? http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001iXIUy3Vz-XwMzSeFhHIV_-TNqOq6VRIWMGFhGO-q6sLPkupIkSpRRyrfdUTtN-YVYt1hfFvgU1Gvz3O21nzxKXXlge1QpGbuzswzd3tITbg%3D
Federal investigators lying through their teeth in the Petraeus probe
By Jon Rappoport
November 16, 2012
The punchline of
this story is an unconstitutional US imperial war machine, dedicated to
empire, contributing to a Globalist planet by destabilizing and causing
massive chaos in the Middle East and Africa.
In this criminal
effort, one American soldier has stood out above the rest. He has been
made into a heroic myth. He represents the best of the best.
Seeing his
character, his honor, millions of Americans have concluded that whatever
our Armed Forces are doing, it must be right and good.
If David Petraeus is our fearless leader, we're on the side of the angels.
If he succumbed to
a moment of misguided passion, we can forgive him. His grand portrait
must continue to hang on the wall. Petraeus gives legitimacy to war,
destruction, empire-building.
He's the scoop of vanilla ice cream on the poisonous pie.
So the general will be given protection.
An hour ago, he
testified behind closed doors, to Congressional committees, claiming he
knew, within a day, that the Benghazi attack was launched by terrorists.
So far, reporters' questions indicate Petraeus won't be hammered hard
about why he has changed his story. In September, he blamed an
anti-Muslim video for the attacks. Now it's terrorists. Incredibly,
the protection of the general's reputation is holding, to this point.
Meanwhile, federal
agencies, trying to figure out how deep the Petraeus scandal really
goes, are fashioning a cover story, to shield the guilty.
From the NY Daily
News: "Reuters reported on Wednesday that investigators found
substantial classified information on a computer used by [Paula]
Broadwell. According to law enforcement and national security sources,
investigators are examining whether the information should have been
stored under more secure conditions."
That's a
double-talk lie. You don't need to consult complicated manuals to know
that, when you transfer classified information to a place it doesn't
belong, a home computer, you're already breaking the law.
And when the FBI
can quickly find the classified data on the home computer, as they did,
you realize it wasn't buried under sophisticated protection. So that's
another clear indication of a crime.
You might as well have secret memos lying on the kitchen counter.
The feds are lying about this. What else are they lying about?
It's obvious the
whole Washington establishment and their media allies are lying, too.
They're trying to stitch together a fake story to cover a horrendous
series of security breaches.
And what secrets may sit under those breaches.
For example, was
Broadwell, an experienced Army officer, leaving classified data in open
view because she was trying to sink Petraeus by association? Was this
part of her plan? If so, there is little doubt she was involved in a
full-scale, long-term operation, whose leaders remain unknown.
Broadwell, whose
only visible track record as a published writer, aside from academic
papers, was a pair of dry op-ed pieces in the Boston Herald and the NY
Times, was suddenly co-writing a biography of the most famous soldier in
America.
This is now
explained by Petraeus' sexual attraction to her. But on her side, she
dedicated a tremendous amount of effort to meeting and charming the
general. She traveled to Afghanistan to seal the deal. It doesn't
require a great leap to suspect she was working a classic honey-trap.
Here is a rogue's gallery of top government officials telling lies..
FBI Director
Robert Mueller claims he was unaware of an investigation into Petraeus
until after the election. This is about as likely as a drunken sailor
climbing the side of the Empire State Building.
Leon Panetta, the
secretary of defense, is playing "I know of no other names in the
scandal," as if he's the executive producer of TMZ, presiding over a
tabloid story. "I only know what I read in the papers," he says.
Eric Holder,
contemplating his next cushy job in the private sector, casually states
there were no national-security implications discovered in the
Petraeus-Broadwell case.
Holder's
off-the-cuff "final judgment" about national security implications is
ludicrous. In a case with this much potential for leaks of classified
data and blackmail, he's clueless. He's just spouting what he'd been
told to.
Obama
himself is adopting a relaxed attitude. Commenting on Petraeus at his
first press conference since winning reelection, he astoundingly said,
"My main hope right now is that he and his family will be able to move
on." Was he doing a Dr. Phil impression?
Several conservative pundits have speculated that the White House held the Broadwell affair over Petraeus' head to force him to say, in September, that the Benghazi attack was the result of an amateur film trailer.
Several conservative pundits have speculated that the White House held the Broadwell affair over Petraeus' head to force him to say, in September, that the Benghazi attack was the result of an amateur film trailer.
A flood of liberal pundits have responded to these claims, calling them woo-woo conspiracy theories.
No surprise here. Conservatives go after the White House. Liberals defend the White House.
Neither side is willing to look at the big picture.
And neither side
gives a thought to how the intelligence establishment views this
scandal, as loud alarm bells keep ringing at Langley.
Let's see. Not a
CIA agent, but the director of the CIA has a secret affair with a woman
who is not his wife. This woman has a significant amount of classified
information on her unsecured computer at home.
She herself is
compromised and vulnerable, because she is having an affair with him and
she is married. And no one knows who she might be covertly working
for.
Before the CIA
director publicly confesses the affair and resigns, he has access to
millions and millions of pieces of highly secret CIA data, some of which
even the president never gets to see.
No one, however, is particularly worried that the general may have been blackmailed.
What would blackmailers seek to get from Petraeus?
In addition to what knows from his tenure at the CIA, he served at the top of the heap in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He was in Iraq,
where billions of dollars in "US aid" went missing. Who stole the
money? Those names? An extremely useful nugget, if Petraeus could
provide it.
Then in
Afghanistan, details on the restructured heroin-trade operation would be
another gem. As would reports on poppy yields and the names of drug
warlords who were replacing old mainstays. Dope Inc. is a
trillion-dollar business, and what Petraeus could pass along would rate
as prime industrial espionage. He would know a great deal about US
government involvement in drug trafficking.
Then you have oil
deals vis-a-vis the hoped-for Afghan pipeline. Can't tell the shifting
players without a scorecard. You've got newly minted Russian oligarchs,
Chinese operatives, competing oil companies, bank financiers, drug
kings looking for a place to wash and multiply their money. Everybody
and his brother wants a slice of that action.
Petraeus was there
on the ground. He was connected. Anything he knew about oil deals
would be prized intelligence, useful to a great many competitors.
General MacArthur
once said, "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away." Now old
soldiers reach out for the cash. The unimaginative ones sit on boards
of security companies and defense contractors. The clever ones dig
deeper. Holding companies, banks, finance groups, places where sums of
money that would make you reel cross over the transom every day, as the
global laundry machine pumps away digital blood and bankrupts nations.
Paying off a
general and a CIA director (if you can) to extract very, very valuable
intell and information is a natural. Having an affair to hang over his
head, an affair to which he has not confessed, is a jackpot.
But no one is particularly worried that Petraeus may have passed information on to blackmailers.
Then we have this.
The general had an enormous amount of information about the US Armed
Forces' strengths and weaknesses, about classified military bases, about
deployment numbers, special ops missions, weapons capabilities and
limitations in the field, under actual battle conditions. He knew other
generals and officers, and could speak, authoritatively, to their
methods, abilities, and deficiencies. If they had personal secrets, he
would have known some of them.
But no one is
particularly worried that Petraeus may have passed information on to
blackmailers. It's only important that he and his family can move on.
During his tenure
in the Army and the CIA, Petraeus spoke with Obama many times. He could
offer up, from personal experience, assessments of the president's
character, methods, operational strengths and weaknesses.
But no one is particularly worried that Petraeus could have passed information on to blackmailers.
There is Benghazi.
Petraeus has crucial information about what actually happened there.
There is a good chance he could sink the president's second term before
it even begins.
But no one seems worried Petraeus could have already passed on that information to blackmailers.
No one seems
worried because they're quaking in their boots and covering up their
fear. They're hoping against hope that the artificial portrait they had
painted of Petraeus, as a mythical national hero, holds together long
enough to let the ongoing uproar fade down the memory hole.
There are other
matters as well. Petraeus could offer blackmailers an inside view of
West Point, the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense.
He could discuss,
in intimate detail, perception vs. reality vis-a-vis the inner workings
of the CIA, conflicts within the White House. He could disclose secrets
about defense contractors, future US weaponry, the revamping of the
Armed Forces, classified experiments at DARPA, research on creating the
"superior soldier," dissident military officers who are against the
president and his policies and might be trying to drum up various
rebellions in the ranks.
And much, much more.
But no one is worried.
Of course not.
Petraeus slipped and had an affair. That's the beginning and end of it.
A man walking
around with miles and miles and miles of invaluable unique information
in his head...a man, in that respect, like no other in America...is no
problem at all.
The US
military-industrial complex needed a man like Petraeus, at a time when a
two-front war was stretching personnel thin. Soldiers, ordered to do
multiple tours, loaded up with psychoactive drugs, were starting to
push back.
Petraeus came in
and provided a sense of order and renewed purpose. Of course, it was
all fake. It was a "new theory" on how to fight enemies while pacifying
civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as if the wars were, in
reality, a humane enterprise.
Obama was Bush with a kinder face.
Petraeus was
hailed as a brilliant innovator, a leadership guru. Broadwell celebrated
and extolled the leadership angle in her book.
But really, Petraeus was just providing the US war machine with longer shelf life.
He gave that machine cover, and now they're giving him cover.
And everybody will keep tap-dancing and lying.
Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th
District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked
as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics,
medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine,
Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has
delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and
creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his
free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
No comments:
Post a Comment