It seems there’s nothing more delicious than being able to eavesdrop on a cat fight between one woman and another woman as they fight for the love of one man. That man of course being until last Friday, the head of the CIA, David Petraeus who saw his good standing suddenly implode like a balloon skidding across a pad of thimble sized pins in a soggy rained out field.
But then again even the above may need correction as it turns out it in the end it was just one woman, Paula Broadwell fighting another woman for the love of another man whilst the other woman, the recipient of her lambasting emails, Jill Kelley, a military social liason was simply fighting for her autonomy and desire to be left alone by someone whom in her mind was clearly crazy. Or was she? Maybe Paula Broadwell was onto something that to date Jill Kellsey refuses to admit…?
The messages were instead what the source terms “kind of cat-fight stuff.”
“More like, ‘Who do you think you are? … You parade around the base … You need to take it down a notch,’” according to the source, who was until recently at the highest levels of the intelligence community and prefers not to be identified by name.
Thus began a disingenuous link between David Petraeus’s mistress, Paula Broadwell and that of Jill Kelley who in her mind may have been the reason why David Petraeus had been going cold on her of late before eventually even refusing to take her calls. But Paula Broadwell was never going to explicitly accuse Jill Kelley of such things, nor issue any bold warnings or threats, that would be too vulgar and incriminating, rather she hoped to belittle and conflate Kelley so she could get the hint that she was way out of her league.
The source reports that the emails did make one reference to Gen. David Petraeus, but it was oblique and offered no manifest suggestion of a personal relationship or even that he was central to the sender’s spite.
Kelley herself seemed mystified as to what was behind the emails, much less who sent them.
“I don’t know who this person is and I don’t want to keep getting them,” she told the FBI, as recounted by the source.
At the time the emails Kelley was receiving weren’t of a threatening nature nor where they particularly incriminating, just plain rude, uncalled for and verging on harassment. They may have not been investigated in most circumstances but by virtue that Kelley was friends with an FBI agent he said he would do her a favor and look into it for her. Which raises another interesting question, why did Jill Kelley insist on taking it this far, and was she concerned that she had something to hide or protect?
It wasn’t long before the emails were traced back to Paula Broadwell, a military officer who had recently penned a biography on David Petraeus and whom interestingly seemed to have a very personal repoire with Mr Petraeus, whom FBI agents initially wondered if Petraeus’ personal email account had been compromised which soon led to Mrs Broadwell’s email account upside down.
Reiterates the wsj: Ms. Broadwell allegedly used a variety of email addresses to send the harassing messages to Ms. Kelley, officials said.
One asked if Ms. Kelley’s husband was aware of her actions, according to officials. In another, the anonymous writer claimed to have watched Ms. Kelley touching “him” provocatively underneath a table, the officials said.
The message was referring to Mr. Petraeus, but that wasn’t clear at the time, officials said. A lawyer for Ms. Kelley didn’t respond to messages Monday seeking comment on the anonymous emails or on the alleged emails from the FBI agent. A lawyer for Ms. Broadwell also didn’t respond. Neither woman has replied to requests to speak about the matter.
Intrigued by the overt sexual references between Paula Broadwell and David Petraeus the FBI called in the couple to interview them, with each of them openly admitting that they had had an affair with each other, but nonetheless the FBI reasoned it was their personal business and that no national security hadn’t been breached and they didn’t believe that the pair had broken any criminal laws in their relations with each other.
Nonetheless FBI chief Robert Mueller was made aware of the case which led to him mulling what to do with all this information before deciding to send it to the attention of Petraeus’ boss, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, who eventually decided that it would never do to have a senior official in the possible pliable position of being blackmailed and thus risking national security which led to Clapper urging Petraeus to tender his resignation.
But in the event this is all beginning to sound too ridiculous, comes the following which may or may not have spurned national intelligent operatives to relieve David Petraeus of his duties as he may or may not have related the following to his lover Paula Broadwell:
In a separate twist in the tangled matter of Mr. Petraeus’s resignation, the CIA disputed a theory advanced by Ms. Broadwell that insurgents may have attacked the U.S. consulate and a CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 in a bid to free militants being held there by the agency. Ms. Broadwell suggested that rationale for the consulate attack in an address at the University of Denver on Oct. 26.
“I don’t know if a lot of you had heard this, but the CIA annex had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think the attack on the consulate was an attempt to get these prisoners back,” she said then. “It’s still being vetted.”
A CIA spokesman said there were no militant prisoners there, noting that President Barack Obama ended CIA authority to hold detainees in 2009. “Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless,” said the spokesperson.
In the end the whole thing is laughable, the man who led America to what many would argue to be an illegal and unjust war against Iraq, Afghanistan, and who has been able to sequester major criminals, heads of state and operatives into despair and conjecture was now being asked to leave his office because of a blow job and a romp in the sack?
If David Petraeus was asked to leave his office because he had actually breached ethics, laws and compromised national security that would be one thing, but it seems the real pickle in this messy salad is the fact that it suddenly occurred to someone high up that one day the public would come looking for answers as to the conduct of the US and major operatives (note the upcoming Benghazi, Libya Senate committee hearing) in its dealings and that maybe rather than risk facing real examination and a reigning in of its powers (which since the times of President George W Bush and now Obama as well have exponentially expanded) it merely chose to conveniently push its token Queen bee out of the beehive reasoning that they would be taking out the incriminating fingerprints with them out the front door.
Which raises the awkward question will the public dare come looking for answers anyway….?