, to demolish several Afghan villages in Kandahar province, approved by Petraeus himself. It was a dehumanizing, disgusting effort, one she bragged came straight from the General himself.”http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/opinion/petraeus-the-paper-tiger/15445/

  20. I am president of my Co-op Board and I know there are boundaries between myself and the shareholders . Apparently, there are no boundaries for these generals with admiring females.

  21. David Petraeus will testify on Benghazi

    Gen. David Petraeus will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein told POLITICO Wednesday morning. But the exact schedule has not been set for his testimony.

    “Mr. Petraeus has indicated his willingness [to testify]. He is eager to come before the committee so we will work out the details,” Feinstein said.

  22. Elaine, I’m sure Feinstein is correct, but if ANYONE thought he wouldn’t testify they’re not very bright. It’s good he won’t need to be subpoened.

  23. From the link posted by Swarthmore mom:

    Petraeus the paper tiger
    November 12, 2012

    by Joshua Foust

    “And at the CIA, he has pushed the final transformation of an agency known more for its human element into a paramilitary engine of assassination – leaving a huge gaping hole where the country’s human intelligence capabilities used to be.

    This is not a man who should be drummed out of office for having an affair. He should have been drummed out of office for not living up to his own legend. David Petraeus is a paper tiger: his personality cult looks impressive until you get close enough, and then the whole façade crumbles away.

    Lost in the Petraeus affair is a very simple question: do we want a man who judged his subordinates’ intellectual capacity by how well they can hold a six-minute mile on his morning run to lead our premier intelligence agency? It was Petraeus’ lack of intellectual integrity and incredible narcissism that should prompt us to reevaluate his legacy, not who he chose to sleep with.”

    (Thanks for the link, Sm.)

  24. Reconsidering The Petraeus Hagiography
    Doug Mataconis
    Tuesday, November 13, 2012

    Bernard Finel touches on that point in his comments about the entire Petraeus-Broadwell relationship, which he points out is about a lot more than just sex:

    It wasn’t a private affair. Broadwell wasn’t some random family friend. She was his de facto official biographer. He’d used his position, first in the military and then at CIA, to enhance her visibility and reputation precisely because she was able and willing to burnish his public image. Petraeus’ conduct with Broadwell was abhorent even before he had sex with her. He used government resources to promote himself personally and to leverage that popularity in order to back elected officials into a corner in order to get what he wanted both in terms of policy and in terms of personal advancement. This is a public affair and it speaks directly to Petraeus’ abuse of power and position throughout the last decade.

    I’ll also note that many of his defenders, particularly those trotting out the “private affair” line of argumentation are similarly compromised. Ricks, Boot, Andrew Exum, Mike O’Hanlon, and many others were all part of the same dirty little quid-pro-quo, where they got career boosts and access in return for building up the Petraeus cult.

    Again, this is not a private affair. Broadwell was part of a general pattern of abuse of power and violation of civil-military norms by David Petraeus. Focusing on the sex is just a nice way to deflect from the deeper corruption here.

  25. Interesting link Elaine. I think it was Swarthmore Mom who called these ladies groupies, and I think that is a very appropriate term. Gen. Petraeus is one sleezy sob.

  26. nick:

    I knew about the police groupies and I imagine their are fighter pilot and SEAL groupies but general officer groupies?

    what do they call them? Silver star tarts?

  27. Petraeus Scandal: Paula Broadwell in Classified Document Probe

    Paula Broadwell, the author who allegedly had an affair with former CIA Director David Petraeus, is suspected of storing significant amounts of military documents, including classified material, at her home, potentially in violation of federal law.

    A source familiar with case told ABC News that Broadwell admitted to the FBI she took the 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 poring 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.

  28. Who came up with this moniker that she is a “socialite”? Is this 1956 and she is a member of a country club and smokes cigarettes to look cool and has tea with Mrs. Minever? Or did I spull it wrong? Social-light? I heard that socialite crap on tv last night. These generals are porking some outright hookers and y’all gotta get your language correct. Or is it Corrrectemon?
    Socialite my arse. How much were these generals paying and from whence did the porkiing funds come from? If from the government tit then it is theft by other means for socialite purposes.
    Hooker, hooker bo booker, banana fanna fo moker. Hooker!

  29. I kept looking for information regarding Petraeus’ vetting for the CIA Directorship wondering how in the world he could sneak this affair pass those in charge of vetting when I came upon this little gem buried in a Bloomberg article and my questions were answered:

    “The sensitivity of an extramarital affair at the CIA stems from the potential for exposure to blackmail, according to one U.S. official, as well as the issue of a leader setting a bad example for subordinates. In Petraeus’s case, however, the affair did not jeopardize his high-level security clearances, because he already had passed the polygraph exam required for a Top Secret clearance as a senior military officer and didn’t need to retake it at the CIA, the official said. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-09/cia-director-petraeus-resigns-citing-extramarital-affair.html)

    They didn’t vet him for the Director’s job. They gave him an oath to take and I think the oath requires that he disclose an affair but come on, flushing an oath down the toilet is certainly not out of character for Petraeus … the adulterous affair proves that. If he’d been properly vetted this huge flaw in his character would have been uncovered or if it hadn’t been it would be because he’d successfully lied about it which, with the unfolding of this recent discovery, would have been a criminal act requiring prosecution.

    Petraeus skates and the CIA has to live with the fact that their failure to properly vet their Director created a vulnerability of potentially huge proportions. Incompetency hasn’t been fixed.

    What about that lone FBI agent who everybody within the upper circles of government has labelled “obsessed” and “shirtless”? Well, he’s the guy who called a couple of politicians and got this whole thing flowing to the public. He might turn out to be the only hero in this whole mess. Of course, we’ll never know that for sure, will we?

  30. OT:


    Hamas says now in ‘open war’ with Israel, promises ‘gates of hell’

    Published: 14 November, 2012, 20:04
    Hamas says now in ‘open war’ with Israel, promises ‘gates of hell’

    “Hamas says that it is now in a state of “open war” indefinitely with Israel after the killing of the Hamas commander Ahmed Jafari by an Israeli airstrike.”

  31. I think the sex is a diversion from the real issues that start with the pillow talk and what’s done with the information.

  32. Now the push is to save Allen. Trash the women involved as much as possible so that Allen can be portrayed as a gallant guy who made a tiny, little error in judgement instead of just another puffed-up General being led around by his … sword.

    Give it up … the troops are snickering … he’s toast.

  33. Blouise, Word is the emails w/ Allen and Kelley were not “flirtatious” but akin to phone sex[see Bubba/Monica]. Can I make a politically incorrerct observation…ok, thanks. Let me preface this by saying I’m fat, 6foot 225. My wife is slightly overweight. I have a friend who has always been into fitness. He is I believe an anorexic male who works out obsessively and eats w/ guilt. His wife bore 3 children and got fat. He tried to badger her into losing weight and like many people, she resented it. He cheated on her w/ gym bimbos who look lile Broadwell and Kelley, leading to their divorce. He lost all my respect and we vacation w/ his wife and adult children annually. It’s tangential to this because my gut says this is WAY more than sex, but time will tell. I believe this gym bimbo dynamic has probably come to the minds of some of the folks here, particualrly the women. And, Kelley’s husband needs to seriously consider salads, for what it’s worth.

  34. nick, Broadwell is much more intelligent and accomplished than your average “gym bimbo”….. your words. She and Petreaus seem to have a lot in common.

  35. Agreed, But are you aware Patreus is a fitness fanatic, working out hard 2-3 hours a day. She is obviously a fitness fanatic just by looking @ her. My slam was not on her but him. I guess I lost you w/ “gym bimbo.” Finally their shared love of the military is trumped by two, taut, sweaty bodies wrthing…never mind.

  36. nick,

    chuckle ;)

    But what has me concerned is Patreus’ ability to skate into the Directorship without the rigorous vetting that such a position demands. It’s sloppy and sloppy work by the CIA in house is just plain unacceptable … and a danger to the entire country as we well know after having gone through 9/11.

    As to the Kelly woman (and husband who appears to be a most willing participant) … where did the seed money for their Cancer Charity come from? That’s just one of many questions that needs to be answered. These people are massively in debt without the apparent financial means to support the lifestyle they are living. Where’s the money coming from to throw the never ending parties and keep the electricity turned on?

    Maybe Allen knows?

    As to Broadwell … remember Capt. Lisa Marie Nowak, the astronaut?

  37. If this guy Petraeus was back in his home coutnry of origin, Holland, and he was national security head, and this stuff with the good looking woman came out they would give him a medal of honor. Inf Rance they would elect him Prime Minister. Now the other guy who is porking the hooker whom they refer to as a “socialite” would be told to keep his dumb rear admiral status in the red light district.

  38. I meant to spell “in France” This whole scandal is a joke. Some lady news caster is on tv saying that this scandal will not distract the military. BS. They want some of these good looking sex partners too.

  39. Swarthmore mom

    nick, Broadwell is much more intelligent and accomplished than your average “gym bimbo”….. your words. She and Petreaus seem to have a lot in common.



    Perhaps she’ll leave her physician husband and kids so that she may share with the General his shamed retirement.

    Odds, anybody?

  40. That Roger Simon piece is a hoot.

    And, if as some of the posters above hope, “there is more to the story,” wouldn’t it be grand if this saucy debutante turned out to be “The spy who loved me.”

  41. Blouise,

    I say this not joking a bit: there are probably three treatments in the works already and at least one with a good twenty page head start. This kind of story is what the “true crime” element in Hollywood live for. It’s got the triple play: Power, sex and money. All it needs is a murder (and one may turn up yet the way this sideshow is unfolding) to score the home run.

  42. ElaineM,

    You raised an issue with me at 3AM, my time, and I replied the next morning, today. You have not answered my reply.
    Raising an issue and then walking away is hardly becoming. Here is a copy.

    1, November 14, 2012 at 9:08 am
    “Elaine M.
    1, November 13, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    I don’t have a clue as to why you keep trying to poke me with a stick.”


    Can you:

    1) explain what poking with a stick is? I am not familiar with that American term?
    2) give a recent example of my doing so?

    Not understanding, I can not offer to stop, nor apologize for what I don’t understand is the fault involved.

    Hope you have time to address the issue which YOU raised with me, and since you complain, I must presume that your words imply misbehavior of some kind on my part. Hardly a pleasant position for me to be left in. I am sure that you understand.

  43. I’m sure that our soldiers in Afgan. would have been home by now, hadn’t them Generals spending their time composing ‘intelligent’ e-mail messages to all kinds of Mata Hari!

    These are touted as the bravest and the smartest, fit to head awesome institutions like the CIA, FBI, and even the NSA.

    Is this a manifestation of intellectual prowess nourished by prolonged service to our Nation???

  44. The Washington Post confirms it: “honorary consul.” Why isn’t anyone asking how she was tapped (no pun intended) for it? Who was behind it? How many other “honorary consuls” are there? Is there a master list somewhere?

    ““The appointment of Kelley as honorary consul followed normal procedures,” said Kim Hee-beom, South Korea’s consul general in Atlanta. He emphasized that there was no irregularity in tapping her for the largely symbolic post.”


    “”But now South Korean diplomatic officials have added a new piece to this puzzle. According to a Korean (non-honorary) diplomatic official in Atlanta who spoke to the Yonhap News Agency, Kelley for some reason had an “honorary consul” title from the South Korean government:

    ATLANTA/WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 (Yonhap) — Jill Kelley, a Tampa socialite who helped expose CIA Director David Petraeus’s career-ending affair, serves as an honorary consul of South Korea, diplomats here confirmed Wednesday.

    “The appointment of Kelley as honorary consul followed normal procedures,” said Kim Hee-beom, South Korea’s consul general in Atlanta. He emphasized that there was no irregularity in tapping her for the largely symbolic post.

    No irregularity at all! An anonymous diplomatic official told Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin that Kelley “helped to get support for [the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement] and she arranged meetings between the ROK Ambassador to Washington and local businessmen when the ROK Ambassador visited the Tampa area.”””

    “…Kelley “helped to get support for [the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement]” …”

    Sweet Jesus.

  45. Let’s look back:
    McCarthur challenged Truman and got fired.
    Allen Dulles challenged JFK and got fired.
    McChrystal challenged, in the press, Obama and got fired.

    Now Petraeus challenges Obama and is fired, for impropriety and possibly breach of security.
    He can not lead from the gutter.

    Now Generals have always challenged their civilina leadership. And they have learned how to play the different elements of our society off against each other for their own gain. Whether it is Congress, think tanks giving orders in Afghanistan, or tarts running aroond doing official liasson in their name.

    And women love power, it is a biological necessity for survival of their young. Including personal aggrandizement for themselves.

    Until we skip the sex, scndal, etc and instead concentrate on the now institutionalized conflict between the MIC and its Generals and the civilian leadership of the country, we will be wasting an important opportunity.

  46. The Petraeus Legacy: A Paramilitary CIA?
    Jeremy Scahill November 14, 2012

    While much of the media focus on l’affaire Petraeus has centered on the CIA director’s sexual relationship with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, the scandal opens a window onto a different and more consequential relationship—that between the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command. In a behind-the-scenes turf war that has raged since 9/11, the two government bodies have fought for control of the expanding global wars waged by the United States—a turf war that JSOC has largely won. Petraeus, an instrumental player in this power struggle, leaves behind an agency that has strayed from intelligence to paramilitary-type activities. Though his legacy will be defined largely by the scandal that ended his career, to many within military and intelligence circles, Petraeus’s career trajectory, from commander of US military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to the helm of the CIA, is a symbol of this evolution.

    “I would not say that CIA has been taken over by the military, but I would say that the CIA has become more militarized,” Philip Giraldi, a retired career CIA case officer, told The Nation. “A considerable part of the CIA budget is now no longer spying; it’s supporting paramilitaries who work closely with JSOC to kill terrorists, and to run the drone program.” The CIA, he added, “is a killing machine now.”

    As head of US Central Command in 2009, Petraeus issued execute orders that significantly broadened the ability of US forces to operate in a variety of countries, including Yemen, where US forces began conducting missile strikes later that year. During Petraeus’s short tenure at the CIA, drone strikes conducted by the agency, sometimes in conjunction with JSOC, escalated dramatically in Yemen; in his first month in office, he oversaw a series of strikes that killed three US citizens, including 16-year-old Abdulrahman Awlaki. In some cases, such as the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, commandos from the elite JSOC operated under the auspices of the CIA, so that the mission could be kept secret if it went wrong.

  47. “Petraeus, an instrumental player in this power struggle, leaves behind an agency that has strayed from intelligence to paramilitary-type activities.”

    I’m just going to go ahead and say “I told you so”. Because I did.

  48. The cited excerpt is correct in that the spirit and intentions of a new D CIA will immediately become an adnotam for all employees, most of whom will have that as a guidepost for all decisions.

    In his short time. Petraus could not ve able to effect changes to the CIA. He may have put his weight behind ones under contention, but hardly more.

    I have previously men—itioned that routinely CIA would place contracts with the military, in this case JSOC which is most capable. This in nothing new and known since over 10 years.

    The intelligence gathering activity at the CIA on its Operative side has not worked since the Cold War began, for reasons that many authors have clarified.
    Primarily, by refusing to do what they, latest after 9/11, received billions dedicated to doing—-ie expanding the number of undercover officers.

    NB An agent is someone recruited or run by a CIA officer. An agent in general is a foreign national in the target country.

    Some authors have recommended a break up of the CIA where the operative side, in information collection, would be transferred to the military intelligence which is alleged to operate well.

    Not mentioned are the vast number of personnel belonging to the analytical side.

    Chasing after these red herrings in re Petraeus does not serve the truth nor help us. What his individual goal cnn be of interest solely as an indicator of what the military wishes and his hopes of becoming President.

  49. “Paula Broadwell’s Wikipedia Page May Have Contained Clue To Petraeus Affair — Way Back In January”


    “A fleeting anonymous entry on Paula Broadwell’s Wikipedia page back in January might have clued the country in to what was going on between her and then-CIA Director David Petraeus, but the post hardly lasted an hour before it was deleted.

    While the Wiki entry on now-infamous biographer Broadwell currently includes a section on the “Petraeus affair,” a much shorter bio (apparently created after her January 25 appearance on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”) did not. Yet, as blogger Milo Wendt reported earlier this week, within an hour of the page’s creation, an anonymous Wiki editor wrote, “Petraeus is reportedly one of her many conquests.”

    The comment was the user’s first and only Wikipedia edit. Less than an hour later, a more regular editor deleted the sentence and offered the following explanation: “Remove libel / vandalism.”

    (Little Green Footballs has posted side-by-side screenshots of the page before and after the comment was removed.)

    Wendt was unable to trace the IP address behind the curious addition, but Gawker connected the comment to Cisco, a major supplier of defense technology. Gawker quotes a tipster who said that all military communications in Afghanistan and other war zones go through Cisco Systems equipment.

    “Since there seems to be trouble locating the IP address,” Gawker’s source writes, “perhaps it’s because the post was made from someone in the military, overseas, behind a firewall?””


  50. Paula Broadwell Computer Had ‘Substantial’ Classified Data: Reports
    Reuters | Posted: 11/14/2012

    WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) – A computer used by Paula Broadwell, the woman whose affair with CIA director General David Petraeus led to his resignation, contained substantial classified information that should have been stored under more secure conditions, law enforcement and national security officials said on Wednesday.

    The contents of the classified material and how Broadwell acquired it remain under investigation, said the officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to comment publicly.

    But the quantity of classified material found on the computer was significant enough to warrant a continuing investigation, the officials told Reuters.

  51. ap,

    Excellent on the wiki edit. This shows how it works in the MIC area. And how obvious it is to his associates and subordinates and reporters–who all keep their mouths closed.

    For example the man who had an apartment in the camp and listened to the romping for six monthe, readily admitted he knew audibly of Petraeus relationship with Pauls.

    When you know the layers of physical security that she had to pass to get to his suite for each visit, then you know how rotten the system is.

  52. Security is controlled by two factors:

    —need to know

    That she had the clearances can we be sure that someone arranged.

    But each document accessed requires need to know clearance, or narrow or wide class.

    Why and by whom gave her a need to know OK should be investigated. And the security aspect should have full-time effort.

  53. the littlegreenfootballs link was very interesting … yet another clue the CIA/FBI/DIA missed or ignored or were steered away from by somebody(s) who may have had reason to want it ignored.

  54. “Why isn’t anyone asking how she was tapped (no pun intended) for it? ” (ap)

    Follow the money because she and her husband certainly needed some to keep up all that lavish entertaining that gave them such ready access.

  55. “Follow the money because she and her husband certainly needed some to keep up all that lavish entertaining that gave them such ready access.” -Blouise

    Right on the money. (I hope that someone’s digging.)

  56. re Petraeus Hawkish stance on Iran……

    Let’s remember, in all that has been rushing by, there is a journalist/analyst piece giving us how it went when Obama was considering for over 6 months what to do in Afghanistan. Remember all the flack he took from the Republicans and many others for his delay?

    Well, in reality, he gave the job to the Pentagon, how that was done is of course of importance as I will explain another time. He kept going after them but no alternatives, according to the ones he was interested in, were forthcoming.

    At the end they said: Mr President, we have 3 alternatives for you:
    1) surge
    2) surge
    3) surge
    So what could he do, fire the Generals or give in.

    Was Petraeus behind that? Well here’s a question for you, who was the head of the Iraq and on the way to be the head of Afghanistan? Can it have been Petraeus?


    Let’s hope he has shown that he is wise to them now, and is ready to offer them, one by one, or perhaps the whole upper layer of brass. Then we may have a palace coup or a Pentagon one.

    If you are going to make a peace omelette you need to break some MIC eggs.

    The President’s problem is the same, no matter who sits in the Oval. It is not he that butters the bread of the CIA, Dept of State, or the military. It is the MCI via Congress. And behind the MCI is the 148 entities of the Private Empire. It hangs together don’t you think?

  57. ap,

    You’re catching my pun-disease.

    It usually only surfaces when I’m talking to lotta, but I welcome another sufferer.

    Now that the FBI has a real case on their hands, maybe they’ll stop inventing reasons to go after innocent citizens and dig in the dirt surrounding Petraeus and Allen.

  58. Blouise,

    It was right there…. I had to do it. ;-)

    Regarding, “Now that the FBI has a real case on their hands, maybe they’ll stop inventing reasons to go after innocent citizens and dig in the dirt surrounding Petraeus and Allen.”

    We can hope… Maybe all of the digging around P & A will lead us to a better place domestically, if you know what I mean. It’s not good…

  59. These twins are 8 million dollars in debt? How the hell did they get banks to loan them that kind of money? Maybe a book deal will bail them out, but if not, bankruptcy follows.

  60. Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com has some interesting perspectives on this affair. He links Broadwell to the neocon crucible the Hudson Institute through, “her previous post [as] deputy director of the Jebsen Center for Counter-Terrorism Studies at Tufts University’s Fletcher School.”

    Two articles worth reading there:



  61. The FBI agent is ‘outed’. egads: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/us/frederick-humphries-fbi-agent-in-petraeus-case.xml

    The F.B.I. agent who helped start the investigation that led to the resignation of David H. Petraeus as C.I.A. director is a “hard-charging” veteran counterterrorism investigator who used his command of French in investigating the foiled “millennium” terrorist plot in 1999, colleagues said on Wednesday.

    The agent, Frederick W. Humphries II, 47, took the initial complaint from Jill Kelley, the Tampa, Fla., hostess who was socially active in military circles there, about e-mails she found disturbing that accused her of inappropriately flirtatious behavior toward Mr. Petraeus. The subsequent cyberstalking investigation uncovered an extramarital affair between Mr. Petraeus and Paula Broadwell, his biographer, who agents determined had sent the anonymous e-mails. It also ensnared Gen. John R. Allen, who now commands troops in Afghanistan, after the investigation discovered that he had sent “inappropriate communication” to Ms. Kelley.

    Colleagues and news reports described the role of Mr. Humphries, in just his third year at the F.B.I., in building the case against Ahmed Ressam, who was detained as he tried to enter the United States from Canada in 1999 with a plan to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport.

  62. gbk,

    Oh boy … that moves the point of view. The ol’ shirtless agent was hoping to take down the President but Cantor recognized that was never going to happen so held out for the Petraeus take down, and all for a war with Iran which would be based on Israeli desires rather than American interests?

    If that is what’s going on then the White House, the CIA, the FBI and all other U S intelligence agencies need to get crackin’ ’cause there’s some real treason being plotted.

    Thanks for the links … very interesting.

  63. Heh,

    365 days times the two years equals the 730 that I divide into the 20,000 to 30,000 emails exchanged between Jill and General Allen between 2010 and 2012. By my arithmetic, that leaves 27.39 @20,000 and 41.09 at 30,000, emails a day between these two sexters. So we take the average and get 34.24 emails a day 7 days a week. Of course when I am preoccupied 34 times a day thinking about that hot strange I am probably not maintaining a proper focus on keeping all the enlisted men and women safe in a hostile theatre like I should be.

    So would sombody answer two questions for me?

    1. Why are Obama and Pannetta still supporting this guy, and
    2. Does anybody realy believe that Jill and Allen went beyond text # 3,000 before the general figured out a way back to Tampa to consumate the affair?

    By the way, how much are we paying these four star generals to not be doing their job, anybody know?

  64. Do you all notice that over time, say since WWII, our military people have accumulated more ribbons and stars and stripes on their chests than they formerly sprouted? If we would just ramp up the hats a bit then they would match the outfits that the Stalinsts wore back in 1945.

  65. SwM,

    Of course she is. She’s also very good at her main job … her husband.

    How do you think that political General, her husband. got as far up the ranks as he did. And look at the mess he got himself into when he wasn’t in partnership with her.

    Ask Bill Clinton.

  66. I pay attention to the salad that’s on the chest of a master sergeant.

    Here’s George Marshall as a 4 star:

    Here’s Petreaus:

  67. Blouise,
    Here is a photo of Audie Murphy with his ribbons and Medal of Honor. Petraeus could not find a tall enough stepladder to climb on to kiss Lt. Murphy’s a$$.

  68. Blouise, and Id,

    You’re both welcome.

    Yeah, the fact that Broadwell has ties to the Hudson Institute says a lot to me. Hudson was the only place that would hire Douglas Feith after his departure from the Office Of Special Plans (OSP). He tried to get a seat at Harvard, UC Berkeley, and if memory serves me right the Hoover Institute.

    If anyone remembers it was Feith that ran the OSP under Wolfowitz at the Pentagon which fed un-vetted intelligence (Chalabi’s fantasies) to Cheney and Scooter Libby, who would feed the lies to Judith Miller of the New York Times who would publish the anonymous source claims of Iraq’s involvement with Al-Qaeda and the existence of massive amounts of WMDs. Then the Shrub administration would use the New York Times reports to justify their reasons for invasion, because the CIA analysts and UN inspectors (even under the control of an American general) were saying the exact opposite.

    Then Larry Franklin, who worked for Feith at the OSP, got arrested by the FBI for passing confidential material to two AIPAC employees (Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman) after an almost three year surveillance/wiretapping effort. Franklin confessed, and Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman of AIPAC never went to trial.

    With Broadwell having a tie to Hudson, I’m pretty sure the rabbit hole goes pretty deep in this current debacle.

  69. gbk,

    Curiouser and curiouser.



    **cough*cough*cough*Dick Cheney*cough*cough*cough**

    This whole thing is the edge of something far more troublesome and far more threatening to democracy than just a General who can’t keep his thing in his pants. And I mean shades of 1933.

  70. If Obama is smart (and the least bit principled), Dick Cheney and his Oil/MIC connections should be the most worried people in the country right now. If I controlled the Executive, the FBI and the DOJ would be down this rabbit hole like angry dachshunds and I’ll tell them to flush out this den to expose what on the surface appears to be the edges of a conspiracy possibly aimed at subverting the American government from the inside for private purposes and financial gain no matter who ends up going to prison, current or previous administration included.

    The house of government needs to be cleaned. Now is the rational time to do it. But given his own unconstitutional power grab for the unitary executive, I strongly except him to do nothing of the sort. Some will pay the price and rest he’ll use what he learns as leverage instead of as a tool to bring justice and restore democracy. He has proven that he’s a politician above being a defender of the Constitution so far. I don’t expect him to change now.

  71. Holly Petraeus is supposedly quite good at her job and very well respected. -Swarthmore mom

    Sm, I’ve heard the same thing. Someone had asked about $$$ and I saw her salary listed with his, so I posted it. It was a statement w/o any judgement attached. ;-)

    I’m edging in here late and might have missed it, but I’ve also heard that Broadwell has ties to PNAC. It may be old news by now.

    “She’s also very good at her main job … her husband.” (Blouise)

    I agree, Blouise, but would throw their children into the mix. It would seem that she’s been the consumate military wife and mother — and it’s not an easy road…

    And what Gene H. said so very well.

    As to “shades of 1933″…? Oh, yeah. (Walk a mile…)

    “The house of government needs to be cleaned.” -Gene H.

    Oh, yes, it does.

  72. “I’ve also heard that Broadwell has ties to PNAC. It may be old news by now.”

    It’s news to me. If true, very interesting news indeed. PNAC is a far more dangerous outfit to American ideals and democracy than any terrorist organization.

  73. Squirrel!! – I thought it was “Kitten!” I get lots of cute kittens posted on my fb page that seem to offset the political ones. Different posters

  74. AP,

    I found this tidbit about Petraeus in an interview of Juan Cole by Amy Goodman over at Democracy Now.

    ” AMY GOODMAN: And you’re saying that the Project for a New American Century persisted under President Obama; he didn’t change it.

    JUAN COLE: Well, I’m saying that, in some ways, the Afghanistan troop escalation or surge was one last iteration of some of that project to try to formulate Afghanistan in a way favorable to the United States before we then left.

    And again, I should be clear, I don’t think that that’s what President Obama wanted. He went to the Pentagon and asked, “Give me three plans,” you know, an ambitious one, a less ambitious one and a minimal one. And they stonewalled him for nine months. And he was in a position where people in Washington were saying, “Well, what are you going to do? You’re president now. You need a plan.” And he went back to the Pentagon and said, “Well, where’s the plan?” And they said, “Well, we’ve got one for you, but the others are going to take a while.” So they kind of boxed him in to this troop surge.

    AMY GOODMAN: And Petraeus’s role in that?

    JUAN COLE: Petraeus was the one who boxed him in. So, Petraeus got what he wanted. But in my view, he got a failed policy.”

    But my cursory search didn’t reveal a Broadwell/PNAC connection. I’ll take a deeper look tomorrow if I get a chance, but please do keep us posted if you find your source (or don’t).

    BTW, keep up the good work. You are a most welcome addition around here.

  75. Guess my instincts are right. There were other shoes to drop. And the real story isn’t about sex, except as a honey trap. I wonder how many years Paula will get for having documents. Others, with appropriate clearance, are now in jail for having documents in their homes. I await the story of the conspiracy.

    Patience is also helpful as you-all found links to the other shoes.

  76. Wouldn’t surprise me as PNAC and the Hudson Institute are almost one and the same. Scooter Libby (Cheney’s Chief of Staff) was a signatory of PNAC’s Statement Of Principles and the infamous Rebuilding America’s Defenses document.

    He’s now Senior VP at the Hudson Institute. Hudson is crawling with neocons.


  77. And to help dampen your jubilation over the Obama win:



    Already? Obama Tells Supporters to Expect ‘Bitter Pills’
    – Common Dreams staff

    In a conference call with key supporters Tuesday night, President Obama urged Democratic activists to stay engaged in the coming budget negotiations concerning the so-called “fiscal cliff” but also telegraphed plainly his intent to give away much in his showdown with Republican lawmakers

    As the Huffington Post, who listened in on the call, reports:

    The president, speaking from a White House phone, cautioned listeners to expect disappointments during his second term. As he has in the past, Obama warned that he was prepared to swallow some bitter pills during the negotiations, including some that would agitate the base.

    “As we move forward there are going to be new wrinkles and new frustrations, we can’t predict them yet,” he said. “We are going to have some triumphs and some successes, but there are going to be some tough days, starting with some of these negotiations around the fiscal cliff that you probably read about.”

    Though his encouragement to his activist base may be encouraging to some, the President’s preemptive admission that he’s willing to give away bargaining chips so early in the game will surely irk those who criticized Obama for his negotiating style throughout his first term.

  78. from waynemadsenreports.com

    “WMR has also received confirmation from sources close to the White House that President Obama, in the aftermath of the Benghazi mission attack, was made aware of a “Seven Days in May”-style plot against him by senior generals and admirals in league with officials of the Romney campaign. The sources stated that President Obama’s lackluster performance during the first debate in Denver on October 3 was due to the fact that he had just been briefed on the conspiracy launched against him by senior members of the military and the CIA. The order has now gone out from the White House for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Secretary Panetta to purge the ranks of disloyal officials.”

  79. So, the honeypot distracts the CIA head and Allen with his twin grifter in the days leading up to the attack? gotcha. good plot.

  80. Then impeachment for the POTUS on grounds of incompetence. Lady Lindsey & McNasty have already started their opening attacks.

  81. The JSOC implemented attack on Benghazi was IMHO an “October Surprise” to assure Romney’s election.
    There were too many layers between Obama and the event to give reason for impeachment. He does not in any decide on security at a consulate.

    There are constantly disloyal Pentagon and CIA employess.

    Obama’s lastest conf. call would indicate that he will be a good moderate republican President.

    As for Hudson, PAXC et al, I have already said that they are one in final goal, the one established by the 148 enterprises. They are a conglomerate with no visible ties except the employee float between them.

  82. “Kelley may have tried to capitalize on military ties”


    TAMPA —

    “Back in August, the South Korean Embassy granted honorary consul status to a woman from South Tampa “with a reputation and a network.”

    “She wanted to make contributions to South Korea,” said Tae-jin Kim, the South Korean Embassy consul. “She had contacts with the embassy.”

    The status doesn’t bring many privileges — a vanity license plate, gatherings with the 20 honorary consuls in the Tampa area. But the woman, Jill Kelley, cited her South Korean connections in trying to turn an encounter at the Republican National Convention into a multibillion-dollar project with a New York energy company, according to the company’s president.

    In representing herself as a business matchmaker, Kelley also offered to open doors through her connection to CIA Director David Petraeus, said Adam Victor, president of the alternative energy company TransGas Development Systems.” … (article continues)

  83. Modesty is very important in South Korea. Being able to control one’s emotions, rather than allowing them to control you guards against embarrassment or loss of composure. I doubt Jill Kelley’s behavior is going to be seen as a good reflection of Korean values. I suspect they’ll remove her title … politely.

  84. Broadwell fell short of aims at Harvard
    Draws scrutiny at second college
    By Callum Borchers, Tracy Jan and Bryan Bender
    Globe Correspondent, Globe Staff / November 14, 2012

    Paula Broadwell, the biographer with whom former CIA ­director David Petraeus had an extramarital affair, abandoned her bid for a doctorate from Harvard in 2007, failing to advance to PhD candidacy after four semesters at the Kennedy School of Government, and now faces the prospect of an ethical review at King’s College London, where she has resumed pursuit of a doctorate.

    The revelations about her mixed academic record add to the portrait of a principal figure in the Petraeus scandal who has refused to respond to multiple Globe requests for comment and hasn’t spoken publicly since disclosure of her relationship with Petraeus and his resignation as CIA chief.

    Broadwell left Harvard with a lesser diploma in 2008, a master of public administration, after one additional semester.

    She enrolled later that year as a PhD student in the war studies department of King’s College London, where her military leadership research focused largely on Petraeus, according to Broadwell’s profile on the school website. But four years on, Broadwell remains far from earning her degree, according to the department chairman, and her relationship with the subject of her research could jeopardize her progress toward a doctorate.

    “We have a very stringent ethical review process,” said Mervyn Frost, head of the war studies department. “We found nothing wrong with her original proposal, but in light of what’s happened now, I suspect we’ll revisit that process.”

    One of Broadwell’s former professors at Harvard described her as a self-promoter who would routinely show up at office hours.

    “It was very much, ‘I’m here and you’re going to know I’m here,’ ” said the professor, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of ongoing investigations. “She was not someone you would think of as a critical thinker. I don’t remember anything about her as a student. I remember her as a personality.”

    The professor said when Petraeus chose Broadwell to write his biography, there was shock among the national security faculty at Harvard because “she just didn’t have the background — the academic background, the national security background, or the writing background.”

    A second Harvard faculty member who knows Broadwell and Petraeus had similar misgivings.

  85. Don’t you just marvel at all the “unnamed” sources the media quotes.

    Re Allen’s email fling with Kelley:

    “If they got out, John Allen would be very embarrassed by them,” said a U.S. official familiar with the e-mails but who added that there was no evidence of physical contact between the two.”

    “But a senior official close to Allen told CNN that the e-mails contained nothing pointing to sex or anything of a romantic nature.”

    “… flirtatious in nature …”


  86. “She was not someone you would think of as a critical thinker. I don’t remember anything about her as a student. I remember her as a personality.”

    The professor said when Petraeus chose Broadwell to write his biography, there was shock among the national security faculty at Harvard because “she just didn’t have the background — the academic background, the national security background, or the writing background.” (from Elaine’s post at 10:16am)

    Patraeus – arrogance + libido = temporary insanity … resulting in loss of reputation

  87. I Hope Vernon Loeb Isn’t Also Ghostwriting Paula Broadwell’s Ph.D. Dissertation
    By David Kroll

    I’ve hesitated writing anything about the Petraeus clusterfluster since I didn’t think I had anything to contribute.

    But as a university professor who has trained Ph.D. students, I’ve been chewing on something ever since Vernon Loeb wrote in The Washington Post about his service to Paula Broadwell as ghostwriter of the Petraeus biography, All In. The book is credited as “Paula Broadwell [large font] with Vernon Loeb [small font].”

    Broadwell, as many people now know, is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Her student page remains active at the College website at the time of this writing.

    What’s concerning to me is the description of her doctoral research:

    “Paula is conducting a study in military innovation. Her work challenges existing theories which emphasize top-down transformations by examining the roles of bottom-up catalytsts [sic] and mid-level military mavericks in galvanizing institutional innovation, particularly in unconventional warfare and counterinsurgency operations. In addition to exploring the history of U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine, her research examines the role of one individual who often receives credit for the U.S. defense innovation in the “new counterinsurgency era,” General David Petraeus. By exploring Petraeus’s “intellectual biography,” her research illustrates the origins of his beliefs in population-centric counterinsurgency warfare and American grand strategy

    Now, while I haven’t read her book with Loeb, the second half of what should be Broadwell’s independent Ph.D. work sounds mighty close to her publisher’s summary of All In.

    What would concern me — and it’s certainly not going to be missed by her examining committee at King’s College — is whether she plans to include in her dissertation any text that has been written by Loeb. My thought is that even before this scandal broke, Broadwell was going to have to defend the use of Loeb as ghostwriter of her book in the context of her Ph.D. work.

  88. The Real Thing

    Looking for a moment of edification as the Petraeus scandal unfolds?

    Think back four decades to a forgotten whistle-blower who acted for all the right reasons—and got results.

    By Todd S. Purdum


    “Anyone depressed by the latest headlines about the shirtless F.B.I. “whistle-blower” whose antsy and ill-advised leak to Congressional Republicans apparently led to the public exposure of General David Petraeus’s affair might turn for solace to the obituary pages—and the sobering, salutary story of a real-life whistle-blower, David Durk, who died this week at 77.

    Durk’s name may no longer be familiar, but without him, a quirky New York City cop named Frank Serpico would never have become a legend, Al Pacino’s early film career would have been less interesting, and the massive, systemic corruption of the 1960s-era N.Y.P.D. would have gone unexposed and unaddressed. For it was Durk, a brainy, idealistic Amherst graduate who became a patrolman in the era of the New Frontier, whose persistence (and press and political contacts) led to the New York Times series that broke the scandal wide open in 1970.

    How far we have fallen, when a sworn officer of the F.B.I., the supposed best of the nation’s law-enforcement elite, would not only send a beefcake photo of himself to a flaky Florida socialite but then pass on her complaint of receiving harassing e-mails to the bureau’s cyber-crimes team.

    I came to know Durk in my own police-reporting days 25 years ago, when I covered some comparatively minor corruption scandals and sought his perspective. He could be dark and difficult, all too aware from personal experience of the imperfectability of man. When I’d call him and ask how he was, his invariable response was, “Breathing in and out.” But it was impossible not to admire him, and his and Serpico’s lonely fight to break the “Blue Wall of Silence” that forced even honest cops to tolerate the corruption, payoffs, protection rackets, and thievery that were all around them.

    Their crusade fueled the Times’s stories, public hearings by a blue-ribbon commission, and widespread, institutionalized reforms that, while not perfect, changed the N.Y.P.D.’s culture forever. (The scandal also exploded whatever presidential ambitions Mayor John V. Lindsay might have dared to entertain.)

    As my old friend Bob McFadden’s obituary of Durk in the Times makes clear, Sidney Lumet’s 1973 film about the scandal criminally minimized Durk’s real-life role (a minor Durk-like character is played smarmily by Tony Roberts) while lionizing Serpico’s, in much the same way that the film of All the President’s Men canonized Ben Bradlee while slighting his fellow Washington Post editor Howard Simons, whose early support for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s investigation of Watergate was crucial to the story.

    I don’t recall ever asking Durk directly about this, but it was clear that he had simply done the right thing for the right reasons, and getting credit was never the point. “Corruption is not about money at all,” he told the Knapp Commission that investigated the scandal, “because there is no amount of money that you can pay a cop to risk his life 365 days a year. Being a cop is a vocation or it is nothing at all, and that’s what I saw destroyed by the corruption of the New York City Police Department, destroyed for me and for thousands of others like me.”

    How far we have fallen, when a sworn officer of the F.B.I., the supposed best of the nation’s law-enforcement elite, would not only send a beefcake photo of himself to a flaky Florida socialite but then pass on her complaint of receiving harassing e-mails to the bureau’s cyber-crimes team and—when it developed that the e-mails had come from the mistress of the C.I.A. director—so meddle in the case that his superiors had to slap him down. Out of pique, Agent Chesty (whom the Times has since identified as the “obsessive” Frederick W. Humphries II) then apparently complained to a Republican Congressman, Dave Reichert of Washington state, who helped pass the word to House Minority Leader Eric Cantor, who alerted top F.B.I. brass.

    It now seems pretty clear that it was this development—the knowledge that one of the Obama administration’s staunchest political adversaries was aware of a tawdry and embarrassing (but apparently non-criminal and non-security-threatening) affair being conducted by the nation’s top spymaster—that led the F.B.I. to inform the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, who told the White House and urged Petraeus to resign. What good has come from any of this, and what good can? That’s very hard to say at the moment.

    If you asked me how I feel living in Washington these days, I’d have to say—like David Durk, may he rest in peace—that I’m just “breathing in and out.” (end of article)

  89. ap,

    There’s a couple things about this article that I find a bit ingenuous.

    I remember Durk and would agree with everything the author, Purdum, has to say about him. I would even agree that there is no real comparison between Durk’s motives and actions and Humphries’.

    But Purdum’s characterization of Humphries seems a bit too convenient. Humphries claims that the shirtless picture was sent years ago as part of a batch of family pictures that the Kelleys and Humphries were exchanging and that he was posing shirtless between two cardboard figures. The picture was snapped as part of the family outing, not for Kelley. No one has come forward to counter that claim so the term “chesty” chosen by Purdum seems calculated to continue a characterization of Humphries that serves an interest other than the truth.

    Humphries also claims that he was not kicked off the investigation because, other than referring the complaint to the FBI, he was never a part of the investigation. No one has come forward to counter that statement either so, once again, Purdum’s characterization of Humphries seems to be serving an interest other than the truth.

    Remember Judith Miller? Purdum’s article reminds me of the kind of crap Miller used to write.

    I don’t think Humphries went to the Republican leadership for the right reasons, nor do I think Humphries has acted with any of the courage or commitment of Durk but … Purdum’s article smacks of CIA payback … a smidgen of truth employed to disguise an intentional discrediting of the Humphries because he forced the issue in a manner that totally blew any chance of a cover-up out of the water.

    And I’m not just talking a cover up of Patraeus’ adultery. There’s a lot more going on here and that lots more was inadvertently exposed, and all the plotters made vulnerable … something I don’t think Humphries knew about or intended.

  90. Blouise,

    “. . . a smidgen of truth employed to disguise an intentional discrediting of the Humphries because he forced the issue in a manner that totally blew any chance of a cover-up out of the water.”

    I agree. I think Humphries was a wild card that was not expected and is now being used as an after-the-fact smokescreen. As ABC News noted:

    “An associate of Humphries told ABC News that it was hard to believe that Humphries had contacted elected officials about the case because ‘everyone knows that’s professional suicide’ and Humphries is ‘top notch.'”


    Additionally, why did Cantor sit on the information for a spell? I can’t imagine him not using this information against Obama before the election; unless, of course, Humphries opened a door meant to remain closed .

    Something held Cantor back, because if the purpose of Broadwell/Kelly, et. al. were to be honeypots used to expose potential incompetence from Obama via the proxy of Petraeus’ infidelity the mission was accomplished when Humphries spoke with Cantor.

    The NY Times reported that:

    “Government officials said that the F.B.I. began an investigation into a “potential criminal matter” several months ago that was not focused on Mr. Petraeus. In the course of their inquiry into whether a computer used by Mr. Petraeus had been compromised, agents discovered evidence of the relationship as well as other security concerns.”


    It’s certainly possible that the investigation referred to above was the emails Kelly received, but if it was the FBI would have known rather quickly that Petraeus was involved. The quote might be Orwellian doublespeak, or it might be a grain of truth.

    The timing of the Benghazi embassy attack is eerily reminiscent of the failure of Jimmy Carter’s “Eagle Claw” operation to militarily extract the US embassy hostages in Iran. (A good link for this will be in a second post.)

    It’s possible that the Benghazi embassy attack was an attempt by rouge elements in our government to discredit the current administration’s foreign policy and influence the election, and that Humphries is a unexpected fly in the ointment.

  91. While the “rouge element” typo was funny, gbk, I’m pretty sure the parties involved are not Communists. ;)

    It’s good to see our analyses (including Blouise and AP) are running down the same paths though. If four sets of eyes are seeing the same or parts of the same pattern, then there is most likely something substantive there.

  92. “Cantor’s staff members have said the Virginia lawmaker talked to Humphries on Oct. 27 and then contacted a prominent lawyer in his state, former U.S. attorney Richard Cullen for advice. Delayed by the government shutdown associated with Hurricane Sandy, his chief of staff contacted Mueller’s chief of staff on Oct. 31.

    At the time, the case was moving forward. Petraeus had been interviewed by FBI agents on Oct. 29. Mueller’s office assured Cantor’s staff that the case was being fully investigated.

    One week later, the Justice Department disclosed the existence of the investigation to James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, who informed the White House. Petraeus resigned three days later.

    Among the questions being asked by congressional leaders is why the White House and Clapper, who was Petraeus’s supervisor in the intelligence community, were not notified earlier. Some have suggested that Cantor’s contact with the FBI led to the disclosure.

    “I don’t know if it would have taken this course without Cantor,” a person close to the inquiry said.” Washington Post

  93. Gene,

    “While the “rouge element” typo was funny, gbk, I’m pretty sure the parties involved are not Communists.”

    Ha, one can never proof enough, can they? Sorry about that.

  94. et al.

    Humphries as a rouge element ( ;) ) is, in my opinion, right on the money.

    I don’t think Humphries motives were idealistic as they were more the motives of an ideologue which is what I found so slimy about Purdum’s piece. He used Dunk, a real hero, as a jumping off point to do somebody’s dirty work in trashing Humphries. This is the kind of thing Dunk would have railed against.

    Anyway … it’s not Purdum I’m interested in but rather who suggested Purdum do it. Was it just that age old and tiresome story of “gotcha” game playing between the FBI and the CIA or are we really looking at another attempt to run the “WMD” scam that Humphries inadvertently blew up and the plotters are so damn exposed they’re panicking and using every trick in the book looking for cover?

  95. I’m thinking a little of both but more of the later, Blouise.

    One of the ways to spot a liar, after all, is the rehearsed liar is always a bit too quick in response. The timing of everything relating to outing Petraeus smells of panic. If they’d waited a couple of months after the election? Maybe not, but the close timing reeks of anxious and the fear they wouldn’t be able to sit on Humphries that long. Some dogs won’t let go of a bone that tastes good even if you hit them with a rolled up newspaper. The players not wanting to be exposed stepped a little too quick in this instance. My nose knows.

  96. From: David Petraeus Scandal: Top Officials Testify On Capitol Hill

    “WASHINGTON — Top national security officials trudged to Capitol Hill on Thursday to grapple with fallout from the David Petraeus sex scandal as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asked service chiefs to review ethics training for military officers. He said he was unaware of any other top brass who could turn out to be ensnared in the debacle.

    One person missing from the tableau: Afghan war chief Gen. John Allen, whose nomination to take over in Europe is on hold because of suggestive emails turned up in the investigation.

    Legislators went forward with a hearing on the nomination of Gen. Joseph Dunford to replace Allen in Afghanistan. But with Allen’s own future uncertain, they put off consideration of his promotion to U.S. European Command chief and NATO supreme allied commander. Allen had initially been scheduled to testify.

    Panetta, speaking at a news conference in Bangkok, gave new words of support to Allen, voicing “tremendous confidence” in the general.

    Citing a string of ethical lapses by senior military officers, however, Panetta asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review ethics training and look for ways to help officers stay out of trouble.

    Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., opened Dunford’s hearing with kind words for Allen, saying, “I continue to believe that General Allen is one of our best military leaders. And I continue to have confidence in his ability to lead the war in Afghanistan.”
    What McCain fails to realize is that it doesn’t matter what he thinks of Allen. This whole episode effectively cripples him with our NATO allies. They won’t trust him and they have good reason not to trust him with their national security data. He may go on to that role, but if he does, it’s purely political from our side and a bad move diplomatically and from a functional standpoint. Personally, I think he’s done.

  97. Paula Broadwell’s drive and resilience hit obstacles
    By Greg Jaffe and Anne Gearan, Nov 15, 2012 08:37 PM EST

    Paula Broadwell was a rising star who seemed destined for a sparkling career in foreign policy. A West Point graduate who excelled in triathlons, she was pursuing a doctorate at Harvard University and had found a mentor in Gen. David H. Petraeus, an iconic U.S. military leader.

    But in 2007, Broadwell was asked to leave the doctoral program at Harvard, where she had first met Petraeus a year earlier, because her course work didn’t meet its demanding standards, according to people familiar with what happened there.

    What Broadwell did next was a signature feature of her resilience and drive — and what detractors say is her tendency to overstate her credentials.

    Broadwell, 40, eventually leveraged her unfinished dissertation into a best-selling biography of Petraeus, a project that gave her almost unlimited access to the general when he commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan and later when he was director of the CIA. That access also led to the extramarital affair that upended Petraeus’s career and shined a bright light on Broadwell’s.

    A few months after leaving Harvard, Broadwell launched a full-bore effort to remake herself as a highly visible player in Washington’s insular foreign policy community. At the time, she and her husband, a radiologist, were raising toddlers and preparing to move to Charlotte, where he was setting up his practice.

    In the summer of 2009, Broadwell told several prominent experts on counterinsurgency warfare that she had been asked by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the newly installed Afghan war commander, to assemble a team of first-tier academics and experts who would conduct an outside evaluation of McChrystal’s highly anticipated review of his war strategy.

    She pressed experts in Washington and Cambridge, Mass., to join her review panel and lobbied senior U.S. military officials in Kabul to back her fledgling “red team” effort, military jargon for an outsider evaluation. The prospective team held a couple of meetings, according to one person who was involved.

    But senior military officials who were on McChrystal’s staff said Broadwell was not asked to spearhead an evaluation. The officials, who like others requested anonymity to speak freely about Broadwell and Petraeus, said her attempt to assemble a “red team” review panel was rejected after McChrystal’s aides decided that her experience, her connections and her academic credentials were too thin.

    “She was trying to pull together something way over her head,” said Mark R. Jacobson, a former deputy NATO senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, who was approached by Broadwell to serve on the team. Jacobson said he admired Broadwell’s pluck. “It was the kind of move you make in Washington when you are trying to make a name,” he said.

    Others who had been approached to serve in the group said they questioned her assurances that she had the backing of top military officials. In a 2010 interview on a Web site focused on leadership, Broadwell was still saying that McChrystal had asked her to assemble the leadership team.

  98. SwM,

    So now Humphries wants us to believe he was just gossiping to Cantor …

    Who cares. He stepped into a huge pile of horse manure that he not only failed to see but whose smell he misidentified.

    That’s the smell we’re following.

  99. And now Broadwell is being thoroughly discredited … I wonder if she has something to say that certain folks don’t want anyone to believe.

  100. “At the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August, New York energy entrepreneur Adam Victor was introduced to Kelley. She was described as “a very close friend of Gen. Petraeus,” who had helped Kelley become South Korea’s honorary consul.

    Petraeus scandal: a who’s who Petraeus scandal: a who’s who
    Members of Congress demand fuller explanation of Petraeus affair Members of Congress demand fuller explanation of Petraeus affair
    David Petraeus scandal hits White House at awkward time David Petraeus scandal hits White House at awkward time
    CIA Director David Petraeus resigns, citing extramarital affair CIA Director David Petraeus resigns, citing extramarital affair
    Petraeus shocked to hear of Broadwell emails, associates say Petraeus shocked to hear of Broadwell emails, associates say.

    Victor, who was looking to establish a major coal project in South Korea, invited Kelley to New York in mid-September. There, she again played up her Petraeus ties. Victor then flew Kelley to Hawaii to meet with a South Korean delegation to help pave the way for negotiations.

    But then, Victor said, Kelley asked for 2% of the gross cost of the project for her compensation. Informed that would mean a fee of about $80 million, Kelley persisted until Victor ended the relationship. An industry standard compensation would be no more than $1 million, Victor said.

    “It was such an astronomical figure that it suggested she had no experience in negotiating these types of deals,” Victor said. “Gen. Petraeus had a lapse in judgment in using his influence to put her in that position.” L A Times

  101. That’s just bad form overall, Smom. Asking a percentage instead of a flat fee for what is essentially a finder’s fee is a deal no one in any industry is likely to take. Percentage deals are for stakeholders/developers, not contact management by middlemen. But her being bad in business is an ancillary and irrelevant issue to her being privy to secret intelligence information and the actions and reactions of pols to this becoming known. Discrediting a source is the one of if not the first step in a cover up. Just because she made a ridiculous demand in a business transaction does not mean she’s invalid as a source of information for other purposes. It just means she’s a bad negotiator.

  102. Gene H. I don’t know that Jill Kelley was privy to secret intelligence information unlike Broadwell who more than likely was.

  103. Elaine M:

    How about some recommendations on some romantic poetry to fit the occasion. I’m thinking The Marriage of Heaven and Hell by Blake.

  104. Kelley twins crashed a Marco Rubio fundraiser
    By Mary Jane Park, Times Staff Writer
    Mary Jane ParkTampa Bay Times
    Posted: Nov 15, 2012 04:15 PM

    TAMPA — Apparently Tampa twins Jill Kelley and Natalie Khawam’s social calendar extended beyond military parties.

    Formerly of Tampa, Republican Angelette Aviles tweeted out a photo Wednesday showing the sisters at a fundraiser with U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio.

    Her caption: “JKelley @ our private office Rubio fundraiser. Dress 2 revealing? We never invited her, didn’t contribute or greet us!” See it here: twitpic.com/bd8u2s

    Alex Conant, a spokesman for Rubio, told the Tampa Bay Times that they met during his 2010 Senate campaign.

    “That may have been where that picture was taken,” Conant said. “Mrs. Kelley has sent his Senate office invitations to social events, but he hasn’t attended any.”

    Kelley did not contribute to Rubio’s campaign.

    Aviles said the photo was taken at a March 2010 fundraiser for Rubio in Tampa. The cost was $1,000 a plate.

    But the twins didn’t pay anything, Aviles said.

  105. Oooo. Nice choice, mespo. Very apt.


    I’m getting very interested in what everybody around this knows, Smom. I suspect no one party has all the pieces although like any jigsaw puzzles, some pieces will be more revealing than others.

  106. When looking for a cause, first the tawdry, then the most outrageous. OK, we got the tawdry. Where is the “shock effect” or the “1933” project. Or a “staged Watergate” with CIA actors and WH insiders.

    Benghazi was an exclusively CIA/JSOC affair ordered to help Romney.
    Who is holding the proof on them. And why hold? Probably trying to auttion it off. Who is investigating that possibility?

    Or has CIA cooked up a repeat of their staging of Watergate?

    What did Cantor say to Mueller? “We aren’t touching it” Backfire possibility.”

  107. Kelley’s requesting 2% rather than a flat fee may show a lack of experience in negotiating these types of deals but is also a possible indicator of how desperate she was for money.

    Good lord, these Generals are a ridiculously naive bunch.

  108. Petraeus Investigation: CIA Looking Into Conduct Of Ex-Chief After Affair
    By KIMBERLY DOZIER 11/15/12

    WASHINGTON — The CIA is opening an “exploratory” investigation into the general conduct of ex-CIA director David Petraeus, who resigned last week after acknowledging an affair.

    CIA spokesman Preston Golson says the investigation by the CIA’s inspector general “doesn’t presuppose any particular outcome.”

  109. Kelley seems to have slotted herself quite nicely into that age old group that has always flitted around the edges of any organized army … the camp follower.

  110. “Kelley’s requesting 2% rather than a flat fee may show a lack of experience in negotiating these types of deals but is also a possible indicator of how desperate she was for money.”

    The two are not mutually exclusive, Blouise.

  111. ” The CIA is opening an “exploratory” investigation into the general conduct of ex-CIA director David Petraeus …” (from Elaine’s 7:04pm post)

    Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

  112. About Todd Purdum:



    “Until late 2005, Todd Purdum was a reporter and the Los Angeles bureau chief for the New York Times. From 1994 to 1997, Purdum was a White House correspondent for the Times. Purdum is now the national editor for Vanity Fair magazine.

    For the July 2008 issue of Vanity Fair, Purdum wrote a scathing article about former President of the United States Bill Clinton entitled “The Comeback Id.” The article analyzes Clinton’s post-presidency business dealings, behavior, and possible personal indiscretions, citing several anonymous current and former Clinton aides.[1] When asked about the article by Huffington Post writer Mayhill Fowler, Clinton said (in reference to Purdum): “He’s a really dishonest reporter…and I haven’t read (the article). There’s just five or six blatant lies in there. But he’s a real slimy guy.” When Fowler reminded Clinton that Purdum is married to his former press secretary, he responded: “That’s all right – he’s still a scumbag” and later added “He’s just a dishonest guy – can’t help it.” Clinton went on to observe: “It’s all politics. It’s all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don’t think anything about it. But I’m telling ya, all it’s doing is driving her supporters further and further away – because they know exactly what it is – this has been the most rigged coverage in modern history – and the guy ought to be ashamed of himself. But he has no shame. It isn’t the first dishonest piece he’s written about me or her.” The following day, Jay Carson – a spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – stated that Clinton regretted those remarks, though their factual content remains unchallenged.[2]

    In the July 2009 issue of Vanity Fair, Purdum wrote a highly contentious essay[weasel words][by whom?] discussing Sarah Palin. In it Purdum wrote that “More than once in my travels in Alaska, people brought up, without prompting, the question of Palin’s extravagant self-regard. Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–‘a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy’–and thought it fit her perfectly.”
    Personal life

    Purdum married Tiffany Windsor Bluemle in 1987; the couple were subsequently divorced. In 1997, he married former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers,[3] who served President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1994. Their relationship is the basis for the relationship between C.J. Cregg and Danny Concannon on the TV show The West Wing.[4] Purdum and Myers have two children.”

  113. Oh wait, wait: “WASHINGTON — The CIA is opening an “exploratory” investigation into the general conduct of ex-CIA director David Petraeus, who resigned last week after acknowledging an affair.

    CIA spokesman Preston Golson says the investigation by the CIA’s inspector general “doesn’t presuppose any particular outcome.”

    OK, educate me:

    1. What kind of investigation is not exploratory?
    2. What kind of investigation DOES presuppose any particular outcome?

    Then I’ll know kinda what these two paragraphs seem to want to mean.

  114. Here’s a little something for those of you who might be wondering about the privacy of your email:

    “It also turns out that email that’s sitting on a server for more than six months, according to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, can be considered abandoned and examined by law enforcement personnel. The Petraeus investigation brings this issue to light again: Under current U.S. law, federal authorities only need a subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor — not a judge — to obtain electronic messages that are six months old or older.

    Do you have email that’s more than six month sold, sitting on an IMAP server or on Gmail? If you think about it, a system like Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Windows Live, and even Facebook can be considered a “server” according to the ECPA. Something to think about, indeed.”


    (Thanks to eniobob)

  115. Malisha,

    1. A show investigation.
    2. A witch hunt.

    That whole bit was using euphemistic and qualifying language that you are wise to be suspicious about.

  116. MacDill Air Force Base News

    Jill Kelley case prompts review of ‘Friends of MacDill’


    TAMPA —

    “The commander of MacDill Air Force Base has ordered a review of everyone admitted to the “Friends of MacDill” program, the Pentagon says, in the wake of the scandal that traces back to one of the program’s members.

    There are about 800 people on the list, including Jill Kelley, the Tampa socialite who helped set in motion the scandal that prompted the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus and sparked an investigation into Marine Gen. John Allen, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

    The review was ordered by MacDill commander Col. Scott DeThomas.

    “The base commander is reviewing the list of names,” said Air Force Lt. Col. Jack Miller, a Pentagon spokesman. “It’s the only prudent thing to do under these circumstances.”

    In 2010, former base commander Col. Lenny Richoux initiated the “Friends of MacDill” program, which allowed unescorted access onto the base for community leaders who passed a criminal background check.

    Participants are nominated or nominate themselves and are selected at the discretion of the base commander.

    Earlier this week, Kelley’s access under the program was temporarily suspended because of a Department of Defense Inspector General Office investigation into what the Pentagon called a potentially inappropriate email exchange involving Allen. Military sources said he corresponded with Kelley during a two-year period.

    The base does an annual review of the list anyway, Miller said. But this situation sparked a more immediate review, he said.

    MacDill Air Force Base officials declined comment.”

  117. If the speculation here is correct that something more sinister lurks in the shadows I’d stay off small planes if I was one of the principles. Anybody want to start an office pool on who ‘commits suicide’ first. Just play’n it out is all… since there are probably movie/TV scripts in the works.

  118. In his first public comments since retired Army Gen. David Petraeus resigned Friday from the CIA over an affair with his biographer, Obama said he’d seen no evidence that national security had been compromised.

    “I have no evidence at this point from what I’ve seen that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security,” Obama told a White House news conference. “Obviously, there’s an ongoing investigation. I don’t want to comment on the specifics of the investigation.”

    In response to questions, Obama said he was not informed about the FBI investigation earlier as a matter of government policy, not any desire to keep the news bottled up until after the election.

    “The FBI has its own protocols in terms of how they proceed,” Obama said. “One of the challenges here is that we’re not supposed to meddle in, you know, criminal investigations, and that’s been our practice.”

    He said those policies were established at the FBI and the Department of Justice to ensure that there is no political interference in investigations.

    “That’s traditionally been how we view things in part because people are innocent until proven guilty and we want to make sure that we don’t pre-judge these kinds of situations,” he said. “My expectation is that they followed protocols that they already established.”

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/14/174674/fbi-wont-provide-regulation-that.html#storylink=omni_popular#storylink=cpy

  119. Petraeus didn’t practice craft well
    By Eugene Robinson

    One mystery is why the nation’s chief spy didn’t practice better tradecraft in seeking to protect his little secret.

    Petraeus carried on a steamy email correspondence with Broadwell through a private Gmail account that he opened using a pseudonym.

    It’s as if he didn’t know anything about IP addresses or location data. Presumably, as CIA chief, Petraeus must have read intercepted emails sent by terrorists who tried to disguise themselves by using false names. Why did no light bulb appear above his head, no thought bubble saying, “Gee, even if I don’t use my real name, somebody might figure out it’s me”?

  120. The link shano provided at 10:47pm is interesting. From that link I took the following:

    “He (Obama) said those policies were established at the FBI and the Department of Justice to ensure that there is no political interference in investigations.”

    This is probably where Humphries made his big mistake and why he is now characterizing his talking to Cantor as, you know, an outgrowth of someone else overhearing him talk about the matter … otherwise, in talking to Cantor he was violating the policies established by the FBI and DOJ by inviting political interference into the investigation. I would think this is also why Cantor needed to talk to a lawyer before calling Mueller.

    But that’s a subplot … a sideshow. Grist for the blog-mills.

    The real story is still unfolding and Patraeus’ resignation didn’t put an end to it.

  121. Re Elaine’s link at 10:47pm

    Well Patraeus was surrounded by a bunch of knowledgeable people at the CIA who could have taught him how to do it without leaving a trail but … he couldn’t ask for help because that might make them suspicious and he had a big secret he was hiding from them.

  122. ap,

    Regarding the Purdum article … thanks … your appreciation means a lot to me. :)

    All I can say is … when you’ve been around the block a few times … you learn a few things. You know what I mean. ;)

  123. From: Natalie Khawam Got Hefty Loan From Defense Department Lobbyist

    “WASHINGTON — Jill Kelley, a central figure in the sex scandal involving former CIA Director David Petraeus, tried to parlay her friendship with the general into a huge commission for helping facilitate a coal project in South Korea, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. Negotiations with Kelley ended after she demanded an $80 million fee for leveraging her connections, the paper said.

    That deal may have gone bust. But Kelley’s identical twin sister, Natalie Khawam, profited from her own lobbying connection. Bankruptcy records show that Gerald “Jerry” Harrington, a Rhode Island lobbyist and Democratic fundraiser, loaned Khawam $300,000 that she was unable to pay back.”

  124. Blouise, *!!!!!!!* I wonder if Martha Mitchell knew anything about it? Something drove that poor woman to make cryptic phone calls in the middle of the night.

  125. In a way, I cannot help but think of the outlandish titles of nobility royals and their courts would bestow upon court jesters. They only person she is deluding is herself.

    I feel bad for the general in a way in that he seems to be an honorable and decent man, but his position and security clearance automaticly means he did the right thing by resigning.

    Maybe there should be a medal: “pour la chasteté” which is granted “for bravery and restraint in the face of theenemy…and the seductress.”

  126. Blouise,

    “Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.”

    Nah, just covering a55 by cleaning up and sanitizing any evidence of wrongdoing, preparing a gaseous report to answer queries late put by Congress of type “what happende” and “what have you done to correct bla bla”.

    Not sure but that the “mandarins” had not already marked him for “Exit” soon.

  127. Malisha,

    1. We can’t tell you what we are exploring because that would give openings for inquiry as to things we don’t/won’ want you to know about.

    2. WE can’t tell what we are looking for or what we might expect to find for the same reasons in number 1).

    If you are unenlightened or confused then that is the meaning.

    Careful examination of the protocol as to the formalities of such an IG op would give a snowjob as to openness, etc.

    As long as there is an IG going on, mums the word for all CIA. Fully duct-taped.

  128. Darren,

    “Maybe there should be a medal: “pour la chasteté” which is granted “for bravery and restraint in the face of theenemy…and the seductress.””

    Maybe the general was the seducer.

  129. Petraeus testimony on Benghazi contradicts previous House statement
    Discrepancies reported in former CIA director’s Friday testimony that the consulate attack was the work of extremists
    Associated Press in Washington
    guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 November 2012 09.47 EST

    Former CIA director David Petraeus was sneaked into the Capitol on Friday, away from photographers and television cameras, to face lawmakers’ questions for the first time about the deadly attack on the US consulate in Libya just one week after he resigned over an extramarital affair.

    The retired four-star army general, formerly one of the country’s most respected military leaders, entered through a network of underground hallways leading to a secure room. CIA directors typically walk through the building’s front door.

    Petraeus is under investigation by the CIA for possible wrongdoing in his extramarital affair, though that is not the subject of Friday’s closed-door hearings. The 11 September attack in Benghazi, which killed the US ambassador and three other Americans, created a political firestorm, with Republicans claiming that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence.

    Representative Peter King, chairman of the House homeland security committee, emerged just after 9am to say the hearing before his committee was over. He said there were discrepancies between what Petraeus had previously told the committee about the Benghazi attack and what he said on Friday.

  130. David Petraeus testifies to Congress on Benghazi attack

    Although the hearings were held behind closed doors, committee members did emerge to give reporters some insight on what happened.

    Gen Petraeus told the committee the CIA was aware the attack was planned by terrorists from an early stage, New York Congressman Peter King said after the first session.

    But Mr King said the general’s evidence on Friday conflicted with what he said at a hearing on 14 September.

    Mr King said he had a “very different recollection” of the earlier hearing, at which lawmakers had been told the attack grew out of spontaneous protests over an anti-Islamic film.

    Mr King added that despite Gen Petraeus’ testimony on Friday it was still not clear who approved the message that the attack was linked to the protests.

  131. Benghazi was an unnecessarily prolonged attack. The conventional goals were reached after one hour, but it was extended several hours. Why?

    Because the real goal was to inflict political damage against Obama during the campaign and via hearings afterwards on the admisnistration, which we see now.
    A prolonged attack assured the mission’s visibility, giving all the world’s press time to observe and react.

    The op was approved by neo-con Petraeus, ordered by CIA through normal channels, and performed by JSOC.

    JSOC did the Bin Laden mission, withoug as far as we know taking a hair or a toenail to DNA identify him.

    They are tools just like us, only we don’t see the orders we are given subliminally.

  132. The Nation: Nobel Laureates Salute Bradley Manning

    November 14, 2012


    “Summary: This article by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel – all winners of the Nobel Peace Prize – calls for the release of Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of giving classified information to WikiLeaks. The authors argue that citizens have the right to know the intimate details of wars their country is fighting.”

    “Key Quote: As people who have worked for decades against the increased militarization of societies and for international cooperation to end war, we are deeply dismayed by the treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning.”

    “However, much as when high-ranking officials in the United States and Britain misled the public in 2003 by saying there was an imminent need to invade Iraq to stop it from using weapons of mass destruction, the world’s most powerful elites have again insulted international opinion and the intelligence of many citizens by withholding facts regarding Manning and WikiLeaks.”


    Again, Petraeus should be compelled to testify under oath.

  133. “Maybe the general was the seducer.” (Elaine)

    How could you even think of such a thing about so honorable an individual?

  134. It must be the holiday season.

    This story is a gift that keeps on giving. It didn’t seem like much at first, but it’s like a Wonka Everlasting Gobstopper. The more you gnaw on it, the more layers of flavor are exposed.

  135. “The retired four-star army general, formerly one of the country’s most respected military leaders, entered through a network of underground hallways leading to a secure room. CIA directors typically walk through the building’s front door.” (Elaine’s post at 10:05am)

    Did they blindfold him too?

    I read somewhere that there was “no appetite” at the Pentagon to recall the General to duty and then put him on trial for adultery.

    “Again, Petraeus should be compelled to testify under oath.” (ap)

    Of course he should but what’s the use? We already know from the oath he took for the Directorship of the CIA that the General doesn’t exactly honor his oaths.

  136. Blouise,

    How about this?

    David Petraeus Secretly Testifies to Congress About Benghazi
    By Dashiell Bennett

    There was also discussion of the now notorious CIA “talking points” that were distributed to various government officials a few days after the attacks. Those talking points were given to both UN Ambassador Susan Rice and the House intelligence committee, and they downplayed the idea that terrorist were involved in the attack. That is supposedly what led Rice to say on TV that the attack was likely the result of a “spontaneous” demonstration in response to an anti-Islamic video.


    CIA talking points for Susan Rice called Benghazi attack “spontaneously inspired” by protests

    (CBS News) WASHINGTON – CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

    Rice, who was considered a likely nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, has been attacked by Republican lawmakers for saying on “Face the Nation” (video) on Sept. 16 that all indications were the attack “began spontaneously” – suggesting it likely sprang from a protest against an anti-Muslim video found on the Internet. Protests of that nature had been seen in other Muslim nations in the days and weeks before the Benghazi attack.

    The CIA’s talking points read as follows:

    “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

    This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

    The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.”

  137. “Again, Petraeus should be compelled to testify under oath.” (ap)

    “Of course he should but what’s the use? We already know from the oath he took for the Directorship of the CIA that the General doesn’t exactly honor his oaths.” -Blouise

    Even if it’s a pointless exercise, “swear him in” and put him in the position of having to make a calculated decision about whether or not to lie under oath.

  138. The more you gnaw on it, the more layers of flavor are exposed. -Gene H.

    And there’s so much flavor left. So “gnaw on”… Who knows where it might take us.

  139. Petraeus testifies CIA’s Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says

    Petraeus’ testimony both challenges the Obama administration’s repeated claims that the attack was a “spontaneous” protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.


    Was Petraeus not telling the truth at the September briefing–or is he not telling the truth now?

  140. David Petraeus Tells Lawmakers He Believed Libya Attack Was Terrorism
    By Kimberly Dozier
    Posted: 11/16/2012 10:54 am EST

    Lawmakers said Petraeus testified that the CIA’s talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers it was removed by other federal agencies who made changes to the CIA’s draft.

    Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said Petraeus said he did not know who removed the reference to terrorism. King said to this day it’s still not clear how the final talking points emerged that were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack when the White House sent her to appear in a series of television interviews. Rice said it appeared the attack was sparked by a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video.

    Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Petraeus disputed Republican suggestions that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence in the midst of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

    “There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,” Schiff said after the hearing. “They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.

  141. Rep. King: CIA story on Benghazi changed
    By Stephanie Condon
    CBS News/ November 16, 2012, 9:29 AM

    Petraeus briefed lawmakers on Sept. 14 about the Benghazi attack, and at that time, King said, Petraeus attributed the Sept. 11 attack to a spontaneous uprising spurred by backlash against an anti-Muslim video.

    King said that Petraeus and the intelligence community gave that explanation “based on reports they were getting at the time.”

    However, King added, “They also at the time — prior to Sept. 14 — also had information there was involvement of al Qaeda affiliates, and that was not made clear in their presentation.”

    Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., didn’t agree with King’s take on Petraeus’ Sept. 14 testimony.

    Ruppersberger told reporters after the hearing, “My recollection was … [Petraeus said] it was the result of the protest… but he also said in the group there were some extremists and some were al Qaeda affiliates.”

  142. All I can say is … when you’ve been around the block a few times … you learn a few things. You know what I mean. ;) -Blouise


    Yep. ;) (an infinite loop “around the block”, comes to mind…)

  143. Elaine,

    Re 11:37am post

    So Rice follows the recommendations of the CIA that is the agency attached to her State Dept. and thus the analysis on which she is supposed to rely only to be attacked by Republicans for doing so.

    Another twist to the licorice stick.

  144. “Jill and Scott Kelley cultivated politicians as well as generals”



    “The Kelleys didn’t support Buckhorn during his race for mayor, and he said he had never met them. But they reached out to him soon after he was elected in March 2011.

    Three weeks after Buckhorn was sworn in, the couple hosted a cocktail reception for him on the front yard of their home.

    Since then, Jill Kelley has kept in touch with the mayor, often extending social invitations, according to emails released by the city late Thursday.

    Less than a month after the reception in the mayor’s honor, Kelley emailed Buckhorn that she hoped to see him and his wife, Dr. Cathy Lynch Buckhorn, at a dinner party that evening for the King of Jordan.

    “The King and his sister (the Princess) are awesome people!” she wrote a few days later. “Actually your name was brought up by the Generals when they were showing off the party I hosted you! (everyone loved that party)”

    “Especially me,” responded Buckhorn, who said he counts Kelley as an acquaintance.

    He said he has not been able to accept any of Kelley’s invitations since the reception in his honor, but he — along with his wife and police driver — did give her a ride home after a MacDill function when her husband was working late and was unable to meet her.

    “Gen Mattis” — an apparent reference to Marine Gen. James Mattis, who succeeded Petraeus as commander of CentCom — “was so kind to offer, but I realized you two were passing my way,” Jill Kelley wrote to Buckhorn the next day.

    Kelley also messaged the mayor early this year after reports that American personnel in Afghanistan had burned Korans, enraging Muslims.”


    Kelley’s e-mail to Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn (PDF)


  145. Petraeus Switches Up His Story on the Benghazi Attacks
    By Spencer Ackerman
    1:21 PM

    Former CIA Director David Petraeus knew all along that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked by al-Qaida-aligned terrorists this past September. Only he wasn’t so certain when he first briefed Congress on the Libyan disaster, just days after it occurred. And even the most Petraeus-friendly legislators find it odd that the former CIA director is retroactively editing his testimony.

    Petraeus emerged from his compounding week-long fall from grace to testify behind closed doors to the House and Senate intelligence committees about what the CIA knew about the hours-long assault as it unfolded. The overarching and highly politicized question hanging over Benghazi is whether the Obama administration misrepresented the disaster by initially pointing to an anti-Islam video as the catalyst, rather than the complex terrorist attack that actually occurred. What’s begun to leak out of the Petraeus hearings is this: the former four-star general and spymaster was convinced from jump that this was the work of terrorists.

    In his Friday testimony. Petraeus claimed “he thought all along that he made it clear there was terrorist involvement,” according to Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). “That was not my recollection.”

    Nor is it what Petraeus’ old boss was saying at the time. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, publicly explained on Sept. 28 that contemporaneous — and ultimately incorrect — intelligence reporting “led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” and “we provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress.”

    Confusing matters further, Petraeus indicated to lawmakers that the “talking points” the CIA initially gave to the Obama administration and members of Congress omitted early references to terrorism. Those talking points, published on Thursday by CBS, say that the attack on the consulate was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault.” They hold open the possibility that the intelligence picture will change — as, indeed, it did, significantly. Those talking points do not indicate the certainty that Petraeus now says he possessed to attribute the attack to Libyan militant group Ansar al-Sharia.

    According to King, Petraeus couldn’t explain the discrepancy. King said the talking points went through an “interagency” review, but the CIA ultimately “said, ‘Okay for it to go.’”

  146. Jill Kelley, Woman In David Petraeus Scandal with Paula Broadwell, Visited White Hosue
    Written by
    Associated Press
    1:34 PM, Nov 16, 2012

    WASHINGTON (AP) – An Obama administration official says a Tampa Bay socialite whose emails triggered the eventual downfall of CIA director David Petraeus visited the White House three times this year with her sister, twice eating in the Executive Mansion mess.

    The official says that Jill Kelley, who initiated an investigation that ultimately unveiled Petraeus’ extramarital affair, and her sister had two “courtesy” meals at the White House mess as guests of a mid-level White House aide. Kelley and her family also received a White House tour. The visits occurred during the past three months.

    The official spoke on condition of anonymity because those visitor records have not yet been made public.

    The official said the White House aide who hosted her met the Kelley family at MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa.

  147. Good, old-fashioned community outreach…


    Socialite Jill Kelley skydived with commandos



    1:23AM EST November 16. 2012 – TAMPA — Among the perks socialite Jill Kelley received as a “friend” of MacDill Air Force Base was a parachute jump with an elite Special Operations Command team.

    Kelley went skydiving with the Para Commandos on Oct. 29, 2010, said Col. Tim Nye, a spokesman for the Special Operations Command, which directs the Navy SEALS and other units. The jump — done in tandem with an experienced skydiver — was part of a community outreach program to local celebrities, athletes and the media.

    Unless a person held the rank of general or admiral, they weren’t likely on the guest list, according to one retired senior officer who didn’t want his name published.

    “A colonel is about as low as (Kelley would) go,” said the officer, who served at CENTCOM in Tampa and knows the players in the Petraeus scandal.

    At one party, held on the front lawn adjacent to bustling Bayshore Boulevard, foreign officers outnumbered U.S. military about 10 to 1 as they mingled with the mayor and other local dignitaries, he said. There was a band, speakers and cocktails. The French and Italian officers seemed to enjoy themselves, he said.

    “The opportunity to rub shoulders just doesn’t happen on the base,” he said.

    “They are a lovely couple,” said Aaron Fodiman, publisher of the glossy Tampa Bay Magazine, who has socialized with the Kelleys and attended parties at their home. “We are in shock over this. It’s insane. Bizarre.”

    He says the city’s social and charitable doors are open to anyone who comes “with a sincere desire to help.”

    “If you’re famous enough, rich enough or charming enough, everybody wants you,” he said. “The Kelleys are charming. They are nice. They live in a $1.5 million house on the most prestigious street. They go to the events. They donate. Why wouldn’t people want to have them at a party?”

    About six months ago, Jill Kelley became a volunteer for the International Council of the Tampa Bay Region, President Gary Springer said. She was introduced to the group by another volunteer, he said.

    The council, one of 92 around the United States, partners with the State Department to coordinate professional exchanges with visitors from other countries as part of the International Visitor Leadership Program, Springer said.

    Young and mid-career professionals and leaders spend three weeks in the United States “to basically have encounters with Americans to see how we live, work, learn and play,” Springer said. “Many have never had any contact with Americans at all. It’s part of the public diplomacy program of the United States.”

    The council in the Tampa Bay region manages hundreds of volunteers in nine counties, he said. The volunteers help host professional programming, cultural activities, social outings and home hospitality, he said.

    Kelley has hosted “a couple of groups,” Springer said.

    “She’s a delightful host,” he said. “She’s been a wonderful volunteer for the organization.”

  148. ap,

    Several comments on that thread that could have been lifted right out and slotted in here … there was even talk about small planes crashing

  149. How does Congressional hearing work?

    Don’t they have transcripts from P’s first session. For thet matter instant cueable of pre-marked or in transcript cues to the same video moment to confront Petraeus with?

    A man who has lied to the nations is not sworn in!

    Another journalist had King noting Petraeus meeting criticism at the first hearing with assertions that CIA had been on top of Al Qaeda for months, and because this had been a spontaneous demonstration which go out of hand, that iw had not been visible on their radar.

    Which lie do we buy? Release the security redacted transcript!

  150. David Petraeus didn’t settle partisan divide on Benghazi
    By Ken Dilanian
    November 16, 2012

    WASHINGTON – Appearing before two congressional committees in closed-door sessions, former CIA Director David Petraeus did little to dispel the partisan divide over whether Obama administration officials misled the public in the days after heavily armed militants killed four Americans in Benghazi,Libya, lawmakers said Friday.
    Petraeus told the House and Senate intelligence committees that he believed almost immediately that the Sept. 11 assault was an organized terrorist attack, according to lawmakers and staff sources. But he said the administration initially withheld suspicion that specific Al Qaeda affiliates were involved to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.

    Petraeus also said some early intelligence reports appeared to support Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, when she said five days after the deadly raid that it had grown out of a protest that was hijacked by extremists, comments that some Republicans contend were meant to downplay the significance of the attack before the election. Even now, the intelligence community has evidence that some attackers were motivated by protests earlier that day in Cairo over an anti-Islamic video, sources familiar with the intelligence said.

    “The general completely debunked the idea that there was some politicization of the process,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank).

    Petraeus, who has not appeared in public since he resigned from the CIA on Nov. 9 after admitting that he had an extramarital affair, avoided a throng of reporters and cameras before and after the two back-to-back sessions. Lawmakers lined up to speak after the hearings, however.

    Democrats defended Rice and the administration, while some Republicans said they were unshaken in their belief that intelligence was misused to bolster White House claims that it had decimated the leadership of Al Qaeda. Some Republicans, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have vowed to block any effort to make Rice the next secretary of State to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has said she will step down next year

    Rice relied on unclassified written guidance, known as talking points, from the CIA, Democrats said. But some key words were changed from initial drafts as other agencies weighed in, Republicans countered. The word “attack” was changed to “demonstration,” for example, and the phrase “with ties to Al Qaeda” was removed, a senior Republican congressional official said.

    Precisely who made the changes is not yet clear. “If it was altered by somebody not within the intelligence community, we should know that,” the official said.

    The CIA ultimately signed off on those changes, the official said. Intelligence officials say the changes were part of a normal vetting process for public comments, and was consistent with the CIA’s assessment at the time. That assessment later was revised to discount the video as a motivating factor before armed militants stormed and burned the State Department mission in Benghazi, and hours later, launched a mortar barrage on a CIA compound 1½ miles away by road.

  151. Elaine,
    Great link, but the Republicans will not be satisfied ever on this issue. I have very little hope that they will come to their senses over the economic issues. I think if we go over the so-called cliff, the Dems will be in a stronger position because the tax cuts for the wealthy will be already ended automatically.

  152. John McCain’s Benghazi Committee Plan Would Give Senator New Relevance
    By Ryan Grim & Sabrina Siddiqui
    Posted: 11/16/2012

    WASHINGTON — Just four years ago, John McCain was the leader of the GOP. Today, he’s the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a perch from which the former fighter pilot is deeply engaged in the national conversation over war, terrorism and intelligence gathering.

    But in January, the Arizona senator will lose his top-ranking committee seat due to term limits. The only ranking Republican spot available to him next session will be on the Indian Affairs Committee.

    Unless, that is, the Senate creates a brand-new select committee. On Wednesday, McCain, flanked by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), proposed just that: a select committee with extensive authority to investigate the Benghazi, Libya, attack and the U.S. government’s response.

    The Republican most likely to hold the ranking spot on such a panel would be, of course, John McCain, giving the Arizona senator a new burst of relevance.

    McCain, who lost the 2008 presidential race to Barack Obama, undermined his effort to create the select committee on the same day he proposed it, when he skipped a private congressional briefing on Benghazi and instead held a press event to complain about not getting briefed enough on Benghazi — and then became aggressive with a reporter who questioned him about it.

  153. Paula Broadwell’s big mistake
    She thought she was covering her tracks. But in the age of frictionless surveillance, Big Brother can’t be stopped
    FRIDAY, NOV 16, 2012

    The funny thing is, Paula Broadwell and David Petraeus thought they knew what they were doing. They were careful, more careful than the average American fooling around outside the bounds of marriage tends to be. When Broadwell wanted to warn off the other woman she suspected of messing with her man, she set up an anonymous email account and only used it away from home, usually on the Wi-Fi networks of hotels she was staying in. Broadwell and Petraeus also thought they could avoid having their emails intercepted in transit by technically avoiding “sending” them at all. Instead, they saved their messages to each other as “drafts” in a Gmail account to which they both enjoyed access.

    But if they thought they were being smart, they were wrong. Broadwell and Petraeus were undone, says ACLU privacy and technology expert Christopher Soghoian, by their “lack of knowledge of operational security” and “poor tradecraft.” “Draft” messages are stored in Gmail’s server cloud just like all other sent and received messages. And the FBI turned out to be more than capable of correlating the Internet Protocol addresses that identified the origin of Broadwell’s supposedly “anonymous” emails with hotel records that showed Broadwell as a guest at the same time the messages were sent.

    If Broadwell had taken greater precautions, she might never have been caught. She could have covered her tracks with any one of myriad commercially available Virtual Private Network programs or, if she was looking for some heavy-duty protection, she could have downloaded the Tor Project’s anonymizing browser. We should all takes notes from her misfortune. For those of us who have been able to look beyond the shirtless-pic-sending FBI agents and Tampa socialite “honorary consuls” and overly flirtatious four-star generals, the obvious lesson to take away from this mess is that if we’re going to play hanky-panky with the director of the CIA, we’d better make sure we’re using the best privacy protection tools available.

    But there’s another, more important lesson to be gleaned from this tale of a biographer run amok. Broadwell’s debacle confirms something that some privacy experts have been warning about for years: Government surveillance of ordinary citizens is now cheaper and easier than ever before. Without needing to go before a judge, the government can gather vast amounts of information about us with minimal expenditure of manpower. We used to be able to count on a certain amount of privacy protection simply because invading our privacy was hard work. That is no longer the case. Our always-on, Internet-connected, cellphone-enabled lives are an open door to Big Brother. Just ask Paula Broadwell.

  154. Just to change the subject, here’s the guy who was chief of staff to Colin Powell being interviewed.

    Some nice person posted the same site discussing who would be a good replacement for Petraeus—-as CIA chief I hasten to add. And one interview led to another. It provides interesting views on Republicans and the need for dual competence in a President (military and civil)—maybe character would be good one to add too. Petraus has shown what the lack can give us.


    WILKERSON: Yeah. And he got real close to being president of Sears and Roebuck: vice president. So I guess I’d have to say at the same time that I was being disabused of my naivete with regard to the Armed Forces and what the country used them for, I was also being disabused of my naivete about the Republican Party. Not to say that it hasn’t transmogrified in those years. It has. It’s not nearly what it was. My icon in that would be Dwight Eisenhower. Dwight Eisenhower–. And here again you had a man who merged both worlds, the ultimate military responsibility with the ultimate civilian responsibility. We don’t get those kind of people very often. Now, here’s a man who knew both worlds in a sense that he knew the bad and the good from both worlds. He once said, according to his granddaughter Susan Eisenhower, God help the United States if anybody ever sits in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the military the way I do. This is a man who understood what was happening to post-World War America, that it was turning into a military-industrial-congressional-dominated national security state. And the Republicans have cheered that transmogrification–cheered it. Indeed, they’ve gained their power, their political power, from helping it, from moving it in the right direction when it needs to be moved, so that now you have guys like Mitch McConnell and Darrell Issa and Eric Cantor from Virginia, my state.

    JAY: And Kyl.

    WILKERSON: And Kyl. They live, breathe, drink, and sleep the military-industrial complex. They love war, they love this business, because it keeps them in power

  155. this is hilarious:

    “TAMPA — Does Bubba the Love Sponge Clem have anything to say about Mayor Bob Buckhorn calling him a “complete moron” in an e-mail to south Tampa socialite Jill Kelley?

    Does he ever.

    “For Bob Buckhorn to call me a moron? I mean, are you kidding me? Let’s talk about moron status,” he told the Tampa Bay Times.

    Clem slammed red light cameras as a public “shake-down” and mocked the six-foot rule Buckhorn pushed years ago to keep performing strippers that far from patrons. He also criticized the mayor for officially honoring his radio rival Todd “MJ” Schnitt.

    “At the end of the day, you wouldn’t hear any of this nonsense from Pam Iorio,” Clem said of the former mayor. “She was calculated. She didn’t call names. She didn’t get voted on a whim.”

    Jill Kelley contacted Buckhorn earlier this year, saying then-CIA director David Petraeus and General John Allen were emailing her about a plan Clem had to “deep fat fry” the Koran, and “getting this dealt with.” She said she expected a call from Afghanistan from Allen to discuss a next step.

    Clem said the officials that got him to stop it were his lawyer and the heads of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office and Tampa Police Department, but “probably, she did get intel to have me stop it, and that’s the problem itself.”

    A Bubba’s Army truck circled the Bayshore Boulevard block of the Kelley home for about a half-hour this morning, pumping a parody to the tune of Falco’s “Rock Me Amadeus” about Petraeus.

    “I hope Bob Buckhorn gets looped into it,” Clem said of the scandal.

    “This guy is a joke. He’s messing with the wrong guy, and I will make it my mission to destroy this guy. I am his political death sentence…

    “Unless he apologizes to me and gives me a key to the city.”

  156. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/jill-kelley-white-house_n_2145871.html

    “As for Broadwell, she at no time set foot in the Executive Mansion, the White House official said. Her June 2009 visit was to meet a national security staffer working on Afghanistan-Pakistan policy matters. In the June 2011 visit, Broadwell was one of 20 participants in a briefing on Afghanistan-Pakistan policy that occurred shortly before Obama delivered a national address announcing the start of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.

    The White House official said that meeting was not listed in public White House visitor logs because it met a national security exemption to White House disclosure policy.”

    (And Happy Birthday, Blouise!)

  157. ap,

    Thanks kiddo.

    Don’t you find it rather interesting the way everybody is trying to get out in front of this story. This affair must be a real boon to all those firms that specialize in “reputation enhancement”.

  158. “For all public servants, “character is not a private issue,” writes Navy Capt. Chuck Hollingsworth, who recently commanded the Navy’s Center for Personal and Professional Development. “Regardless of one’s spiritual inclination, professional and ethical behavior can and should be the expectation.”

    Federal workers serve the highest ideals of a nation, not just a boss or a set of rules. For the military, especially, failure to live up to those ideals can result in tragedy.

    Thus the urgency of the Pentagon’s review of its ethical training. The defense chief wants a plan on the president’s desk by Dec. 1. Given the publicity of both the Petraeus and Allen scandals, the military needs quick action to not only restore its reputation but further shore up the conscience of every officer and soldier.”


  159. The Siren and the Spook
    Published: November 12, 2012

    There were remarks galore about her unusually toned arms and the way she dressed to show them off. I even spotted a comment about how much of her armpits one of her outfits revealed, as if underarm exhibitionism were some sort of sexual sorcery, some aphrodisiac, the key to it all.

    What else could explain his transgression? Why else would a man of such outward discipline and outsize achievement risk so much? The temptress must have been devious. The temptation must have been epic.

    That was the tired tone of some of the initial coverage of, and reaction to, the affair between David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell, which had many people claiming surprise where there wasn’t cause for any, reverting to clichés that should be retired and indulging in a sexism we like to think we’ve moved past.

    Broadwell has just 13 percent body fat, according to a recent measurement. Did you know that? Did you need to? It came up nonetheless. And like so much else about her — her long-ago coronation as homecoming queen, her six-minute mile — it was presented not merely as a matter of accomplishment, but as something a bit titillating, perhaps a part of the trap she laid.

    There are bigger issues here. There are questions of real consequence, such as why the F.B.I. got so thoroughly involved in what has been vaguely described as a case of e-mail harassment, whether the bureau waited too long to tell lawmakers and White House officials about the investigation, and how much classified information Broadwell, by dint of her relationship with Petraeus, was privy to. The answers matter.

    Her “expressive green eyes” (The Daily Beast) and “tight shirts” and “form-fitting clothes” (The Washington Post) don’t. And the anecdotes and chatter that implicitly or explicitly wonder at the spidery wiles she must have used to throw the mighty man off his path are laughably ignorant of history, which suggests that mighty men are all too ready to tumble, loins first. Wiles factor less into the equation than proximity.

    Sure, the spotlight these men have attracted and the altitude they’ve reached should, theoretically, give them greater pause. But they’ve either become accustomed to or outright sought a kind of adulation in the public arena that probably isn’t mirrored in their marriages. A spouse is unlikely to provide it. A spouse knows you too well for that, and gives you something deeper, truer and so much less electric.

    It has to be more than mere coincidence that Bill Clinton had an affair with a White House intern; Newt Gingrich with a Congressional aide (now his wife); John Edwards with a woman who followed him around with a camera, creating hagiographic mini-documentaries about his presidential campaign; and Petraeus with a woman who made him the subject of a biography so worshipful that its main riddle, joked Jon Stewart, was whether Petraeus was “awesome or incredibly awesome.”

  160. my question is what happened in Benghazi? I am now hearing that there may have been a CIA holding cell at the consulate.

    4 Americans are dead and we are more worried about where Petraeus was dipping his wick.

  161. “The CIA has dismissed as “baseless” and “uninformed” claims made by the former lover of ex-agency chief David Petraeus that Libyan militants were held in secret US prisons prior to the deadly Benghazi consulate attack.

    Paula Broadwell, the biographer whose affair with Petraeus led to his abrupt resignation Friday, alleged that the assault, in which US ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed, was an attempt to free men being detained in a covert CIA annex.”


    That’s why “we are more worried about where Petraeus was dipping his wick.”

  162. She’s got a point their, Bron. Look through history at how many people and countries have been undone by a scurrilous affair? Your private life ceases to be private when you hold a public trust like those in high office.

  163. raff,

    It’s difficult to keep on this matter with so many speculations etc. but the rumor about the secret U S prison came from Petraeus’ mistress.

  164. she is having sex with D/CIA and makes a claim like that and then the CIA says it is baseless? Do tell.

    Yes, I guess they would say it was baseless.

    If this were a republican administration how many of you would believe that?

  165. If you are asking if I believe the CIA’s assertions that Petraeus’ mistress’ information is baseless because a Democrat is in the White House, the answer would be no.

    The fact that she was Petraeus’ mistress gives legitimacy to her words … Republican or Democrat sitting in the Oval Office is irrelevant.

  166. http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12869-petraeus-should-have-been-fired-years-ago

    “Petraeus was a vocal advocate of military “Spiritual Fitness.” Spiritual Fitness is little more than a disingenuous and transparent Trojan horse for Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism within the U.S. Armed Forces. Indeed, it is a sinister Star Chamber, an unlawful means by which nationalism and militarism are merged with sectarian Christian zeal. One of the core components of Spiritual Fitness is matrimonial loyalty, but since when were religious fundamentalism and outright hypocrisy mutually exclusive? But I digress…
    Spiritual Fitness programming has taken various forms. For years, servicemembers have been coerced into attending sappy, saccharine Christian rock concerts. One of these tours, whose headlining acts included performances of songs with repugnant and vacuously vapid titles like “United We Stand When Together We Kneel,” had even been openly promoted by General Petraeus as “enormously important to those who wear the uniform.” Needless to say, this Flag Officer endorsement struck MRFF as wholly loathsome and an act of anti-Constitutional treachery of the highest order.
    The next shock came in 2008 as I sat reading an issue of the Air Force Times. It was then that I stumbled on an ad for a book by Army chaplain Lt. Col. William McCoy entitled Under Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel. And who gave a shining, universal endorsement on this book’s back cover? None other than the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who stated, “Under Orders should be in every rucksack for those moments when Soldiers need spiritual energy.” Upon inspection, the book proved itself to be a disgusting parochial screed promoting Christian religious supremacy while also denigrating the integrity of the 21% of American servicemembers who define themselves as atheists or having no religious preference.
    American armed forces personnel have routinely been made to take part in official “Fitness Assessment” surveys that, believe it or not, actually gauge their Spiritual Fitness. In true Pavlovian fashion, Dominionist conceptions of “Spiritual Fitness” have been passionately drilled in by means of leading soldiers in prayer ceremonies that repeatedly invoke Jesus’ name or stealthily revolve around parochial Christian themes. Just recently, as a part of a national “stand-down” ostensibly meant to address the tragic wave of suicides that have reached tsunami proportions within the U.S. Army, 800 brand new soldiers at Fort Sam Houston in Texas were forced to attend a mandatory training session that ended up, incontrovertibly, as a sectarian, electronic candle lit, Christian prayer vigil . Thirty-eight of these soldiers (the vast majority of whom happen to be practicing Protestants or Roman Catholics), with the brave Staff Sergeant Victoria Gettman in the courageous forefront, swiftly contacted our civil rights foundation for immediate help. A federal complaint against the Army is now contemporaneously pending an ongoing official investigation.
    Spiritual Fitness is a markedly destructive and corrosive agent that has the practical consequence of rampant demoralization, disorientation, and disorder within the armed forces. By endorsing Spiritual Fitness repeatedly, Petraeus revealed a total disregard for both the “No Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the “No Religious Test” prohibition of Clause 3, Article VI of the same. It’s no exaggeration – it’s a bare-knuckled fact – that Petraeus was complicit in a de facto mutiny against America’s most cherished and beloved governing document.”

    After reading this I congratulate Broadwell for her discretions.

  167. The following is a fairly good timeline piece but the most interesting bit of info in this piece is reflected in the headline.


    “But some of his closest advisers who served with him during his last command in Iraq said Monday that Petraeus planned to stay in the job even after he acknowledged the affair to the FBI, hoping the episode would never become public. He resigned last week after being told to do so by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. on the day President Obama was reelected.”

    Petraeus’ hubris is off the charts.

  168. General Petraeus Seduced Us, Too

    Wednesday, 21 November 2012
    By Nick Mottern, Truthout | Op-Ed


    Paragraph 1-136 of The US Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, a doctrinal document whose creation was overseen by Gen. David H. Petraeus, says:

    At the strategic level, gaining and maintaining U.S. public support for a protracted deployment is critical. Only the most senior military officers are involved in this process at all. It is properly a political activity. However, military leaders typically take care to ensure that their actions and statements are forthright. They also ensure that the conduct of operations neither makes it harder for elected officials to maintain public support nor undermine public confidence.

    This curious instruction in this military field manual, which itself is a piece of public relations work, shows that General Petraeus knows the profound importance of creating illusion to support war.

    The Norman Rockwellian image he created for himself – serious, highly professional, righteous, observer of international law, disciplined master of humane war and nation-building and, especially, heroic – served not only his career, but the careers of politicians who advance themselves as militarists and the fortunes of corporate bosses who sell weapons and/or depend on the US military to secure them safe zones of exploitation around the world.

    General Petraeus, as well as anyone, is likely to know that his romance and its exposure stir emotions in the public that lead inevitably to uncertainty about the tragic military adventures he has championed – the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and, most recently, the burgeoning US global campaign of drone surveillance, assassination and terror.

    One might suggest that General Petraeus quit as head of the CIA two days after Barack Obama was selected for four more years in the White House because his romance with Paula Broadwell might “undermine public confidence” in a deliberately fabricated set of illusions about what our military is doing.

    Indeed, the Petraeus incident is providing a curious public with a glimpse into the reality of a US military world in which the very top military commanders are living lavish lives and partying, playing and hobnobbing with the wealthy while their troops are suffering and dying and engaged in killing, wounding and detaining thousands of Iraqis, Afghanis and Yemenis, with lesser numbers dying under drone fire in Somalia, Libya and even the Philippines.

    The lack of a sense of decency among US generals during our current wars extends, of course, to their failure to see any conflict of interest in going to work for arms makers once they retire while their wars continue on, fanned by the companies they work for.

    General Petraeus may fear that the search for the real David Petraeus will inevitably lead to, one, a reexamination of his conduct of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and, two, questions about whether these wars are intended to serve any national security interest or are being undertaken to advance corporate interests at tremendous costs to the public interest.

    First, with respect to the conduct of the wars, without the halo, General Petraeus can be charged with conducting a savage campaign of slaughter, relocation, detention and deprivation in Iraq which traumatized millions and has been a major factor in Iraq’s fragmentation and internal strife, which continues until now.

    In 2007, Consumers for Peace, of which I am director, published an analysis of the Petraeus counterinsurgency manual and the “surge” in Iraq. The studies document the degree to which General Petraeus was willing to ignore international law and engage military activities that can be defined as war crimes; this must be further investigated and exposed.

    The major US press organizations will not do this. They aggrandized General Petraeus through the surge and after, willfully ignoring the horrific consequences of the Iraq occupation and then abandoning coverage of Iraq when President Obama announced US troops were leaving Iraq at the end of 2010. (There is no press mention of the large US mercenary forces that remain in Iraq and the guerilla war there.)

    The deepest secret policy of General Petraeus may involve his work as a military enforcer for Western corporations that demand security for their investments and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any further exposure of his communications with major corporations while he was conducting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might reveal to the American public the degree to which our wars since 9/11 have been driven by corporate goals, particularly those of energy corporations.

    A hint of the Petraeus role as corporate protector came in a March 2008 news story by Ben Lando for United Press International, reporting that General Petraeus had made calls to ” large Western corporations” to encourage investment in oil, gas and power production in Iraq. The article quotes Army Col. Steven Boylan, a Petraeus spokesman: “‘Sometimes to get the ball rolling, it takes a senior leader to engage other senior leaders in the corporate world to have a discussion’ on the realities of security in Iraq, Boylan said.”

    Lando was unable to get any of the major corporations he tried to contact to comment on the Petraeus calls.

    The existence of working relationships between Petraeus and corporations seeking military security to extract wealth from Afghanistan is also hinted at in a “Meet the Press” interview distributed on YouTube in which the general talked about “trillions, with an ‘s’ on the end, trillions of dollars worth of minerals” in Afghanistan that can be exploited only if there is military security in place.

    Exposure of the realities of Petraeus’s corporate alliances would be a most important revelation for the American people. This might lay bare the degree to which we have been carried into war by Western corporate power and the ways in which our wars have everything to do with supporting the global .01% and absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, democracy, freedom or patriotism.

  169. Petraeus gave Jill Kelley a medal? from Henry Blodgett:

    “you know you can get a medal from the U.S. military for schmoozing?
    Apparently you can.
    At General David Petraeus’s recommendation, the Joint Chiefs of Staff gave Tampa Bay socialite Jill Kelley the country’s second-highest honor a civilian can receive, reports Jeane MacIntosh of the New York Post.
    Kelley received the award from Petraeus himself in a ceremony in Washington DC last year.
    Jeane MacIntosh quotes from the citation, which lauds Kelley for many achievements:
    “outstanding public service to the United States Central Command, the MacDill Air Force Base community and the Department of Defense from October 31, 2008 to May 31, 2010.”
    Kelley’s work in “advancing various military endeavors” and her “willingness to host engagements with senior national representatives from more than 60 countries,” according to the Tampa Tribune.
    “On multiple occasions, Mrs. Kelley invited senior national representatives, their spouses and senior leaders to her home to demonstrate their gratitude and support. These events promoted camaraderie, understanding and a better appreciation for coalition and military customs, concerns and abilities.”
    “She [was] instrumental in introducing the commander, early in his tenure, to local and state officials, particularly the mayor of Tampa and the governor of Florida.”
    “The singularly distinctive accomplishments of Mrs. Jill Kelley are in keeping with the finest traditions of public service and reflect great credit upon herself, United States Central Command and the Department of Defense.”

    Amazing the things you learn from a sex scandal.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/general-petraeus-gave-jill-kelley-a-medal-2012-11#ixzz2CzdWZ2yG

  170. EXCLUSIVE – Petraeus: the Plot Thickens

    By Douglas Lucas and Russ Baker on Feb 5, 2013



    Was the ambitious General David Petraeus targeted for take-down by competing interests in the US military/intelligence hierarchy—years before his abrupt downfall last year in an adultery scandal?

    Previously unreported documents analyzed by WhoWhatWhy suggest as much. They provide new insight into the scandalous extramarital romance that led to Petraeus’s resignation as CIA director in November after several years of rapid rise—going from a little-known general to a prospective presidential candidate in a stunningly brief time frame.

    …article continues…

  171. Posted to another thread by Dredd. (Thanks, Dredd.)

    A Four-Star Scandal

    By Vicky Ward March 2013


    “Sisters Jill Kelley and Natalie Khawam invaded Tampa society like twin buccaneers. They were hilariously over-the-top, stars of their own imaginary reality show. But as they climbed ever higher, the revelations became ever more disturbing, with an FBI investigation, an American hero brought down, and, told here for the first time in detail, a tangled history of their own.”

  172. Hmm it appears liuke your blog ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I had
    written and say, I’m tthoroughly enjoying our blog.
    I too am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to the whole thing.
    Do you have any helpful hints for rookie blog writers?
    I’d definitely appreciate it.

Comments are closed.