General Petraeus, Libya and Afghanistan

This video is called Qatar builds up anti-Syria Wahhabi army.

By Barry Grey in the USA:

Petraeus resignation fuels political warfare over Benghazi attack

19 November 2012

The resignation of retired four-star General David Petraeus as Central Intelligence Agency director has reignited partisan political warfare over the September 11 attack on the US consulate and a CIA station in Benghazi, Libya that left US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.

Petraeus, who commanded US and allied forces first in Iraq and then in Afghanistan, announced his resignation November 9, acknowledging an extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, a reserve Army officer and author of a glowing biography of him. The general insisted that his departure from the CIA was entirely a personal matter, having no political or intelligence dimensions, a narrative that continues to be promoted by the media and the political establishment.

This claim is belied not only by the nature of Petraeus’ position and the state agencies most directly involved—the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the CIA—but also by the political furor that has been set off by his sudden resignation.

Last week, the scandal surrounding Petraeus spread to the top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, after the FBI turned over to the Pentagon tens of thousands of pages of emails, including allegedly “inappropriate communications,” between Allen and the Tampa, Florida woman, Jill Kelley, whose complaint to the FBI initiated the probe that led to Paula Broadwell and then Petraeus.

Kelley, married to a prominent Tampa surgeon and generally described in the press as a “socialite,” is a personal friend of both Petraeus and Allen.

Congressional Republicans have seized on the resignation of Petraeus as an occasion to revive their pre-election campaign of accusations of an Obama administration cover-up in connection with the Benghazi events.

They are concentrating their fire on Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations. Rice appeared on several interview programs on September 16 and cited US intelligence agencies in describing the attack on the Benghazi consulate and the so-called “annex” as an outgrowth of a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim video that was made in the US and circulated on the Internet. Rice did not call the incident a terrorist attack or point to Al Qaeda-linked organizations as likely perpetrators.

Several days later, the CIA and the administration revised their explanation, calling the event a terrorist attack that may have involved Al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Petraeus, who returned from a fact-finding trip to Libya shortly before his resignation, was originally scheduled to testify in closed session before the intelligence committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate last Thursday. That appearance was canceled after he announced his resignation, but under pressure from both Democratic and Republican members of the committees, Petraeus went before the two panels on Friday.

Following the hearings, notwithstanding their supposedly classified nature, congressmen and senators from both parties went before the media to give their opposed versions of Petraeus’ testimony. They all agreed, however, with Petraeus’ insistence that his resignation had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.

Republicans stressed that Petraeus affirmed he and the CIA had concluded early on that the attack in Benghazi was a planned terrorist assault likely involving Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and a local pro-Al Qaeda militia called Ansar al-Sharia. They suggested that the Obama administration altered the CIA assessment in its public statements for political and electoral reasons.

As Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program: “I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya had been overrun by an Al Qaeda-sponsored or affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we’ve been hearing for months that Al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Laden is dead, we’re safer.”

However, as Democrats emphasized, Petraeus acknowledged that he signed off on the final unclassified version of the CIA talking points, which excluded mention of a terror attack or the names of suspected perpetrators and linked the attack to protests over the anti-Muslim video. He told the intelligence committees that Rice had followed these talking points in her television appearances and denied that there was any political interference from the Obama administration.

Other congressmen, including some Republicans, noted that Petraeus, when he testified on the Benghazi attack on September 14, downplayed any possible involvement of Al Qaeda elements and connected the assault to spontaneous protests.

Whether or not the Obama administration concealed the role of Al Qaeda-linked forces for electoral reasons, the more fundamental political significance of the Benghazi events is being buried by both parties and the entire media. The attack on the US consulate and the CIA annex exposed the fact that Washington had financed and helped arm Al Qaeda-linked Islamist and jihadist forces in its bloody 2011 war to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and install a more pliant regime.

Stevens was the Obama administration’s point man in funneling arms and money to groups linked to Al Qaeda that played a major role in the ground operations, backed by US-NATO air strikes and aided by Special Forces trainers, that ultimately toppled the Gaddafi regime. The US then sought to push these forces into the background and install a puppet government with more “respectable” credentials and one that would be more reliably subservient to Washington.

But Islamist militias, including those linked to Al Qaeda, continued to dominate much of the country and, feeling they had been double-crossed, struck back against the US in what intelligence agencies call a case of “blowback.”

This collusion with Al Qaeda forces in Libya, which is continuing in the US-engineered war for regime-change in Syria, totally exposes the fraud of the so-called “war on terror,” which has been used to justify major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and countless drone strikes and other military interventions, along with a frontal assault on democratic rights within the US. That, above all, is what the intelligence agencies, the military, the White House, Congress and the media are determined to obscure.

Some press reports have focused on aspects of conflicts that are raging between and within intelligence and military agencies, the White House, the State Department and other parts of the state apparatus. The very fact that the FBI, a highly secretive police-intelligence agency, has conducted an investigation leading to the toppling of the head of the rival CIA and has undercut the top US commander in Afghanistan, testifies to the political dimension of these events.

Last month, the Washington Post reported a conflict between Petraeus and Obama’s counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, over control of the expanding drone assassination program. Petraeus, the newspaper noted, wanted to expand the CIA’s fleet of armed drones, while Brennan was leading a drive to curtail the CIA role in the program and give more control to the military.

The Wall Street Journal reported last Thursday, in a front-page article, that in his final days at the CIA Petraeus clashed with his nominal superior, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as well as the Pentagon, the State Department and “other agencies, over his response to criticisms of the CIA over the Benghazi attack. Over objections from all of these quarters, Petraeus released to the press a timeline of the CIA response to the attack.”

The Journal reported a “senior military official” as saying: “We conveyed our objections. Multiple agencies did.”

Clapper, the newspaper said, was unaware that the timeline would be made public. One week later, on Election Day, the FBI reportedly informed Clapper of its investigation of Petraeus. Clapper promptly told Petraeus he should resign.

The Benghazi events are a factor in a deepening political crisis within the US ruling class and the state that is exacerbating internal differences over aspects of US foreign policy. It is a long-established pattern for sex scandals to be used to settle such political scores.

Student activism at the City University of New York (CUNY) has been on the rise, with protests against the teaching position at the Macaulay Honors College for former Pentagon commander and CIA Director David Petraeus. Meanwhile, on the campus of the City College of New York (CCNY), a wave of protests erupted in response to the administration’s move to shut down the Morales-Shakur Center, a vital student-community center on campus: here.

David Petraeus facing possible criminal charges – reports. General who quit as head of CIA after extramarital affair has been investigated over lover’s possible access to classified material: here.

US Afghanistan commander under investigation

This video from the USA says about itself:

Nov 12, 2012 by CNN

CNN’s Piers Morgan talks to filmmaker Oliver Stone about retired Gen. David Petraeus‘ career and his affair.

From Voice of America News:

Head of US Forces in Afghanistan Under Investigation

Tuesday, 13 November 2012

The U.S. Defense Department is investigating General John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, for alleged “inappropriate communications” with a woman involved in the scandal that led to the resignation of Central Intelligence Agency chief David Petraeus.

A senior defense official said Tuesday that the Pentagon is reviewing more than 20,000 pages of emails and other communications between General Allen and Jill Kelley. The official did not specify the nature of the documents.

Kelley is a friend of Petraeus, and it was her complaint to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about threatening emails from the woman with whom Petraeus had an affair that ultimately led to his resignation last Friday.

Pentagon spokesman George Little said the FBI brought the matter involving General Allen to the Defense Department Sunday, and that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has directed the department’s inspector-general to investigate.

General Allen has denied any wrongdoing, and will retain his command position in Afghanistan while the probe continues.

President Barack Obama nominated the general last month to become the Commander of U.S. European Command and the next Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

The Pentagon spokesman said the president has placed the nominations on hold, and that Secretary Panetta has asked the Senate to delay its confirmation hearings for the posts.

Petraeus sex [?] scandal traps ANOTHER general: CIA boss’s successor in Afghanistan ‘sent THOUSANDS of inappropriate emails to socialite’: here.

Petraeus Scandal Engulfs Afghanistan War Chief: here.

Fall of the House of Petraeus? Here.

CIA boss resignation, really about Libya?

This video from the USA is called CNBC: BENGHAZI IS NOT ABOUT LIBYA. “It’s An NSC Operation Moving Arms & Fighters Into Syria”.

By Barry Grey in the USA:

The Petraeus affair

12 November 2012

According to the official story surrounding the sudden resignation of Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus, the departure of the former commander of US and allied forces first in Iraq and then in Afghanistan was the result of a personal moral lapse, unrelated to political or intelligence issues.

As the Washington Post, quoting a “senior intelligence official,” wrote on Sunday, “This is a very personal matter, not a matter of intelligence.”

On Friday, Petraeus released a statement to CIA staff in which he said President Obama had accepted his request, submitted the previous day, to resign from the agency. The retired four-star general gave as the sole reason for this step his involvement in an extramarital affair. “Such behavior is unacceptable,” he wrote, “both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.”

The claim, generally being promoted by both the media and the political establishment, that Petraeus’ resignation has no political dimension is not credible. From the reporting thus far of the circumstances surrounding his exit, it is impossible to determine with any precision the specific political issues involved. However, given who Petreaus is and the nature of the various institutions affected, his resignation cannot fail to involve significant political questions.

Regarding the circumstances leading up to his resignation, various media reports, in virtually all cases citing unnamed sources, have converged in general terms on the following narrative:

Last spring, a female associate of Petraeus, identified Sunday as 37-year-old Jill Kelley of Tampa, Florida, reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that she had received threatening emails from Paula Broadwell, a 40-year-old writer who recently authored a glowing biography of Petreaus.

Kelley is the State Department liaison to the military’s Special Operations Command. Broadwell is a wife and mother, graduate of the US Military Academy, and Army reserve officer. She spent a year in Afghanistan in close contact with the general when he was commanding the occupation forces there.

The FBI, an agency of the Justice Department, launched an investigation several months ago and came across emails between Petraeus and Broadwell making clear they were involved in an extramarital affair. Some press reports speak of unwarranted access by Broadwell to Petreaus’ personal email account as well as unspecified classified documents.

At some point the FBI interviewed both Petraeus and Broadwell. However, the FBI and Justice Department purportedly concluded that there had been no security breach and no laws had been broken.

For reasons unexplained, neither Congress nor the White House was informed of the FBI investigation of the CIA director until after last Tuesday’s election. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, nominally Petraeus’ superior, was supposedly informed only Tuesday afternoon. The White House was told Wednesday, but Obama himself learned of the affair only Thursday when he met with Petraeus. Obama told the CIA head he wanted 24 hours to consider his request to resign, and on Friday accepted the resignation.

Various members of congressional intelligence committees interviewed on Sunday news programs said they had no advance knowledge at all of either the investigation or the resignation. Some called for a congressional probe into the FBI handling of the case.

This bizarre scenario, very possibly involving violations of laws requiring disclosure to Congress of significant intelligence matters, itself strongly suggests unstated political agendas and conflicts. For one thing, all of this was taking place in the run-up to the presidential election and being concealed from the electorate.

Moreover, Petraeus was scheduled to testify this week in closed session before both the House and the Senate intelligence committees on the role of the CIA in connection with the September 11 assault on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of the US ambassador and three other Americans, including two CIA operatives. Both committees now say he will not appear before them this week, although some committee members have suggested he might be called to testify at a later point.

The events in Benghazi have far-reaching implications, since they involve Washington’s alliance with jihadist forces, including those linked to Al Qaeda, in last year’s war to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. This alliance continues in the current drive for regime-change in Syria.

The fact, as well, that one of the US ruling class’ chief police-intelligence agencies launched a probe resulting in the downfall of the head of a rival agency suggests that questions of policy as well as “turf” and status were involved.

Last month, the Washington Post, in a series of articles on Obama’s expansion and institutionalization of extrajudicial drone assassinations, took note of differences between Petraeus and Obama’s counterterrorism chief, John Brennan. Pointing out that Petraeus was pressing for an expansion of the CIA’s fleet of armed drone aircraft, the Post wrote:

“Brennan is leading efforts to curtail the CIA’s primary responsibility for targeted killings. Over opposition from the agency, he has argued that it should focus on intelligence activities and leave lethal action to its more traditional home in the military, where the law requires greater transparency.”

Regardless of how the crisis engulfing Petraeus arose, the decisions regarding its handling were political. If one accepts the official narrative, the question arises: Why did Obama decide, after being told of the sexual affair by Petraeus on Thursday, to accept his resignation? As some commentators have pointed out, in light of the reported absence of a security breach or violation of law, Obama could very well have treated the entire affair as a merely personal matter that did not warrant Petraeus’ departure.

This brings us to another important aspect of the Petraeus affair: the perverse political environment in which a fairly commonplace event in marital affairs is treated as something akin to a felony, often becoming the pretext for settling political scores.

Petraeus is a deeply reactionary figure, but he has not been brought down because of war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. Rather, he has been declared unfit because of perhaps the first reported act that indicates he is human.

As military journalist Tom Ricks told CNN: “You put an officer out there on repeated tours and if he doesn’t slip, I’d be surprised. What he have today is shocking proof that Gen. Petraeus is a human being.”

The fall of Petraeus is but the latest example of the extraordinary degree to which sex has become a powerful instrument of political and personal control.

Libya: Failed Nato Mission Exposes U.S. Generals: here.

CIA boss Petraeus resigns over infidelity

This video says about itself:

Nov 9, 2012

One of America’s best known military leaders, and CIA head, David Petraeus, has abruptly announced his resignation. Stepping down, Petraeus admitted to an extramarital affair, saying he was guilty of “unacceptable” behavior. Ex-military intelligence officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Tony Shaffer told RT there’s more behind the resignation than just moral issues.

General David Petraeus, boss of the CIA in the USA, has resigned.

Why? Because of war crimes committed while he was commander in Iraq?

Because of war crimes committed while he was commander in Afghanistan?

Because of CIA torture scandals?

No, because of a woman.

Did General Petraeus rape that woman, like quite some US women soldiers were raped by colleagues?


General David Petraeus loses his job because of a consensual sexual relationship.

It reminds me of 1999, when the US Republican party tried to impeach President Bill Clinton.

Why? Because of Clinton’s 1999 NATO war against Yugoslavia?

No. The top Republican politicians then, candidates for the 2000 presidential election George W Bush and John McCain, and 1996 presidential candidate Bob Dole, agreed with that war.

The Republicans tried to impeach Clinton because of a consensual sexual relationship.

Back to Petraeus. From the BBC:

10 November 2012

CIA director David Petraeus resigns over affair

CIA director David Petraeus has resigned from his post, admitting he had an extra-marital affair.

In a statement, Mr Petraeus described his behaviour as “unacceptable” for the leader of the nation’s main intelligence agency.

Unnamed officials said Mr Petraeus conducted the affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

Mr Petraeus became CIA boss in 2011 after heading international forces in Iraq and later in Afghanistan.

David Petraeus: From Extrajudicial to Extramarital: here.