11.14.2012

Something's rotten in the state of Denmark

I've held my peace thus far on the Petraeus debacle. However, with the news yesterday of General John Allen facing investigation, I can hold my thoughts no longer. I have my theories as to what is possibly going on but I'll get to that in a moment. 


First, let me say this: I do not believe that General David Petraeus had an affair. Not for a minute. One of the things I have learned in my life is to trust my gut. And my gut is screaming at me that he did not have an affair. The little I know of the man - snippets of information gleaned from people who know him and have known him since his early years in the military and before - paint a picture of a man so focused on his career path that I find it shocking that he's even married. He married the daughter of the superintendent of West Point - HIS college! If that doesn't scream "good for my career", I don't know what does (I'm not speculating on the nature of their marriage nor the motivations behind it). The idea that he would derail his career - what he's worked for all his life - over some starry-eyed fanfic author, twenty years his junior - is about as ludicrous as...well, I can't even come up with something that ludicrous. I just don't see it. And everything I read abouther friends' impressions of Mrs. Broadwell indicates the same. It doesn't fit with their character.



Second, I don't believe in coincidence. There is no such thing. And this...the circumstances surrounding this are so incredibly conveniently coincidental that it reeks. REEKS. Something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark. 



Instead of swallowing the news story hook, line, and sinker, I like to actually think for myself - something that many of my friends in the milblogosphere and outside of it seem to have failed to do this time around. I am appalled at the fact that so many of my friends - people I've always considered to be smarter than the average bear - have jumped on the "I'm so disappointed in General Petraeus!" bandwagon without so much as a tilt of the head to consider how ridiculously convenient this all is. THINK, PEOPLE! Use your brains for something other than keeping your skulls from caving in! What motivation(s) would the White House have for sidelining General Petraeus? And why now? 


THINK.


When the news broke late Monday night about General John Allen's involvement in this mess, the scent of smelly rat increased ten-fold. Can you say 'scorched earth policy'? What is the connection between General Allen and General Petraeus? Why go after both of them? What is to be gained and by whom? 



One of the blogs I read on a regular basis, The DiploMad 2.0, is getting closer - and actually using his brain. But I think he's just scratching the surface. Here's my hypothesis:


1. January, 2009 - Newly-installed President Obama issued Executive Order 13491. This EO ensures 'lawful interrogation' and basically does away with detaining prisoners in locations other than Guantanamo Bay or other United States' facilities. Can you say 'extraordinary rendition'? Good. 



2. August 15, 2012 - An emergency meeting is convened by the US Mission in Benghazi and word is sent to Washington that the Mission felt that the Consulate could not adequately protect against a 'coordinated attack'. (Source: Fox News)

** and before anyone jumps on the whole "But it's FoxNews!" whine...shut up. For the most part, they are the ONLY major news outlet to have followed the Benghazi atrocity from the beginning. Had CNN or MSNBC or HuffPo or any other non-FoxNews outlet been on this, I'd use THEM. But they haven't. So I won't. So shut up. **


3. August 16, 2012 - A 'SECRET' cable is sent to the Office of the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, indicating that the Regional Security Officer does not believe "that the consulate can be defended in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capability, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound." (Source: Fox News) The cable also explained that the mission in Benghazi would be formally requesting additional help (security upgrades and staffing) from the US Embassy in Tripoli.

None was sent. Why?

4. September 11, 2012 - Ambassador Stevens sends a 3-page cable outlining his growing concerns over security issues and his belief that the security forces and Libyan police were too weak to keep the country secure. Weeks after the attack, evidence of Stevens' opinions - sensitive documents and Stevens' own diary were found by the FBI and a Washington Post reporter in the wreckage of the consulate. (Source: NY Times) We still have yet to understand the reason(s) why Ambassador Stevens was IN Benghazi in the first place. Later that night, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans would die in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. For one of the most detailed timelines I've seen of the attack in Benghazi, you can go to FactCheck.org and look at theirs. But it all leads you back to the question of WHY? Why did the State Department and the White House ignore the repeated warnings by the US Mission and the Ambassador himself as to the growing threat of attack on the facility in Benghazi? Why was there a growing threat in the first place? What was it that was being held at the Benghazi facility that led so many insurgents to its location? Why, after repeated requests for help of ANY kind, were they given none? And why, in the middle of the attack - that the President and his staff WATCHED while sitting in the Situation Room (there was at least one drone flying over the chaos, streaming video) - did no one lift a single finger to help those people? WHY? What is being hidden? 

5. October 26, 2012 - To answer that question, I direct you to Paula Broadwell's speech at the University of Denver.


Specifically, this:
"Now, I don’t know if a lot of you 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 consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.
The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this — they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening." (Source: Washington Post Blog)


So the CIA had taken prisoners in Libya (WHY?) and was holding them at this facility (WHY?). I now direct you back to point #1 - Executive Order 13491. If the President knew that prisoners were being held by CIA staff at a US consulate, he has directly violated his own Executive Order. And if this administration has knowledge of, or is complicit in, the holding of prisoners at CIA facilities in Libya, what OTHER countries does it have knowledge of the same? How MANY times has this President violated his OWN Executive Order?

What wasn't Extremis in Force used? The excuse that we did not have assets in place to respond in a timely matter doesn't hold water. Not when we have these capabilities available in most regions throughout the world. The battle in Benghazi went on for SEVEN HOURS. There's no way a QRF or an Extremis in Force could not be deployed. Why weren't they? What is it that this administration was afraid of exposing? And what is the penalty for a President that violates an Executive Order (does he get the double booby prize if it's his own?)?


I don't usually don a tinfoil hat. It's not my style and I truly believe that most people are not smart enough to engage in a complicated, convoluted cover-up of any kind. We, as human beings, tend toward the easier solutions rather than the complicated ones. Hence, Occam's Razor. But this one? This one STINKS to high heaven. I'm sure Shakespeare agrees. The Petraeus/Allen sideshow is nothing more than a diversion. Sadly, it's working. 




Pau.




- hfs

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a note to let you know that there are other thinkers out there...we're reading and trying to piece it together too...I agree this is a distraction from the real ugliness of this administration. Our challenge is to find other thinkers and organize for broader counter operations against corruption within our government and related institutions. How to find others....that's the question....

Homefront Six said...

How to find others? Just. Like. This.

Homefront Six said...

My email is in my profile.

OldAFSarge said...

You're on target with your analysis HF6. Something stinks and the whole Petraeus thing has all the hallmarks of a diversion. Why burden the public with how badly the government screwed up in regards to Benghazi when you can entertain them with sex tales? Especially compelling when it's the head of the CIA and he's also a retired general. The bulk of the MSM has no desire to find Truth. It's all about ratings. More bread and circuses. This Old Sarge is keeping a weather eye out for where this story goes.

Val said...

I'm deeply unsettled by all this... And I'm moderate. I'm such a Mutt that the 'who you should vote for' thingies don't know where to put me.

Is there a link to the dismissal of Admiral Gaoette? How does that fit into it all?

Homefront Six said...

The only thing of any substance I can find about ADM Gaoette is Ace of Spades who is usually quite good at seeing through the speculation, even if it can be a little over the top.

http://minx.cc/?post=334311

Based on his analysis, looks like it had nothing to do with Benghazi other than the timing at which it was announced. I feel the same goes for the announcement regarding General Carter Ham's replacement at AFRICOM.

Crista said...

Like a commentator I listened to last night said, I do not for one iota of a second believe that Obama knew nothing about the investigation into the alleged affair until the day/week of the election. He is full of doodoo on that one. Obama has claimed he knew nothing. Yeah, try again. One does NOT investigate the head of the CIA without the POTUS knowing. The whole thing is just....way stinky and I love your time line and analysis.

Anonymous said...

I posted the question of finding others...

Unfortunately when things really go wrong I don't think online meeting will do. I think finding real world, local contacts with like minded people will be a must. Sure we can link up online for now, however keep in mind that big brother will be watching. I say this with direct knowledge of the government capabilities that can be brought to bear.

I once watched a documentary about the American Revolution's spy networks. The people involved weren't suspected as spies yet were able to find each other and build a great spy network that beat the British...how did they discover those like minded people without getting caught by British sympathizers?...we need to be able to find others in daily life to grow no matter the crcumstances, be it natural disaster, governmentinternet monitoring, whatever

Homefront Six said...

You're very right in that Big Brother is watching. And, apparently, tapping into our emails without a warrant from a judge (unless said emails are younger than 6 months old). It's like Orwell and Ayn Rand *knew*...

As for finding others locally who share our mindset, I've not given that much thought. I suppose I haven't felt the need until now.

The added challenge for some of us is this transient lifestyle military families lead. Just about the time you find people who share your mindset, it's time to move again. That can be frustrating.

Anonymous said...

That movement can be a benefit for spreading organizing to new areas. Start a small group of trusted people. Make cells and keep them offline. Move to a new area and repeat. Grow many leaves on the tree. The purpose for organizing isn't completely clear yet other than being prepared and knowing who to trust. Future efforts may be political action or self defense against tyranny. We need to organize for ether though without being monitored.