Did Obama Administration Blackmail Petraeus in Reference to Behghazi ??

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
A possible conspiracy to speculate about ...
(we probably won't ever know for sure but we can discuss the potential for this)

QUESTION ... did someone in the Obama administration blackmail Patraeus in reference to Benghazi?? This is a conspiracy site to discuss possible conspiracies so let's think about what we have on this. Petraeus was the head of the CIA. He knew exactly what was happening at all times. Our diplomats in Benghazi died in a terrorist attack on the Sept 11th anniversary. Our people - the CIA and the White House - knew this 'real time' as it happened. But the White House and the State Department claimed it was violence due to an anti-Islam film on Youtube that no one ever really heard of. The CIA (Patraeus), who knew the truth of the situation, kept the terrorist attack info to themselves so they backed the White House cover-up story.

This morning we are learning that the Patraeus affair had been known about at the highest levels since MAY. (at least that's what the TV news is reporting). And we learn that the administration waited until three days after the election to have Patraeus 'resign'.

Since the Obama Administration and State Dept (Hillary) at the highest levels knew about the affair for months (according to TV news reports) and they kept quiet about it ... and since Patraeus went along with the Obama Administration and the State Dept on trying to blame Benghazi on an anti-Islamic film instead of telling the truth that it was a terrorist attack .. can we put the two together and say that Patraeus may have been pressured to go along with the coverup story when he knew that it wasn't true? Was he blackmailed? Was national security compromised?

Or did he just go along with it because he's as corrupt and vile as the rest of the political cockroaches in DC?

Anyways, being ATS we speculate on possible conspiracies and I'm seeing something here that could point to one. I hope some investigative reporter out there is reading this and goes and does his/her job and hunts this down to find out.

The Week .. Benghazi Timeline

SIDE NOTE ...
... Please don't turn this into a left wing vs right wing bs match. Let's look at the facts and the conspiracy speculation and not get all partisan on who has the lesser evil party. Thanks.




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Patraeus may have been pressured to go along with the coverup story when he knew that it wasn't true? Was he blackmailed? Was national security compromised?

Or did he just go along with it because he's as corrupt and vile as the rest of the political cockroaches in DC?


Amswer - Yes.......Yes.........and irrespective of all the other details Petraeus is definitely "as corrupt and vile as the rest of the political cockroaches in DC"

Now - suppose it was Petraeus himself who hacked the eMail accounts and attributed it to his "paramour" - I say this because I do not believe for a minute that Paula Broadwell would have gotten into an eMail cat-fight with a close friend of his family - way too out of character.

Its also possible that there was NO AFFAIR at all............that its a concocted story to get Petraeus out of testifying. I love to specualte on s___ like this.


BTW - there are several news commentators - some well respected - who are having similar thoughts as I on this aspect, and they have voiced their opinions about it on the air.

PS.............Flyers Fan HERE TOO
edit on 12-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I think that he had the affair, I think they all knew about it, I think he also knew they all knew about it. You don't run around as head of the CIA and not get watched. And when the Benghazi thing happened he had to get out so he used the affair as a way to do it. They agreed with him. I still think it odd that something like this would cause someone like him to resign so readily. With everything at his disposal he could have easily never had this see the light of day. It's got to be the Benghazi incident.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I think they were all in cahoots together and before its all over there will be more retirements across the board.
follow the money trail



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Bout time somebody picked up on this.
I've been dropping this in other threads but nobody will even bite. They don't seem to want to talk about this angle.
I think he's had some pressure and a threat but instead of going along he's outed himself and stepped back from putting himself in a worse spot.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Bengazi has become so convoluted that Machiavelli would have stopped and said,"Damn! That's over the top!"

I believe Petraeus is hiding something. It must be getting crowded underneath Obama's bus.

SnF



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
You do realize there is a difference between when the investigation began and the final conclusions. The investigation began months before, but you don't remove a high ranking official without all the hard evidence.

Petraeus wasn't a mail room employee who could be fired simply based on rumor. There would have been political fallout if the evidence wasn't all there.
edit on 12-11-2012 by Kaploink because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


The fact is that by September 11tth, when the Benghazi terrorist strike happened, the higher ups were very much aware of the Petraeus situation. It's EASILY within a time frame that could have them blackmailing him into going along with the 'it's because of the anti-Islamic youtube video' bs.

They waited until after the election when Obama was reelected.
That way there was no scandal to rock the reelection of Obama.
And then they cut Patraeus away because he was of no further blackmail value.

edit on 11/12/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Being the reporter had Intel that she stated was 'from another source' I get the feeling there's something quiet sinister about her.

Maybe she's an Israeli spy, and the government didn't want to blow his 'affair' because it risked putting a big spot light on this women!

How on Earth did Petraeus, the Spy Agencies number 1 man not see this women as a honeypot?

Also you tend to try and keep blackmail quiet, as it exposes 2 sides... an affair is such a.... 'messy way' to deal with such a scenario, its public and wreaks of politics.

I don't think this has anything to do with Behghazi, now the elections over i noticed that FOX NEWS and co haven't been harping on about it, so really the democrats would have realized they need not do anything or say anything, it was moving into the past.. why then do this?

feels like bad timing, they didnt expect it to be exposed like this. I think, they'd have liked to keep Pretraeus playing the yet to be known patsy role or fall guy.....while the real agencies followed little missy...




edit on 12-11-2012 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 

Awesome speculation on all this. That could very well be. Considering how muddy this whole Behghazi thing is, the real answer could be just about anything. We have to subtract the partisan bunk being spewed by MSNBC and FOX and just look at the information. It should be interesting in the months to come.

SOMETHING smells really bad with all this.
I wonder what will be uncovered at the end of it all.

Considering how high up Patraeus was and the timing .. I'm going with some kind of blackmail involved. Yes, that's speculation and of course there is no proof (yet) ... but that's where my feelings are taking me at this time. It's as good a thought as any ...



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
self edited for being off topic
edit on 12-11-2012 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 

Awesome speculation on all this. That could very well be. Considering how muddy this whole Behghazi thing is, the real answer could be just about anything. We have to subtract the partisan bunk being spewed by MSNBC and FOX and just look at the information. It should be interesting in the months to come.

SOMETHING smells really bad with all this.
I wonder what will be uncovered at the end of it all.Z


There always has to be a "fall" guy. Somebody to deflect from the real truth.

His time was just about up, so it makes you wonder what type of fee he's been paid to participate in the manner. That's what I'm thinking.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Former CIA Officer - The White House Had To Have Known
It's just an opinion from a fella who was CIA ... but it adds to the story.
The White House knowing and using the information (blackmailing) Petraeus
in regards to Benghazi. Could be ...



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Text

I can't believe how transparent they are, actually. I believe that a person does not get to a key position of government without having dirt as a fail-safe, to be used in such a case. I believe it's just part of the gig. It certainly seems that Patreas is going with the flow on this one. Then again, I also believe that our "democracy" is nothing but a Pro-wrestling spectacle, a brilliant way to alleviate the tension inherent in the old model where one King was just appointed; give them a "choice" of two. I think we are now an official Idiocracy (as illistrated in the movie of the same name lol)

Seriously though, what is truly appalling about this is the reports that he will simply be excluded (or excused) from testifying. That's crazy. That's all it takes? He WAS the director at the time. I was thinking that even if he does testify, the media smoke screen is up on full blast in the supposedly respectable papers; they all look like cheap tabloids running this "sex scandal." So, it will either push the news of the hearing back out of reach of most people, or they will blame him for the intelligence failures....being busy with his whores and having no time to "direct." But I can't believe he just gets to stay home and watch game shows that day now.

I also believe the BS is that it was not an embassy or a consulate at all but, as Obama and Hilary now call it, a "mission," which basically means anywhere where representatives meet to do business. In this case it was the business of hiring rebels. And if this story is made clear to the idiocy, then the next step would likely be that "alqueda operatives" were getting mixed in with this group....since they ARE the same group of mercenaries...and that would be a form of treason and might even be clear enough to get through to them.

Of course, this is all just an educated guess on my part. I didn't read any other posts as of this minute, but I look forward to reading all of the them and seeing what everyone else thinks.
edit on 12-11-2012 by shonnfrank because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
The CIA director a victim of a honeypot op.I don't know about y'all but is the director not supposed to be caught with his pants down? So to speak.The blackmail theory is interesting never thought of it.


PS:good thread OP S&F!



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Did Obama Administration Blackmail Petraeus in Reference to Behghazi ??,


No.

Sometimes people are just scumbags that don't do their jobs and cheat on their wives.

Why would anyone know? I don't care what my team mates and members are doing away from work.

If the guy wasn't gossiping about it, no one would know.

There isn't always a conspiracy. Guy wasn't doing his job because he was having extramarital activities. He is lucky they let him quit.

I sweat to God, people can blame Obama for anything. Guy cheats on his wife = Obama's fault. Ludicrous



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by zroth
If the guy wasn't gossiping about it, no one would know.

Not true. The FBI investigation came up with this back in MAY. They found out because of the emails that were being used. If you don't think that the FBI or CIA monitors their own for suspicious activities .. you are dead wrong.

I sweat to God, people can blame Obama for anything. Guy cheats on his wife = Obama's fault. Ludicrous

What is ludicrous is that you are giving Obama a free pass on this.

- It's not Obama's fault that Patraeus cheated. No one said that. :shk:

- Eric Holder and the Obama administration knew about this back in the summer but withheld the information from the public until after the elections. That means that Obama was more interested in getting re-elected than he was in national security. They left the head of the CIA in his position FOR MONTHS, even though the dude was blackmailable.

- It's naive to think that Obama didn't use this information to his political advantage.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste" - Obama administration (Rahm Emanuel)
edit on 11/13/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
REPORT - Eric Holder Knew about Petraeus for MONTHS
Do you all really think Obama's lil' buddy Eric Holder wouldn't have told him?

So .. yet ANOTHER coverup by the Obama administration ... Fast and Furious ... Benghazi ... and now Patraeus was allowed to stay in office for MONTHS while he was blackmailable. Sickening.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

What is ludicrous is that you are giving Obama a free pass on this.



Really?

America gave Clinton a free pass for cheating on his wife, on duty, in the oval office.

My point is that it is NOT Obama's responsibility to council his employees on marriage. People will blame him for anything and I maintain my position that that is absolutely ludicrous.

Everyone on the right says "less government" but this thread is theorizing that Obama should have been all up in Petraeus's personal business.

Cake and eating it too is not on the menu here.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 



You do realize there is a difference between when the investigation began and the final conclusions. The investigation began months before, but you don't remove a high ranking official without all the hard evidence.

Petraeus wasn't a mail room employee who could be fired simply based on rumor. There would have been political fallout if the evidence wasn't all there.


Would you like to explain how having sex is a fire-able offence?





top topics
 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join