Obama can’t believe his luck. The full fledged national security disaster that is BenghaziGate has turned into a seedy tabloid sex scandal that the ObamaMedia is now tripping over each other to cover.
The Washington Post reported:
PERTH, Australia — The FBI probe into the sex scandal that prompted CIA Director David Petraeus to resign has expanded to ensnare Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, the Pentagon announced early Tuesday.
According to a senior U.S. defense official, the FBI has uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of documents — most of them e-mails — that contain “potentially inappropriate” communication between Allen and Jill Kelley, the 37-year-old Tampa woman whose report of harassment by a person who turned out to be Petraeus’s mistress ultimately led to Petraeus’s downfall. (Video fixed)
video via ABC News
20,000 to 30,000 pages of emails to his paramour? This man is a prolific writer. How did he find time to run the war in Afghanistan?
Frank Gaffney at the Washington Times examined the boring old national security implications of the Petraeus scandal.
We have learned that Gen. Petraeus‘ lover, Paula Broadwell, had classified information on her personal computer. She and her paramour both deny that he was its source. It is unclear whether either was polygraphed, or whether the FBIis simply taking their word for it. Either way, we need to know if the security breach (whatever its provenance) is going to be pursued. Or will it be dropped, with potentially far-reaching implications for how others treat state secrets?
- Citing multiple intelligence sources who had served in Benghazi, the aforementioned Fox News report indicates, moreover, that Ms. Broadwell appears to have actually disclosed such secrets. It seems she revealed in a speech at the University of Denver in October that the so-called CIA “annex” in Benghazi was being used to detain and interrogate jihadists from around the region. The Agency vehemently denies this account, noting that the CIA has not had the authority to engage in such activities since President Obama expressly eliminated it in an executive order upon taking office in January 2009. Still, if the Broadwell revelation — which, it seems reasonable to surmise, came from her intimate access to a man who would have known the truth – is any indication, Team Obama would have had plenty of reason to worry about the damage Gen. Petraeus could do to its hopes for reelection.
- Another activity in which the CIA’s Benghazi station was reportedly engaged posed risk to Mr. Obama’s reelection. The station was covertly helping an international effort to arm the so-called “Syrian opposition” by shipping weapons recovered from “liberated” Qaddafi-era caches. If, as the New York Times has reported, the bulk of the armaments being sent thither by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are winding up in the hands of the most radical Islamist elements, some supplied by us are likely reaching al Qaeda operatives.
Thus, we potentially have a full-scale national security disaster on our hands. Imagine, for example, even a few of Qaddafi’s thousands of surface-to-air missiles being used, not to shoot down Syrian air force jets and helicopters, but U.S. airliners, here or abroad. Who will be held accountable if that happens?
Presumably, CIA Director Petraeus would have been intimately familiar with the details of what his operatives in Benghazi were up to. That would certainly have been true after their station was murderously attacked and (as Ms. Broadwell suggested to her audience in Denver) he swiftly established that it was a terrorist attack. He would, therefore, have to have knowingly dissembled when, shortly thereafter in the course of hastily organized briefings on Capitol Hill, he parroted the Obama administration meme that this act of jihad was actually just a spontaneous response to a provocative video.
In light of the general’s reputation for integrity, could he have been coerced by a White House determined to deflect and deceive at least until election day, in a position to destroy his career?
Sound implausible? Well, is it any more implausible than this: Ronald Kessler reports at Newsmax.com that, “FBI agents investigating CIA Director David Petraeus’s affair were shocked when told by Bureau officials that, despite the national security implications, no action would be taken on their findings until after the presidential election.”
Oh, and just when you think things couldn’t possibly get worse, there’s this….
The Blaze reports: Susan Rice Now a Definite Favorite for Secretary of State:
Last week, when President Obama won reelection, we predicted that despite her highly odd behavior in the aftermath of the attacks in Benghazi, UN Ambassador Susan Rice would almost certainly still be a favorite to replace retiring Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now several reports – as aggregated by the National Journal – are confirming precisely that.
First, there is a New York Times report, which states:
Ms. Rice, an outspoken, ambitious diplomat with close ties to Mr. Obama, has emerged as the clear favorite. But she would face stiff resistance on Capitol Hill, where she has come under withering criticism from Republicans for asserting that the deadly attack on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya, might have been a spontaneous protest rather than a terrorist attack.
Then, there is this passage from a Washington Post story:
Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with the transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.[...]
So they’re actually considering the lying liar Susan Rice for Sec of State, and the deplorable, and treasonous Lurch for Sec of Defense. I’m sure you’ll agree we’re in the best of hands.
John Nolte, Big Journalism:Your Guide To Understanding the Media for the Next Four Years:
Last week, as the Petraeus sex scandal broke, The Mighty Charles Krauthammer said something that got a lot of play in New Media. He seemed certain that “sex” and the fact that Barack Obama was safely reelected would be the tipping point that drove the media to cover what’s become known as “BenghaziGate.” Normally, if I disagree with Krauthamme,r I just assume I’m the one who’s wrong. But I knew that wouldn’t be the case here. And it hasn’t been.
The media did exactly what I predicted it would. The sex scandal has been compartmentalized by the media and even used as a distraction to avoid the Obama Administration’s dreadful handling of the situation in Libya — from security failures to cover-up. Moreover, we’re now seeing The Narrative move even further away from the White House and Libya, as the scandal is used to tarnish Petraeus’ achievements in Iraq (a war the Left will always hate and still hopes we lose) and the military as a whole.
Put simply, we have to get our minds around the fact that the media’s over-arching goal is and always has been “History.” For the media to affirm everything about itself, Obama must be remembered as One Of History’s Great Presidents. Everything the media’s done since Obama climbed onto the national stage has been geared towards exactly that.
Case in point via Weasel Zippers: Carney: “It Is Simply A Fact” White House Didn’t Learn Of Months-Long Petraeus Investigation Until Day After Election…
O-tay then. Carney they didn’t know so they didn’t know. Case closed.