Friday, May 02, 2014

Petraeus and the real Benghazi conspiracy

For a while now, I've been wondering why it mattered so much to Republicans, all this business about the Obama administration allegedly misleading the nation about the origin of the Benghazi attack. The general public doesn't seem to care. Nevertheless, the Republicans keep harping on the matter.

The latest volley -- the latest "smoking gun" document -- turns out to be nonsense, as one might have expected. And even the Slate story at the other end of that link has nonsense in it. (See here for additional sanity on this issue.)

Here's the part that everyone (except me) leaves out: Administration officials told the New York Times the very next day (September 12) that the attack in Libya appeared to be well-organized and pre-planned. Administration officials also said the same thing to ABC. I've included video evidence to that effect in previous posts.

It's clear now that militants, who had already been preparing for some sort of assault, opportunistically used a spontaneous eruption by locals. I don't know why that sequence of events is so hard for people to visualize.

The Republicans nevertheless continue to focus on Susan Rice's "talking points." Well, where did she get those talking points? Ultimately, her info came from the CIA.

The latest round of propaganda is designed to deflect attention away from that key fact. The document from Benjamin J. Rhodes, which is the focus of so much current attention, also derives from information from the CIA. If you read Taylor Marsh's sequence of events closely, you'll see that everything comes down to the signals sent by CIA.

Who was running CIA at this time? David Petraeus.

Andrew Kreig's book Presidential Puppetry helped me sort through the Petraeus connection. I recommend this work -- the Kindle edition is only $2.99 right now -- even though it's kind of a hodge-podge. It's really a blog in book form, in which views similar to those you'll find on Cannonfire are mixed in with a few unfortunate dollops of Glenn Beckian kookiness.

What everyone is ignoring is this: The Republicans have long been playing with the idea of backing a Petraeus bid for the White House. Here's an early shot across the bow from 2009. And this is a revelatory article...
In the American instance, Murdoch's goal seems to have been nothing less than using his media empire – notably Fox News – to stealthily recruit, bankroll and support the presidential candidacy of General David Petraeus in the 2012 election.

Thus in the spring of 2011 – less than 10 weeks before Murdoch's centrality to the hacking and politician-buying scandal enveloping his British newspapers was definitively revealed – Fox News' inventor and president, Roger Ailes, dispatched an emissary to Afghanistan to urge Petraeus to turn down President Obama's expected offer to become CIA director and, instead, run for the Republican nomination for president, with promises of being bankrolled by Murdoch. Ailes himself would resign as president of Fox News and run the campaign, according to the conversation between Petraeus and the emissary, K T McFarland, a Fox News on-air defense "analyst" and former spear carrier for national security principals in three Republican administrations.
Imagine that: Ailes quitting Fox to put Petraeus in office. Murdoch putting all his dough behind a Petraeus presidency. That's a big damned deal.

Jeez, do you really need any more? The following facts are obvious:

1. David Petraeus was an Obama enemy, and he was running the See-fucking-Eye-Ay.

2. Rice's Beghazi info was coming from the See-fucking-Eye-Ay.

3. The Republicans hoped -- and still hope -- to make Obama look bad on security issues in a replay of the undoing of Jimmy Carter. It's worth noting that Petraeus is close friends with Max Boot, a key Romney adviser.

The following is speculative:

1. The undoing of David Petraeus --  that stupid sex scandal -- may have stemmed from an Obama counter-move. Previous CIA directors slept around -- Dulles was notorious -- and nobody ever gave a damn.

2. CIA files may have been salted with "evidence" to make Obama look bad.

3. The whole "Innocence of Muslims" video brouhaha was a spooked-up affair designed to set this crisis in motion.
And who does Victoria “Fuck the EU” Nuland really work for?

“In particular, Rice has been accused of misleading the American public with her statements that the incident was a protest run amok rather than terrorism.
In May 2013, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also implicated in an ABC News report that claimed a State Department official urged the CIA and White House to avoid describing the event as an act of terrorism in public statements.
Leaked emails show that then State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland suggested that a CIA memo on Benghazi not include any reference of links to al-Qaeda and the intelligence warnings in the months preceding the attack.
Nuland wrote in protest to the CIA description, saying it "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up on the State Department for not paying attention to warnings," in an email to the White House and the CIA, according to ABC.
The intelligence memo was the basis for Rice's public statements in September 2012.”

Joe... if what you are saying about the CIA is correct, then Obama/Clinton could clear the whole Benghazi thing up by simply presenting your argument to the public.

If Obama/Clinton are afraid to do that, then one has to wonder who is really running the country, and whether the Republicans are correct when they say Obama is "weak".

Then again, maybe Obama/Clinton have been CIA assets all along. Just because Petraeus seems to be emerging as the CIA's asset du jour, doesn't mean Obama/Clinton can't be assets as well. The best way to win a horse race, is to own all of the horses. The horses don't have to like, or even know who owns them.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?