The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Is Krauthammer Right?

Posted on | November 14, 2012 | 10 Comments

The Great Brain says the Obama administration used David Petraeus’s sex scandal to compel him “to give the administration line” about Benghazi in the CIA director’s Sept. 12 testimony:

This is a very serious accusation, and one I am certainly not prepared to endorse until we have some clear evidence or testimony to support it. Yet I think Krauthammer’s commentary reinforces what I said in an earlier reply to commenter McGehee:

McGehee, you express a widespread attitude, that the Petraeus scandal is somehow a “distraction” from Benghazi, whereas I see it as an integral part of the Benghazi story, illustrating the fundamental unseriousness of national security policy in the Obama age. The CIA chief is canoodling with his biographer who is so flaky that she starts sending threatening e-mails to this Kelley woman? And this Kelley woman, who imagines herself deserving of diplomatic protection, is meanwhile carrying on an extensive correspondence with the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan? This does not speak of a strict attentiveness to duty on the part of Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Allen, at the very least. This evidence of unseriousness at the highest levels of our national security institutions might very well explain how things could go so badly wrong in Benghazi. So we can walk and chew gum at the same time: Follow the Petraeus scandal without forgetting that the reason it matters is because of what happened in Benghazi.

It is possible that the Petraeus scandal leads nowhere. On the other hand, it may prove to be a central element of this developing story about Benghazi. You don’t always know where a story is going to lead when you begin reporting it. Bill Gertz at the Free Beacon has an excellent summary of the Petraeus scandal to date, and CBS News has more background on Gen. Allen’s situation:

CBS News correspondent Bob Orr says Pentagon and FBI sources describe the communications as “potentially inappropriate” and “flirtatious,” and another source says they were likely more than just innocent exchanges — noting that the Pentagon’s Inspector General is involved for a reason.
Among the hundreds of emails exchanged between Allen and Kelly – Orr reports that investigators are focusing on one from several months ago. In it, Allen told Kelley he’d just received an anonymous email warning him to stay away from her.
Sources say that the anonymous email came from Broadwell, Petraeus’ mistress, who allegedly warned Gen. Allen that Kelley was “a seductress.”
Broadwell allegedly sent similar warnings to other military officers at the U.S. Central Command, located near Kelley’s Tampa home.

In order to protect her adulterous relationship with Petraeus, it seems, Paula Broadwell maligned Mrs. Kelley in a series of anonymous e-mails. Nevertheless, even if Jill Kelley is not a “seductress,” as Broadwell claimed, she does seem kind of flaky. Her “social liaison” title? Made up:

“There’s no such thing,” one officer told us. The made-up title appears to be a polite way of saying “rich Tampa socialite who likes to hang with four-star generals.”

Obama just gave a press conference and said, Blah, blah, blah.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal expands the story:

[A]t one point in the summer, after the investigation began pointing to larger potential national security issues, Ms. Kelley tried to get the FBI to drop the matter. The people said she made the request because she was worried about the personal information being provided to investigators.
Ms. Kelley, a 37-year-old volunteer who organized social events for military personnel, developed misgivings after friends in her Tampa social circle urged her to drop the matter, saying the probe would only cause bigger problems . . .
Gen. Allen has told associates he became entangled in the Petraeus adultery scandal a few months ago, when he received an email later traced to Ms. Broadwell, the official familiar with his thinking said.
Ms. Broadwell, whose extramarital affair with Mr. Petraeus had ended by then, believed that Ms. Kelley may have been a romantic rival, according to this official. Besides the emails sent directly to Ms. Kelley, she also sent a flurry of emails from a pseudonymous account to senior military officials, denigrating Ms. Kelley, the official said.
In the email received by Gen. Allen, Ms. Broadwell — writing under the pseudonym KelleyPatrol — described Ms. Kelley as a “seductress” and warned the general about being entangled in a relationship with her . . .
Gen. Allen was concerned by that email and forwarded it to Ms. Kelley . . .

Good Lord.

 

Category: Libya, Military, Scandal

Comments

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    We stand far better chances of getting these questions answered if they are posed to Petraeus by Lindsey Graham than if we rely on Chuck Todd’s obsequious boot-licking tough questioning of Barack Obama.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    I know exactly why a top US general had such a torrid correspondence with a Florida “socialite.”

    Twins, Basil.
    Twins!

    (second link not necessarily SFW)

  • EsausMessage

    I strongly suspect that the Hammer is not engaged in idle speculation, no matter how logical. He has sources in DC, especially in the national security apparatus. I suspect he is shrouding actual reporting in the sheer gauze of conjecture. He may even have heard this from someone close to the General himself.

  • EsausMessage

    As for the unseriousness among our national security types, I have just two names for you to consider: (1) Stanley McChrystal; and (2) Michael Hastings.

  • jwallin

    The problem is that instead of the press leading an investigation of who did what where, they will be misdirecting, hiding and outright lying about it to any paying attention.

    You’re assuming that the Congress has the will to carry this to the end. We’ve already seen that they don’t. One little Executive privilege claim and we haven’t heard word one since out of Issa on FnF.

    Oh they’ll have hearings and a lot of harumph, harumph but nothing will happen to any of the principals nor will anyone be ultimately be held accountable.

    Why? Because the press will see to it that there is no PUBLIC OUTCRY. With out that, nothing will happen.

    I’m so ashamed at the state of the Press these days. It makes me want to cry in frustration, anger and fear.

    They seem to have no idea of the massive crime they are committing.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Unfortunately, I envision Chuck Todd’s mouth on another part of Barack Obama’s anatomy. And it is not a pretty sight.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    They [the MSM] think they’re doing a greater good for Humanity, so they don’t even see a massive moral crime in their actions.

    For The Homeland!

  • CWLsun

    Do you think Gen. Allen was worried about viruses in the anonymous e-mail he allegedly forwarded to Ms. Kelley?

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Tom Ricks was on NPR today commenting how no one gave Eisenhower a hard time for stuppin his cut redheaded driver and he was not replaced before Normandy (I would note General Patton did suffer for PC and bruised egos throughout his career) but point made.

    Problem that Ricks is not being totally honest about is no one from the right is wringing their hands because Petraeus had an affair. They are not happy with it and are disappointed, but the issue here is apparently the Obama Administration knew about it, hid it during the election, and then the day of the election fires Petraeus.

    And it is relevant because were Petraeus and Allen properly minding the shop when Benghazi happened (as RSM points out) and did Team Obama uses their personal faults to coerce them into towing the Administration line (which is unproven yet, but certainly possible).