David Petraeus resigns as CIA chief citing affair

[justdrew]

the same day in 2004 John Ashcroft resigned

[justdrew]

oh, and I'm declaring my little "operation 119" a total success.

[Panic Weather]

Much appreciation for the "Night of the Long Knives" comment & the 11/9 date note:

Some ques­tions about the General’s 11/9 demise:

The­ory: Did Petraeus resign due to Beng­hazi — OR was Beng­hazi itself a set-up to elim­i­nate Petraeus?

Petraeus could eas­ily have run for Pres­i­dent in 2016.

Osten­si­bly, Petraeus was a Repub­li­can. I have my doubts about that.

Nev­er­the­less, Petraeus would have likely run as a Republican.

Petraeus’ mete­oric career rise took a boost from Bush when he was assigned to lead the Iraq deba­cle. Sub­se­quently, he was re-assigned by Obama to the Afghanistan debacle.

In both cases, he was assigned (first by a Repub­li­can, and then by a “Demo­c­rat”) to a career-suicide assign­ment. A lesser general’s career might have been seri­ously dam­aged by sit­u­a­tions that should have lost con­trol fur­ther than they did.

Nei­ther of the two “career assas­si­na­tion attempts” succeeded.

Finally, Obama assigned him to lead the CIA.

On a side note, Brig. Gen. Jef­frey Sin­clair was also removed from duty this week due to an “extra­mar­i­tal affair”.

Whether or not the affairs in ques­tion took place are a moot point.

My ques­tion is: Cui bono? Who ben­e­fits from the elim­i­na­tion of Petraeus?

I say that both Milieu-Bush and the Pen­ta­gon and Milieu-Obama (all the same team) have much to gain from the career assas­si­na­tion of Petraeus. But the ques­tion of Beng­hazi has noth­ing to do with Obama’s gain, as is being spec­u­lated by the fever­ish right-wing. Obama gains much more than that.

Also the sig­nif­i­cance of the date:

Beng­hazi hap­pened on 9/11. Petraeus’ assas­si­na­tion hap­pened on 11/9. (Recall 11/9 as a sig­nif­i­cant date in Nazi mythol­ogy, and Ger­manic suprema­cist lore dat­ing back to the 1800s; “11/9″ is how 9/11 is writ­ten in Europe, where the date is sig­ni­fied before the month number).

Repub­li­cans were never inter­ested in what their pres­i­dent knew on 9/11 or about fore­warn­ings given to Bush. Their sud­den inter­est in crip­pling Obama for the exact same rea­sons on the same date will fiz­zle out as a scan­dal, whether or not it deserves to.

Hence the elim­i­na­tion of Petraeus becomes a clean get­away. Like the JFK assas­si­na­tion, mem­bers of both par­ties had a note­wor­thy inter­est in his demise. And Petraeus: Cui bono?

And don’t for­get, there is another prece­dent for this:

Shortly after Bush’s 2004 “re-election”, Bush got rid of CIA chief Porter Goss and Deputy Direc­tor Dusty Foggo. The scan­dal at that time was “Hook­er­gate” — along the lines of the Franklin Scan­dal, but with­out any reported chil­dren involved ( ... that we know of ... ). Allegedly, at the Water­gate Hotel, promi­nent gov­ern­ment fig­ures were lured into poker games which involved pros­ti­tutes & cocaine (and prob­a­bly other things) which were report­edly filmed for black­mail behind a two-way mirror.

(Note that this scan­dal has been almost scrubbed from the Inter­net, with lit­tle of the more sig­nif­i­cant details still extant in any of the remain­ing Inter­net material).

Who was Porter Goss? What was his role in or knowl­edge of 9/11? Florida was Goss’ home state as a Con­gress­man before he was ele­vated to head CIA. Venice, Florida (and other Florida loca­tions) was where the alleged ter­ror­ists were boot­legged (and prob­a­ble CIA/German BND asset Mohammed Atta) through the “flight school” that has CIA connections.

Remem­ber where Goss was on the morn­ing of 9/11. Why was Goss sim­i­larly elim­i­nated, directly after Bush’s “re-election”? The par­al­lels between the demise of Goss and of Petraeus are remark­ably similar.

[jingofever]

He was having an affair with a woman and she got access to his e-mail? That sounds like a classic spy op. I'm calling it now, this woman is KGB, and by that I mean Mossad.

[Lottie McLotsaluck]

People (especially if they happen to be brown or black) getting murdered all over the face of the globe for no reason other than greed. and this shit- extramarital affairs, relationships --goddammit and wtf!! beyond belief!!

[barracuda]

Academics - Paula Broadwell ( Kranz)

Passion. Intensity. Vision.

Three simple nouns that can only partially describe the complexity of Paula Kranz, 1991 CHS graduate. In high school, Paula excelled in the classroom and beyond, fulfilling a variety of leadership roles from homecoming queen to CHS and state student council president, from all-state basketball player to orchestra concert mistress, from AAU-Mars Milky Way All-American to valedictorian.

This passion directed toward excellence and a well-rounded education served Paula well as she advanced to West Point where she earned Dean's List status and the honor of Class Secretary, all while graduating number one physically in her class. With a degree in Political Geography and Systems Engineering, Paula pursued a military intelligence career abroad, serving in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

During her service, especially after 9-11, Paula's intensity was directed toward the war against terror; her contributions and efforts to thwart terrorism have been commended by the U.S. Army and by Europe's Special Operations Forces Commanding General. In this arena, she has planned counter-terrorism initiatives presented to NATO and worked on transnational counter-terrorism issues with foreign and domestic agencies, U.S. Special Forces, and the FBI.

As her experiences expanded, she entered the University of Denver to pursue a dual masters degree in International Security and Conflict Resolution. Graduate level scholarships in Arabic and Middle East studies led her abroad to Jordan and Israel where she also spoke at various conferences in the Persian Gulf, as well as Europe.

As an aspiring foreign and defense policy analyst, Paula was offered a full doctoral scholarship and a fellowship from Harvard University for study in Syria and Iran. Even though she has received many accolades, Paula still feels her whole life is in front of her - a life that is filled with strategic planning as well as raising a family and pursuing her hobbies and interests, a life directed by passion, intensity and vision .

"Paula's enviable work habits and relentless approach to curricular and co-curricular activities at Century High School provided her the foundation to fulfill life-long dreams . "

- Ron Wingenbach, CHS Teacher -

http://www.chs.bismarckschools.org/chs/ ... academics/

Paula Broadwell

Paula Broadwell is the author of the New York Times best-seller All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. Her book was named by Foreign Policy magazine as a “best read of 2012.” Broadwell has served over 15 years in intelligence, counterterrorism, and counterinsurgency operations. She has had assignments with the US intelligence community, USSOCOM, and an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. Broadwell is presently a Ph.D. candidate at King’s College London, a research associate at Harvard University, and an assistant professor at West Point. She earned degrees at the University of Denver and Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and she studied Arabic in Jordan.

http://www.aspenideas.org/speaker/paula-broadwell

[seemslikeadream]

Behind Petraeus’s Resignation
November 10, 2012
Exclusive: The resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus over an extramarital affair marks a stunning reversal for the longtime media darling. But some in President Obama’s inner circle are not displeased the neocon-friendly ex-general is gone, reports Robert Parry.


By Robert Parry

The messy departure of CIA Director David Petraeus over an extramarital affair removes the last high-ranking neoconservative holdover from George W. Bush’s administration and gives the reelected President Barack Obama more maneuvering room to negotiate a settlement over Iran’s nuclear program.

Petraeus’s resignation along with a public acknowledgement of an affair, reportedly with an admiring female biographer, raised eyebrows in Washington for reasons beyond the sudden and humiliating fall of the high-flying former four-star general. Normally, in such situations, a cover story is used to spare someone of Petraeus’s stature embarrassment.


David Petraeus, a two-star general during the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, with Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace.
Especially in the days after a president’s reelection, it would not be uncommon for a senior official to announce new career plans or a desire to spend more time with the family. Instead, Petraeus’s resignation was accompanied by an admission of the affair. Press reports identified the woman as Paula Broadwell, who co-authored a biography of Petraeus, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.

One person familiar with the Obama administration’s thinking said President Obama was never close to Petraeus, who was viewed as a favorite of the neoconservatives and someone who had undercut a possible solution to Iran’s nuclear program in 2011 by pushing a bizarre claim that Iranian intelligence was behind an assassination plot aimed at the Saudi ambassador to Washington.

As that case initially evolved, the White House and Justice Department were skeptical that the plot traced back to the Iranian government, but Petraeus pushed the alleged connection which was then made public in a high-profile indictment. The charges further strained relations with Iran, making a possible military confrontation more likely.

Petraeus’s Input

At the time, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, a favored recipient of official CIA leaks, reported that “one big reason [top U.S. officials became convinced the plot was real] is that CIA and other intelligence agencies gathered information corroborating the informant’s juicy allegations and showing that the plot had support from the top leadership of the elite Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the covert action arm of the Iranian government.”

Ignatius added that, “it was this intelligence collected in Iran” that swung the balance. But Ignatius offered no examples of what that intelligence was. Nor did Ignatius show any skepticism regarding Petraeus’s well-known hostility toward Iran and how that might have influenced the CIA’s judgment.

As it turned out, the case was based primarily on statements from an Iranian-American car dealer Mansour Arbabsiar, who clumsily tried to hire drug dealers to murder Saudi Ambassador Adel Al-Jubeir, though Arbabsiar was actually talking to a Drug Enforcement Agency informant. Arbabsiar pled guilty last month as his lawyers argued that their client suffers from a bipolar disorder. In other words, Petraeus and his CIA escalated an international crisis largely on the word of a person diagnosed by doctors of his own defense team as having a severe psychiatric disorder.

Despite the implausibility of the assassination story and the unreliability of the key source, the Washington press corps quickly accepted the Iranian assassination plot as real. That assessment reflected the continued influence of neoconservatives in Official Washington and Petraeus’s out-sized reputation among journalists.

The neocons, who directed much of President George W. Bush’s disastrous foreign policy and filled the ranks of Mitt Romney’s national security team, have favored a heightened confrontation with Iran in line with the hardline position of Israel’s Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the post-election period, it is a top neocon goal to derail Obama’s efforts to work out a peaceful settlement of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. The neocons favor “regime change.”

Suspect Loyalties

Petraeus’s ideological alignment with the neocons threatened to undercut the administration’s unity behind Obama’s peace initiative. Thus, according to the person familiar with the administration’s thinking, some key figures close to the President wanted Petraeus out and there was no sadness that his personal indiscretions contributed to his departure.

Regarding the facts behind Petraeus’s sudden resignation, the New York Times reported that the FBI had begun an investigation into a “potential criminal matter” several months ago that was not focused on Petraeus. It was in the course of an their inquiry into whether a computer used by Petraeus had been compromised that agents discovered evidence of the relationship as well as other security concerns. About two weeks ago, FBI agents met with Petraeus to discuss the investigation, the Times reported.

According to the Times, one congressional official who was briefed on the matter said Petraeus had been encouraged “to get out in front of the issue” and resign, and that he agreed.

Though held in high esteem by Official Washington for his role in advocating “surges” of U.S. troops in Iraq in 2007 and in Afghanistan in 2009, Petraeus actually has a less than sterling record of military success. He was in charge of a trouble-plagued effort to train a new Iraqi army after the U.S. invasion in 2003, and his supposedly successful “surge” in Iraq was more a public relations success than a change in the strategic trajectory toward ultimate U.S. failure there.

The Unsuccessful Surge

The reality regarding the Iraq “surge” in 2007 was that much of the reduction in violence in Iraq derived from policies of Petraeus’s predecessors, including the implementation of the so-called Sunni Awakening which involved paying off Sunni tribal leaders to turn against al-Qaeda extremists and the killing of al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Sectarian violence also had led to a de facto separation of Sunnis and Shiites and thus a natural burning-out of the civil strife. All these developments occurred in 2006 before President Bush ordered the “surge” in 2007 and put Petraeus in charge.

The “surge” actually led to a spike in violence in Iraq before the other factors contributed to a gradual reduction. Nevertheless, Official Washington’s conventional wisdom was framed around the “successful surge” credited to President Bush, Gen. Petraeus and the neocons.

Though nearly 1,000 U.S. soldiers died during the “surge,” its primary effect was to enable Bush and the other Iraq War architects to leave office without the legacy of a clear-cut military defeat hung around their necks. At the end of 2011, the U.S. military left Iraq with little to show for Bush’s investment of blood and treasure.

Besides Bush, the chief beneficiaries of the “successful surge” myth were Gen. Petraeus and Bush’s last Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Both remained as part of the high command after Barack Obama took office in 2009, as the young President didn’t want an abrupt break with Bush’s war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the “continuity” trapped Obama when he tried to steer the wars toward conclusions. While pursuing the drawdown of troops in Iraq, he asked for less aggressive options in the Afghan War, only to have Gates, Petraeus and other Bush holdovers maneuver him into authorizing another “surge” for Afghanistan.

Behind the President’s Back

As Bob Woodward reported in his book, Obama’s Wars, it was Bush’s old team that made sure Obama was given no option other than to escalate troop levels in Afghanistan substantially. The Bush holdovers also lobbied for the troop increase behind Obama’s back.

According to Woodward’s book, Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, refused to even prepare an early-exit option that Obama had requested. Instead, they offered up only plans for their desired escalation of about 40,000 troops.

Woodward wrote: “For two exhausting months, [Obama] had been asking military advisers to give him a range of options for the war in Afghanistan. Instead, he felt that they were steering him toward one outcome and thwarting his search for an exit plan. He would later tell his White House aides that military leaders were ‘really cooking this thing in the direction they wanted.’”

In mid-2011, Obama finally eased Gates out of the Pentagon and replaced him with one of the President’s most trusted advisers, Leon Panetta, who had been serving as director of the CIA. At CIA, Panetta had overseen backchannel contacts between the White House and the Iranian leadership and other sensitive initiatives.

To complete the personnel shift – and to keep the Republican-leaning Petraeus out of presidential politics in 2012 – Obama put Petraeus in as CIA director. But Obama’s inner circle never trusted Petraeus who was known to have built political support for his military career by cultivating the loyalty of Washington’s top neoconservatives.

Friendly Neocons

For instance, in 2009 when Obama was deciding what to do about Afghanistan, Gen. Petraeus personally arranged extraordinary access to U.S. field commanders for two of his influential neocon friends, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations and Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute.

“Fears of impending disaster are hard to sustain … if you actually spend some time in Afghanistan, as we did recently at the invitation of General David Petraeus, chief of U.S. Central Command,” they wrote upon their return.

“Using helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and bone-jarring armored vehicles, we spent eight days traveling from the snow-capped peaks of Kunar province near the border with Pakistan in the east to the wind-blown deserts of Farah province in the west near the border with Iran. Along the way we talked with countless coalition soldiers, ranging from privates to a four-star general,” they said.

Their access paid dividends for Petraeus when they penned a glowing report in the Weekly Standard about the prospects for success in Afghanistan – if only President Obama sent more troops and committed the United States to stay in the war for the long haul.

Besides getting neocons to put public pressure on the President, Petraeus turned to Boot in 2010 when Petraeus felt he had made a mistake in allowing his official congressional testimony to contain mild criticism of Israel. His written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee had included the observation that “the enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests” in the Middle East and added:

“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. … Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.”

Though the testimony might strike some readers as a no-brainer, many neocons regard any suggestion that Israeli intransigence on Palestinian peace talks contributed to the dangers faced by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as a “blood libel” against Israel.

A Happy Face

So, when Petraeus’s testimony began getting traction on the Internet, the general quickly turned to Boot and began backtracking on the testimony. “As you know, I didn’t say that,” Petraeus said, according to one e-mail to Boot timed off at 2:27 p.m., March 18, 2010. “It’s in a written submission for the record.”

In other words, Petraeus was arguing that the comments were only in his formal testimony and were not repeated by him in his oral opening statement. However, in the real world, the written testimony of a witness is treated as part of the official record at congressional hearings with no meaningful distinction from oral testimony.

In another e-mail, as Petraeus solicited Boot’s help in tamping down any controversy over the Israeli remarks, the general ended the message with a military “Roger” and a sideways happy face, made from a colon, a dash and a closed parenthesis, “:-).”

The e-mails were made public by James Morris, who runs a Web site called “Neocon Zionist Threat to America.” Morris said he apparently got the Petraeus-Boot exchanges by accident when he sent a March 19, 2010, e-mail congratulating Petraeus for his testimony and Petraeus responded by forwarding one of Boot’s blog posts that knocked down the story of the general’s implicit criticism of Israel.

Petraeus forwarded Boot’s blog item, entitled “A Lie: David Petraeus, Anti-Israel,” which had been posted at the Commentary magazine site at 3:11 p.m. on March 18. However, Petraeus apparently forgot to delete some of the other exchanges between him and Boot at the bottom of the e-mail.

Morris sent me the e-mails at my request after an article by Philip Weiss appeared about them at Mondoweiss, a Web site that deals with Middle East issues. When I sought comment from Petraeus and Boot regarding the e-mails, neither responded.

Obama’s decision to entrust a position as crucial as CIA director to Petraeus, an ambitious man with strong ties to the neocons, was always a risk. While Obama may have been thinking that he was keeping Petraeus out of a possible run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, the President put Petraeus in a spot where he could manipulate the intelligence that drives government policies.

Finally, as Obama heads into a second term, he appears to be clearing the decks so he can move ahead more aggressively with his own foreign policy. Robert Gates departed in mid-2011; David Petraeus has now resigned in ignominy; and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who often sided with Gates and Petraeus in taking neocon-style policy positions, is expected to step down soon.

Belatedly, Obama seems to have learned a key lesson of modern Washington: surrounding yourself with ideological and political rivals may sound good but it is usually an invitation to have your policies sabotaged.

[lupercal]

^ interesting. She does sound like a minder-mole but reporting to whom? The UK and Israeli connections are conspicuous but on the other hand the liaison sounds more like a cover story than a honey trap. The best I can figure at this point is that Petraeus got booted for either permitting or facilitating the Benghazi double-cross, which from its timing and the use it was put to seems to have been intended to bring down Obama as payback for his final deep-sixing of the Iran attack in September. Good thing it failed and let's hope BO keeps out-maneuvering the US intel leviathan which often seems to be working for somebody else, namely the UK and its affiliates.

[chump]

He was having an affair with a woman and she got access to his e-mail? That sounds like a classic spy op. I'm calling it now, this woman is KGB, and by that I mean Mossad.

http://cryptogon.com/?p=32243#

CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns—Affair with High-Profile Journalist… But Wait, There’s More
November 10th, 2012

You’ll love this.

Via: National Post:

David Petraeus resigned abruptly Friday as CIA director after an FBI investigation discovered his affair with biographer Paula Broadwell.
Broadwell, who released All In: The Education of General David Petraeus earlier this year, is now under investigation for trying to access Petraeus’ email, which may have exposed classified documents, sources told NBC News.

The FBI probe is unlikely to result in charges, NBC’s source noted.
…
The president said that CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell would serve as acting director. Morell was the key CIA aide in the White House to President George W. Bush during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

“I am completely confident that the CIA will continue to thrive and carry out its essential mission,” Obama said.

From the jacket of Paula Broadwell's book:

Broadwell embedded with the general, his headquarters staff, and his soldiers on the front lines of fighting across Afghanistan to chronicle the experiences of this American general as they are brought to bear in the terrible crucible of war. All In draws on hundreds of hours of exclusive interviews with Petraeus and his top officers and soldiers and on Broadwell's frontline reporting experience to tell the inside story of this commander's development and leadership in war from every vantage point.

Va-va-voom!! (wink, wink) It's good to be the General!

[chump]

He was having an affair with a woman and she got access to his e-mail? That sounds like a classic spy op. I'm calling it now, this woman is KGB, and by that I mean Mossad.

http://cryptogon.com/?p=32243#

CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns—Affair with High-Profile Journalist… But Wait, There’s More
November 10th, 2012

You’ll love this.

Via: National Post:

David Petraeus resigned abruptly Friday as CIA director after an FBI investigation discovered his affair with biographer Paula Broadwell.
Broadwell, who released All In: The Education of General David Petraeus earlier this year, is now under investigation for trying to access Petraeus’ email, which may have exposed classified documents, sources told NBC News.

The FBI probe is unlikely to result in charges, NBC’s source noted.
…
The president said that CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell would serve as acting director. Morell was the key CIA aide in the White House to President George W. Bush during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

“I am completely confident that the CIA will continue to thrive and carry out its essential mission,” Obama said.

From the jacket of Paula Broadwell's book:

Broadwell embedded with the general, his headquarters staff, and his soldiers on the front lines of fighting across Afghanistan to chronicle the experiences of this American general as they are brought to bear in the terrible crucible of war. All In draws on hundreds of hours of exclusive interviews with Petraeus and his top officers and soldiers and on Broadwell's frontline reporting experience to tell the inside story of this commander's development and leadership in war from every vantage point.

Va-va-voom!! (wink, wink) It's good to be the General!

[JackRiddler]

The president said that CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell would serve as acting director. Morell was the key CIA aide in the White House to President George W. Bush during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

He also managed the staff that produced the Presidential Daily Briefings for President George W. Bush.[5]

citing offline source:
Dyer, Bob (2006-08-17). "Here's the dossier on new No. 3 guy at the CIA: Cuyahoga Falls native, UA grad says spy agency wasn't part of original career plan.". Akron Beacon Journal. Ohio.

Also silobreaker, now offline.

One we usually managed to miss in all the 9/11 research years, like WHMO, Edger, and Blee's crew until recently...

Michael J. Morell (born 1958) is the current Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, his second time in that role, having served as Acting Director the year before, in 2011. In May 2010, Morell was sworn in as the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, succeeding Stephen Kappes.[1] As stated, from July 1[2] to September 6, 2011, he served his first stint as Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, following the appointment of Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense. On November 9, 2012, Morell once again became Acting Director following the resignation of General David Petraeus, following an extramarital affair.[3] President Obama plans to nominate him as the Director.[4]

Morell is a native of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.[5] He joined the CIA in 1980. He was chief of the CIA's division on Asia, Pacific and Latin America.[6] Most of his work in the agency was devoted to Asian projects.[5] He also managed the staff that produced the Presidential Daily Briefings for President George W. Bush.[5][6] Before his 2010 nomination as Deputy Director, Morell served as Director for Intelligence, a position he had held since 2008. Before that, he served as the CIA's first Associate Deputy Director from 2006-2008.

[kelley]

petraeus assessed a target-rich environment and went all in. many of us would have done the same. i forgive him.

[seemslikeadream]

The collapse of the dazzling career of CIA Director David H. Petraeus was triggered when a woman with whom he was having an affair sent threatening e-mails to another woman close to him, according to three senior law enforcement officials with knowledge of the episode.

The recipient of the e-mails was so frightened that she went to the FBI for protection and help tracking down the sender, according to the officials. The FBI investigation traced the threats to Paula Broadwell, a former military officer and Petraeus biographer, and uncovered explicit e-mails between Broadwell and Petraeus, the officials said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

[JackRiddler]

Look, when they moved him to CIA, didn't we have a discussion here about how this meant he would be neutralized (as is the tendency with CIA directors from outside the CIA)?

Wait... searching...

Ha, found it! Wombat, I want my prediction points!

The Bush man at the Pentagon, Gates -- retired. Obama's choice, Panetta, is in. Petraeus -- neutralized, withdrawn from his Afghanistan flag-waving photo-ops and sent into the bowels of the CIA, an agency with a proven history of stimying and dispensing with directors considered hostile to it.

From viewtopic.php?t=31969&p=399617#p399618

Hell, if you'd asked me last week who was DCI I might have hestitated. My assumption from the moment of Petraeus's appointment was that it was already curtains for him, so I might have been uncertain whether this hadn't already happened. So while I can say I am not surprised, I also don't feel particularly confirmed. It was kind of obvious.

So Broadwell (geez, it's even in the name), was she a set up from the start? If so, (to continue the inevitable boys' theme here), hell of a way to go!

Also, some genius on DU was campaigning for HRC as replacement. I love the idea! (Except the idiot meant it straight.) She already ran the front end of the business, why not spend some time in the real seat of US foreign policy? Given a permanently criminal government since - oh, whenever it was, 1945? 1877? 1789?! - we might as well get the entertainment value of HRC at CIA. (Coming home at last!)

.

[barracuda]

Panetta's probably next. Cutting ties to the Bush legacy.