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.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shirtless-fbi-agent-article-1.1203108
I know…. Daily News…, but let’s get it all out in the open. I’ll stoop and be the one to post it.
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…)
Rep. King: CIA story on Benghazi changed
By Stephanie Condon
CBS News/ November 16, 2012, 9:29 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/rep-king-cia-story-on-benghazi-changed/
Excerpt:
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.”
Thanks for the excellent articles/links, Elaine M. — it would be hard to keep up without them.
David Petraeus Tells Lawmakers He Believed Libya Attack Was Terrorism
By Kimberly Dozier
Posted: 11/16/2012 10:54 am EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/david-petraeus-libya_n_2144621.html
Excerpt:
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.
ap,
I agree that he should have been required to testify under oath.
Petraeus testifies CIA’s Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says
http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/272672.html
Excerpt:
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?
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.
“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.
Blouise,
How about this?
David Petraeus Secretly Testifies to Congress About Benghazi
By Dashiell Bennett
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/david-petraeus-secretly-testifies-congress-about-benghazi/59081/
Excerpt:
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
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-for-susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/
Excerpt:
(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.”
“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.
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.
“Maybe the general was the seducer.” (Elaine)
😉
How could you even think of such a thing about so honorable an individual?
The Nation: Nobel Laureates Salute Bradley Manning
November 14, 2012
http://www.thenation.com/article/171272/nobel-laureates-salute-bradley-manning#
“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.
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.
Petraeus should be compelled to testify under oath.
Ex-CIA chief Petraeus testifies Benghazi attack was al Qaeda terrorism
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 10:01 AM EST, Fri November 16
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politics/benghazi-hearings/index.html
Excerpt:
“Petraeus was not under oath, King said.”
David Petraeus testifies to Congress on Benghazi attack
BBC
11/16/12
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20362941
Excerpt:
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.
Does Petraeus’ wife get to wear the horns if Broadwell gets to clad herself as a succubus?
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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/16/petraeus-testimony-benghazi-contradicts
Excerpt:
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.