Questions Regarding "The Patraeus Affair"

Folks, this is a stand-alone newsbite based upon reporting published by the conservative magazine and cyber-publication "NewsMax"

Usually Right has been up and running since November 2008 and quite frankly I can't recall the last time... if ever... I relied upon "NewsMax" reporting.

Make of the following what you will. However... please note... the author of this piece - Ronald Kessler - is a well-respected professional journalist and best-selling author and I urge you to keep this in mind as you read his reporting.

~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

The resignation of David H. Petraeus as CIA director followed an FBI investigation of many months, raising the question of why he was not forced out until after the election.

Actually... it raises questions concerning how he could have been appointed CIA Director in the first place.

In his letter of resignation, Petraeus cited an extra-marital affair he had been having. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Petraeus said in his letter to President Obama. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.”

Since when...? Surely not since Bill Clinton!

Yes I'm being sarcastic, but I'm also seriously raising the point! This is behavior that didn't preclude William Jefferson Clinton from completing his second term as President of the United States even though in addition to the ethic questions and security flags raised by Clinton's behavior, Clinton also lied about his behavior... lied to the American People and lied under oath in a court of law even though as an attorney and thus officer of the court... not to mention as President whose job it is to see that the laws are faithfully executed!

Petraeus, who had a distinguished military career, revealed no additional details. However, an FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011.

And... thus... HOW in God's name did Petraeus go on to be appointed Director of the CIA by President Obama?

Either Obama knew about Petraeus' "personal indiscretions" and choose to overlook them... or else... well... there is no "or else." This could not have possibly escaped the vetting process! Once the FBI became aware of Patraeus' behavior and judged it a security threat then surely the information had to go up the chain of command to President Obama's Director of the FBI and from there to Eric Holder and from there to the President!

The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan.

The woman who was having an affair with Petraeus is a journalist who had been writing about him.

Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.

Was the woman's name "Monica" by any chance?

No... folks... this isn't funny... it really isn't. This isn't a joke and shouldn't be looked upon as one.

Such a relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements and could have compromised Petraeus.

And yet Petraeus was promoted instead of forced into retirement...???

At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.

About Petraeus' judgment...?!?! How about Obama's judgment...?!?!

Again... is it possible that the FBI could have been aware that one of our nation's then most senior military commanders was committing an ongoing breach of top secret security requirements and yet this information didn't go up the chain all the way to the President... even when the President announced he was nominating/appointing Patraeus to the Directorship of the CIA...?!?!

Neither Petraeus nor the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs had any immediate comment.

FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11.

But... but... but... the FBI first found out about Patraeus' security violations when he was still in the military... still in Afghanistan... BEFORE he was appointed Director of the CIA!

If anything, shouldn't Patraeus have been asked to resign from the military... been asked to retire... rather than given the promotion to Director of the CIA...???

The CIA ‘s reporting to Congress included a claim that protests over a YouTube video played a role in the attacks, thus allowing Obama to initially discount the possibility that the U.S. had suffered another terrorist attack just before the election.

The CIA's official reporting... contradicted by CIA agents on the ground and contradicted by the entire history of events in Libya and Benghazi going back months before 9/11/12 which we've been made aware of in drips and drabs via what little responsible media reporting there's been!

In contrast, based on real time video and reports, the State Department was reporting that the attack that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, was terrorist-related. The State Department reported that there were no protests at the consulate.

But... but... but... Susan Rice... AMBASSADOR Susan Rice... representative of the State Department and the senior administration official to address the media (four or five different Sunday news/interview shows) days after the attacks... she blamed it on the video...

Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election.

Is this really about an affair folks? Think about it... the President must have known of Patraeus' behavior prior to appointing him to the Directorship of the CIA. Did Patraeus know the President knew? Did Patraeus even know he had been found out? If not... we're talking about a President who "had something on Patraeus" that if it ever became necessary he could use against him... threaten to expose him... threaten to destroy his marriage...

Folks... after Benghazi... after the administration lost it's bid to blame the destruction of a U.S. consulate and the deaths of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans on... er... genuine and understandable (though of course "not excusable") "outrage over a video"... after leaks of what really happened started coming out - including from CIA agents on the ground - did Obama attempt to leverage what he know about Patraeus in order to try and get Patraeus to "play ball" and "stick with the team" as regarded ongoing attempts to muddy the waters concerning what really happened in Benghazi and why?

If this happened... did Patraeus initially fold to the pressure? Did he agree to keep his mouth shut... agree not to resign and "out" the administration weeks before the Election? Was there some sort of quid pro quo that somehow lasted up till Election Day but has now broken down?

In any case... whatever the truth... whatever Patraeus says now will lack the credibility he would have had prior to this post-Election "outing" of his behavior. For all intents and purposes Patraeus is now "off the board" as a future credible whistle-blower against the Obama administration no matter what the truth is... no matter what truly transpired in Washington or in Benghazi. 

His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.

FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

But... but... but... weren't the FBI agents "outraged" when the President first knowingly appointed a known security risk to be... er... Director of the CIA in the first place...???

Indeed, weren't the FBI agents on the case "outraged" that Patraeus wasn't forced to resign from the army the moment they caught him engaging in behavior deemed a security threat...???

Folks... does any of this make sense to you...? It sure as hell doesn't make any sense to me!

“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

Again... the timeline...

It seems to me that the "inexcusability clock" began running back in 2011 when the FBI first became aware of Patraeus' activities!

Michael Kortan, the FBI’s assistant director for public affairs, said he had no comment.