?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
17 November 2012 @ 12:42 pm
"Where Shall I Invade Next?" The Petraeus-Stevens Inconvenience  
Why is Cameron rushing to escalate the conflict in Syria, to recognise the Clinton's (Soros') choice "opposition party" members as the legitimate government against the majority of Syrians' wishes?
Why is the sham, the pretence of aiding the installation of democracy maintained when the operation is the massive employment and support of terrorists, jihadists and criminal gangs to destroy infrastructure and destroy the legitimate government in Syria when the most probable outcome is another Libya scenario where that country has been destroyed, the NATO installed puppet gov't has no control, crime is the norm, terrorists run free and tribal power struggles with attempts by racist murderers to cleanse the country of blacks and of the disposed-of-Libyan-gov't supporters with imposed Libyan "gov't" support and very likely NATO and the pschopathic Western regimes' too?
Why now at a time when Petraeus, the CIA chief was removed, when there is an ongoing investigation into the murder in Benghazi of the apparent liaison between AQ and weapons providers, Ambassador Stevens?

The Petraeus Affair vs. the CIA’s Long Criminal History  Julie Lévesque
The Petraeus Affair has demonstrated yet again how a sex scandal story can be fed into the U.S. media to serve both as a trigger for “political assassination” and as “the tree hiding the forest.” Even though what lies behind the salacious smoke screen is still the object of speculation, most of those speculations are more credible than a simple extramarital affair.

One of the possible explanations of Petraeus’ departure is his stance on Israel which he saw as a liability to US interests in the Middle East:

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Operations]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.” (Ali Abunimah, When Former CIA Chief David Petraeus Enraged the Israel Lobby, Electronic Intifada, November 12, 2012.)

As Stephen Lendman observes, sex scandals don’t necessarily lead to resignations unless state secrets are at stake:

[...] Overlooked are secret CIA Benghazi operations. Involved are heavy weapons sent to Syrian opposition fighters. Petraeus left days before his scheduled congressional testimony [...] The Benghazi operation is erroneously called a US consulate. It’s “a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.”
Tasks performed include “collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”Consulate designation provides cover. Obama and Clinton call the post a “US mission.” The State Department lists no consulate in Benghazi. (Stephen Lendman, Petraeus: Resignation or Sacking?, Global Research, November 12, 2012.)

Knowing the CIA’s shadow history, the cover-up of a secret CIA operation supporting terrorists used as proxy warriors to overthrow a foreign government seems the most likely explanation for Petraeus’ departure as Washington’s Blog explains:

Whatever the scope of the CIA’s operation in Benghazi – and whatever the real reason for the resignation of the CIA chief – the key is our historical and ongoing foreign policy.
For decades, the U.S. has backed terrorists for geopolitical ends.
The U.S. government has been consistently planning regime change in Syria and Libya for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change – using false flag terror – for 50 years.
Obama has simply re-packaged Bush and the Neocons’ “war on terror” as a series of humanitarian wars.
And the U.S. and its allies will do anything to topple Iran … and is systematically attempting to pull the legs out from Iran’s allies as a way to isolate and weaken that country. (Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Resign? Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered?, Washington’s Blog, November 10, 2012.)

[Continues with the CIA's depth of involvement in drugs trafficking, use of profits to fund death squads and armies in regions where destabilisation was/ is desired]
Iraq and Libya have been dealt with. Syria is the current victim and Iran and North Korea are being threatened regularly by the US. Forget WMDs, and the Arab Spring. Those, just as the Petraeus Affair, are only smoke screens and mirrors.
And most of all, forget the “War on Terror” and the “War on Drugs”.
Afghanistan’s opium production, which had been virtually eradicated under the Taliban, has been booming under US occupation and US troops admitted they were protecting poppy fields. (Washington’s Blog, Are American Troops Protecting Afghan Opium?, October 28, 2012.)
The CIA, the US military as well as other governmental agencies are allegedly linked to the Mexican drug war and their goal is said to be far from their stated objective: ...
[Ends with] Compared to all these crimes, an extramarital affair is quite insignificant. /Continues

(A list of Petraeus and CIA relevant articles is included with the source article)

Also see the following (esp. the comments)
Why did Paula Broadwell think the CIA had taken prisoners in Benghazi?
In comments
Given Mr. Khattaia's contradictory and sketchy account, and the NYT's/Mr. Kirkpatrick's Administration-friendly reporting, it isn't too difficult to imagine the related/reported 'rescue' of four Libyan guards as actually being the freeing of four CIA-held prisoners. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-attack-scoffs-at-us.html  )

Senate Intelligence Panel to Probe Why Congress Wasn’t Told About Petraeus Investigation
In comments
Someone should remind Senator Feinstein that there are no laws that will constrain this administration unless there is someone to enforce them; therefore when the Republican House votes to impeach the President, if it comes to that, will she urge her colleagues in the Democratic Senate to do their duty – to the country, not to the party?
Response -
when the Republican House votes to impeach the President, if it comes to that, will she urge her colleagues in the Democratic Senate to do their duty – to the country, not to the party?
Yesterday she was asked by Chris Wallace whether the timing of his resignation was political. She said no and Wallace didn’t challenge her. The answer to your question is are you kidding me?
As with whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack, Obama would have known about Petraeus’ affair as it was occurring. We now know why Petraeus claimed that the terrorist attack in Benghazi was caused by a video. And don’t tell me either is too honorable to be involved in blackmail.
------------------
It seems Petraeus' affair ended in June or July. Now, 4-5 months later he is asked to resign?
------------------

America in the Age of Obama. Richard Fernandez
Breitbart quotes a tweet by CNN correspondent Frances Townsend claiming information by Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr that David Petraeus will testify that he knew the attack on the Benghazi consulate was terrorism “almost immediately.” The “same source” claims he will say Susan Rice’s talking points ascribing the attack to a video came from the White House.
If Petraeus really does testify to this effect, he will inescapably be alleging under oath that the president was a liar. Even if the testimony is restricted strictly to Benghazi and not its aftermath, the crucial question remains: did the president abandon the men on the ground to their fates?
Of course the purpose of this new leak may be to muddy the waters. In Washington, home to hundreds of newspaper correspondents and reporters, nothing is as it seems. The age of Obama resembles nothing so much as an evil fun-house of mirrors.
There may be a behind-the-scenes effort to influence what Petraeus will say. Charles Krauthammer has already suggested that the administration has tried to use the Broadwell incident to silence the former CIA director.
In updates -
[...] When pressed to identify who came up with the infamous “Mohammed video” talking points, neither Clapper nor Morell could recall the person responsible.
[...] Their inability to recollect the provenance of talking points will doubtless mean the question will be put to David Petraeus when he comes before the committee.
And
[...] “What is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has intentionally misinformed — read that, lied — to the American people in the aftermath of this tragedy,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, a GOP member of the House Foreign Affairs committee that on Thursday convened a panel of experts not directly connected with the Benghazi attack. “The arrogance and dishonesty reflected in all of this is a little bit breathtaking.” /Continues

Ex-CIA Chief Petraeus Testifies Benghazi Attack Was Al Qaeda-Linked Terrorism

More Hot Air From White House and Eric Holder David Truman
The claim by Eric Holder that it was right to keep the FBI investigation of General Petraeus secret from the White House, along with Jay Carney’s claim that the White House was not informed of the investigation of the General Petraeus affair until after the election because of “FBI protocols,” doesn’t hold water. Sources are claiming in news reports that “it is long-standing FBI policy for the FBI not to brief Congress or the White House in the middle of a criminal probe that does not involve a security threat.” Holder now says that “we do not share outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations.”
But those claims by Holder and Carney are demonstrably false./Continues

Dems Bite Back on Benghazi
[...] Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.): “They want us to solve problems and not go on political witch hunts. I am very disturbed that some of the political rhetoric that I hear. You know, Barack Obama was no more responsible for what happened in Benghazi than George Bush was for September 11 or that Ronald Reagan was with the blowing up of the U.S. Marines in Beirut.”
“Let’s just hang the guilty parties. You know, the stench of hypocrisy that hangs over this city, today emanates from this room,” blasted Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). “When I — I listened — and I did come here to try to learn. I’ve listened to my colleagues talk about the president of the United States and others in the administration; using terms [like] ‘deliberate,’ ‘lies,’ ‘unmitigated gall,’ ‘malfeasance,’ which is malicious and knowing evil-doing, ‘disgust,’ and ‘cover ups.’”
[...] Republicans, though, showed they are definitely still in fighting mode.
“As late as yesterday, the president said that we would be learning all the details. He’d be cooperating with Congress, yet we have no witness from the administration here with us today to talk to us and to explain under oath what the details of this debacle really are,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). “What is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has intentionally misinformed — read that, lied — to the American people in the aftermath of this tragedy.”
Addressing Ackerman’s charge, Rohrabacher also reminded the panel that the State Department itself, in recess testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, admitted that the refusal to send more security to Benghazi wasn’t a budget consideration.
“Anyone suggesting otherwise should not be pointing fingers at hypocrisy at this side of the aisle. Yes, this is not simply a cover-up of a third-rate burglary. We have four of our diplomatic personnel dead,” the California Republican said. “And it is not a McCarthy-era tactic to demand accountability, and demand that the American people are not misinformed about it, to the point that they don’t know what the threat is.” /Continues
-----------
Obama's CIA connection
Hillary Clinton CIA connection
Bill Clinton CIA connection
Cameron, Hague and MI5-6?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we return to the question why is Cameron trying to accelerate the Syrian operation?
Obama's position is looking increasingly unstable and, gods willing he will be thrown on the trash heap of history where Cameron and so many bank clerk predecessors belong. There is no telling who will get the potus role, possibly an anti-war monger unlike Obama who was the lesser of 2 evils in the poorly attended election.
So, on behalf of the bankster-corporations and psychopathic globalist imperialists Cameron is trying to get Assad dead or out of Syria, the Baath party destroyed and the Syrian infrastructure destroyed using a puppet proto-gov't to lead the Western sponsored terrorists, fast. The Libya scenario.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------