View Full Version : Wow! Check Out What Patraeus' Mistress Said! Oct26

Gayle in MD
11-12-2012, 10:48 AM
October 26, 2012
University Of Denver:

Broadwater states:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA Annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the Consolate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back, so that's, that's still being vetted....</div></div>

Multiple government officials have told media that in the course of a cyberstalking harrassment investigation, initiated by a 'friend' (?) of Patreaus, also the FBI friend of a woman in Tampa who claimed to be a "victim" of the cyberstalking threats, the FBI was led to Broadwell, and discovered e-mail evidence of her affair with the general, so FBI got a court order to look into Broadwell's e-mails, and the General cooperated and allowed them access to his.

Week of October 29, Patraeus & Broadwell were interviewed by FBI, and both confirmed the affair, and it was the second time Broadwell had been interviewed.

Nov 2, Broadwell's final interview leads to FBI conclusion that there was no basis for criminal charges.

Nov. 6, DNI's Director James Clapper was than told about the probe, annd the discovery of the affair, which led to Pataeus's resignation that weekend.

No criminal activity? Then why did they tell Clapper, at all?

FBi investigates potential crimes.

Number one, it is not the FBI's habit, practice and is against their rules to tell other agencies of government what they're investigating, while they're in the middle of investigations, unless they need that agency's help.

So, FBI didn't know what they had until they had all the facts together, looking at computers, interviewing those involved, interviewed Broadwell twice, since she was the original target of the investigation, and then going to prosecutors who finally say, no, no laws were broken, and it is only at that point that they finally tell Clapper.

According to Andrea Mitchell, there was a stage in all of this where FBI did find some Classfied information on Broadwell's computer, and until FBI established that Broadwell, who had so many different connections she was moving, did not get any information directrly from the General, and the FBI found that the source of the classfied information that was supposedly on her computer was not from the CIA Director, they still had an open investigation.

So far, by that point, the FBI has nothing legally against her, or against Patraeus.

They initially did not know who was sending the harassing e-mails to the woman in Tampa, until they traced some of them back to Patraeus's computer, and they then thought that someone had hacked into his computer, not that they were from Genneral Patraeus.

So, originally, the woman in Tampa, who supposedly has an FBI "Friend" in Tampa, contacted her FBI "Friend" about being a victim of cyberstalking threats, and he then goes and tells others in the FBI, and tells Cantor???

Everyone in the FBI, and Justice, and the White House, backs up the president's claim that he didn't hear anything about this, until Thursday morning, after the election. The people at the White HOuse didn't hear anything about it until Wednesday afternoon or evening.

Why didn't Cantor do anything about this, since he supposedly knew way back in October??


11-12-2012, 11:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA Annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the Consolate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back, so that's, that's still being vetted....</div></div>This sure would be a lot more believable than the lie Obama touted for 14 days about some video on Youtube being the reason.


Gayle in MD
11-12-2012, 12:28 PM
You know Ed, I am sick and tired of your lies about President Obama.

The president never said that ONLY the film, was an issue.

The whole damned world knows that the president stated annd addressed that they were terror attacks.

Did you even watch the debates??? Are you really THAT uninformed? Even Romney got blown away for telling such a lie, so the only reason why you would write something so blatantly intrue, is to irritate others, which is what you love to do.

At the same time, there were also many demonstrations, and violence going on, in that region, and elsewhere, and that, too was over that movie.

So yes, there were protests, AND terrorist attacks. What do you not understand about that?

What is it you don't get about the FACT that both things were happening, and the President addressed both of them early on.

Additionally, if you can't answer a question without your usual trash talk, and juvenile attacks and insults, then just go on your way, because we all know about your own eight years during Bush, of consistant, twisted, convoluted, partisan denials, which are legendary around here, and it does get old after we all obsserved your eight years of non stop denials over blatant law breaking, incompetence, lies, deceit, and corruption of Bush et al, that you try to claim that others are hypocrites, but not youself!

NO the president did not lie. He told us what he knew when he knew it, within one day of the attack, and that sort of information takes months to completely investigate, as any person with half a brain, would know.

Additionally, I have not come across one good reason why he would even think he needed to lie. We've had loads of our Embassies, AND consolates, attacked over the decades. AND many times under Bush, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, we have had terrorist attacks which, BTW several were never even retaliated for by either Bush ONE OR REAGAN.

So your irrational BS, is just that. More partisan dribble, without any facts behind it.

Irrational, Repiglican DENIAL and intentional dishonesty.


Gayle in MD
11-12-2012, 12:59 PM
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Paula Broadwell Emails Sent To State Department Military Liaison: AP Source </span>Paula Broadwell, the woman reported to be having an affair with CIA Director David Petraeus, sent harassing emails to State Department official, the AP reported.

Jill Kelley, the woman who received emails from Broadwell that prompted her to alert FBI, reportedly works as a State Department military liaison.

According to the Washington Post, the woman was "frightened" for her safety and contacted the FBI for protection. The Post describes the emails as "threatening."

The New York Times reported that the woman's complaint led the FBI to learn of Petraeus' affair. According to the Times, officials decided to investigate Broadwell and stumbled upon emails that revealed the relationship.

Broadwell is an expert on military affairs and the author of a biography on Petraeus. She is married with two children and lives in Charlotte, N.C.

Petraeus is married to Holly Petraeus, who is the assistant director of service-member affairs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

MSNBC broke the news of the affair, and Petraeus' decision to resign as CIA Director, on Friday.

According to the New York Times, some senior members of Congress were alerted of the news several hours before the story broke. White House officials knew as early as Wednesday night.

Here's more from the AP:

WASHINGTON — A senior U.S. military official says the author who had an affair with David Petraeus sent harassing emails to a woman who was the State Department's liaison to the military's Joint Special Operations Command.

The official says 37-year-old Jill Kelley in Tampa, Fla., received the emails from Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell that triggered an FBI investigation.

The official was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Another person who knows Kelley and Petraeus confirmed their friendship and said she saw him often.

Petraeus quit as CIA director last week after acknowledging an extramarital relationship with a woman – later identified as Broadwell.

The FBI probe began several months ago with a complaint against Broadwell. That investigation led to Broadwell's email account, which uncovered the relationship with Petraeus.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11...lide=more262485 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/paula-broadwell-emails-david-petraeus-state-department_n_2114319.html#slide=more262485)

Paula Broadwell Access To Classified Information Raises Questions
Paula Broadwell, whose reported relationship with former CIA director David Petraeus hastened the end of his career last week, may have revealed classified information about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, during a speech last month, raising new questions about the biographer's access.

In an October speech at the University of Denver, Broadwell mentioned a previously unknown detail about the attacks in Benghazi, which had recently flared into controversy that threatened to envelop Petraeus.

Noting that the CIA director was under pressure to not publicly defend himself because of the sensitive nature of the CIA's activities in Libya, Broadwell mentioned that the agency was holding "a couple of Libyan militia members" as prisoners in a secure annex.

"They think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back," she said.

Broadwell eventually cited Fox News for this information, although the earlier Fox report that uncovered the CIA's role in Benghazi, by Jennifer Griffin, made no mention of prisoners.

On Monday, however, Griffin reported that the CIA had in fact been holding prisoners at the time of the attack, and had been conducting interrogations at the complex in the days before.

The CIA has adamantly denied the reports, and it's also possible that Broadwell was misspeaking or misinterpreting existing news reports.

It's not the first time Broadwell has boasted of an unusual level of access to the inner workings of Petraeus' world.

In a speech this summer at the Aspen Institute, Broadwell noted that she regularly had access to classified information in the course of her work in Afghanistan, when she was embedded for about a year in 2010 and 2011.

"I was entrusted with this opportunity to sit in on high level meetings with General Petraeus. Sitting in on SCIF [sensitive compartmented information facility] meetings in the morning, listen to classified chatter of terrorist talk and so forth. And I had that background anyhow, so I knew a lot of that information for my writing, but I knew there was a clear line that I couldn’t cross when I was writing it out," Broadwell said, according to remarks recounted by Politico.

It's not clear how inappropriate Broadwell's access was. As an Army reservist with a background in counterintelligence, Broadwell had a high-level security clearance.

It is also not unusual for reporters embedded with the military in war zones to encounter classified information or spend time in secure compartmented information facilities. The standard non-disclosure agreement for reporters embedding with the military in Afghanistan, for instance, includes pledges not to reveal any specific plans or classified information the reporter might see.

Petraeus was also famous for granting reporters extraordinary access to his thought process and planning, and as The Washington Post reported on Monday, he even afforded permanent office space to a pair of conservative Washington, D.C. think-tankers at his military headquarters.

It may have been this general tendency that Broadwell was referencing when she wrote, in the introduction to her 2012 biography of the general, "I took full advantage of his open-door policy to seek insight and share perspectives."

But Broadwell's access appears to have raised red flags even during her embed, and the concerns continued long after her embed was over, when her relationship with the general reportedly took place.

Former aides have told The Washington Post that they found the general's closeness with Broadwell unusual, and were frequently troubled by the level of access she appeared to have while in Afghanistan.

Officials at the CIA also told the Associated Press that they had been taken by surprise when Broadwell posted a photograph taken at the agency's Langley headquarters on her personal Facebook page.

When the FBI later opened its investigation into the relationship between Broadwell and Petraeus this summer, following clues that appeared to suggest someone may have hacked into the director of the CIA's email account, they found classified documents on Broadwell's personal computer, according the The Wall Street Journal.

Investigators eventually concluded that the documents had not been given to Broadwell by Petraeus, and dropped that line of inquiry.


<span style="color: #660000">How is that our FBI assumes that this woman, whom we know has been involved in living a lie, not pose a threat to our national Security?

And why would it be an advantage to us to have a director of the CIA, allow such broad access by people who are NOT serving officially as CIA Agents?


11-12-2012, 04:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know Ed, I am sick and tired of your lies about President Obama.</div></div>To quote hondo, "Would you like some cheese with that whine?"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The whole damned world knows that the president stated annd addressed that they were terror attacks. </div></div>You wish. He couldn't even admit that when asked directly. He mentioned it was a terrorist attack once. He mentioned the video as the reason for 14 straight days. You can deny but then again you have to do that because you are not able to be honest in this situation.


Gayle in MD
11-12-2012, 07:19 PM
You may think you're being cute, but you simply prove, over and over that you are out of touch with reality.

You are absolutely wrong, twisting reality either out of pure ignorance of the facts, or intentionally, in order to assuage your penchant for being disagreeable and irritating.

Either way, it's still a lie on your part to suggest that the president has lied about the attack.

To Quote Q's and Soflas's past statements to you, "Just because you write something, doesn't make it true."

Everything has been reported on this, and it is a lie to say that the president tried to lie about anything.

Saying that there were outbursts over the film, does not exclude that fact that he immeidately responded to the attacks, by refering to them as TERRORIST ATTACKS.

Here is the timeline:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his top military adviser were notified of the attack about 50 minutes after it began and were about to head into a previously scheduled meeting with President Barack Obama. The meeting quickly turned into a discussion of potential responses to the unfolding situation in Benghazi, where militants had surrounded the consulate and set it on fire. The first wave of the attack at the consulate lasted less than two hours.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in the attack. Intelligence, State Department and military officials have released details on the response in an effort to answer Republican criticism that the administration was holding back what and when it knew about the assault.

Panetta and other defense officials have repeatedly said that they did not have armed aircraft or military teams near Benghazi that could have gotten there quickly.

But there have been persistent questions about whether the Pentagon should have moved more rapidly to get troops into Libya or had units closer to the area as the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America approached. In particular, there was at least a 19-hour gap between the time when Panetta first ordered military units to prepare to deploy — between midnight and 2 a.m. local time in Tripoli — and the time a Marine anti-terrorism team landed in Tripoli, which as just before 9 p.m.

A senior defense official on Friday said forces were at the ready around the globe, but it took time to assess the murky situation, evaluate the threats, put plans in place and get the teams there. With the situation on the ground rapidly evolving, military officials have said there were a number of potential scenarios that had to be evaluated, including concerns that the violence could continue for some time or there could be a hostage situation to which commandos might have to respond.

In a letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Friday, Panetta specifically addressed the claim that the military could have dispatched armed unmanned aerial vehicles, AC-130 gunships or fighter jets to thwart the attack. Such aircraft were not in the region and not an effective option, he said.

Panetta said that based on a continuous evaluation of threats, military forces were spread around Europe and the Middle East to deal with a variety of missions. In the months before the attack, he noted, "several hundred reports were received indicating possible threats to U.S. facilities around the world" and noted that there was no advance notice of imminent threats to U.S. personnel or facilities in Benghazi

<span style="color: #990000"> We can't be everywhere, all the time, regardless of John McCain's stupid criticisms, no doubt residen from his own loss in his quest for the presidency.

In fact, I haven't seen any of the par for the course, kind of efforts we saw throughout the Bush Administration, to covering up, and block any and every investigation of their failures, and law breaking, coming out of this administration, at all. </span>

The attack began at about 9:40 p.m. local time in Benghazi. Less than 20 minutes later, the U.S. military began moving an unarmed drone to a position over Benghazi, so it could provide real time intelligence to the CIA team on the ground. The CIA team went to aid the Americans at the consulate. The drone arrived shortly after 11 p.m. By 11:30 p.m., a CIA team was able to get all the Americans out of the compound.

As that was happening, Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, left the Oval Office and went into a series of meetings in the Pentagon with senior leaders to discuss how to respond to the Benghazi attack and assess the potential for other outbreaks of violence in the region.

Between midnight and 2 a.m., Panetta began to issue verbal orders, telling two Marine anti-terrorism teams based in Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Libya, and he ordered a team of special operations forces in Central Europe and another team of special operations forces in the U.S. to prepare to deploy to a staging base in Europe.

As the military units begin moving, just before dawn, the Americans in Benghazi, who were now at the CIA base less than a mile away from the consulate, again came under attack around 5:15 a.m. when five mortars were fired at the building. Two missed, but three hit, killing two CIA security officers who were on the roof.

The Americans fired back and soon afterward fled the CIA base for the airport. By 10 a.m., they had flown out, heading to Tripoli. Shortly after 7 p.m., the Americans, including the bodies of the four dead, were flown out of Tripoli on a military aircraft.

Not until just before 8 p.m., however, did the first U.S. military unit arrive in the region, as the special operations team landed at Cigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily. An hour later, the Marine team landed in Tripoli. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The defense official noted that even if the military had been able to get units there a bit faster, there was no way they could have gotten there in time to make any difference in the deaths of the four Americans.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>"The U.S. Armed Forces did everything they were in position to do to respond to the attack in Benghazi," Panetta said in the letter, obtained by The Associated Press. "The department's senior leaders and I spared no effort to save the lives of our American colleagues, as we worked to bolster security in response to a series of other threats in the region occurring at the same time."</span>

<span style="color: #990000"> Both things were happening, at the same time, protests and demonstrations over the film, AND terrorist attacks.

End of story. </span>

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83713_Page2.html#ixzz2C4gi71kq

11-13-2012, 08:50 AM
I think I am being cute? No, I am being truthful. It is high time you try it out for once.


Gayle in MD
11-13-2012, 10:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think I am being cute? No, I am being truthful. It is high time you try it out for once.

eg8r </div></div>

To Quote Q's and Soflas's past statements to you, "Just because you write something, doesn't make it true."

11-13-2012, 10:52 AM
LOL, would you like more cheese with that whine?


Gayle in MD
11-13-2012, 11:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, would you like more cheese with that whine?

eg8r </div></div>

Would you like more whine with that green cheese from the moon, you peddle around here?

Anything to divert the thread, right Egh8tr?

Ever read the definition of a troll?

Look up Egh8tr in the dictionary!


11-15-2012, 01:40 PM
Don't be misled ... it's spelled P E T R A E U S.

11-15-2012, 02:26 PM
I don't care. Why are you even bothering to call anyone out on their spelling?


11-15-2012, 07:52 PM
No, no, no!

You have to encourage the slower ones whenever they get something right, however trivial!!

Nice catch, little LWW!