From: Judy Miriga

Good People,

No one knows where this love scandal is staking us. One thing is sure, the country from a very difficult election, people must now be united and stay focused looking forward on Unity of Purpose.

Obama win is a very big lesson to all people of the world and connecting with sports and Biblical messages, it is time one played in the game and won and the other lost, life must go on; and Biblically, the world belongs to God and He intervenes at the best opportunity moment to choose who will serve His people when the world has lost direction.

In connecting the dots of case-scenarios, the way God plans for us is not the way man plans. In many times, we find ourselves planning and doing things for selfish reasons but that is not the Will and Purpose of God’s plan for creation.

See (Matthew 24:35), “Heaven and Earth will pass away, but My words will live forever”.

God revealed Himself in many instances indicating his choice was Barack Obama who was his annointed one to save the world from perishing. We should pay attention to what God is trying to reveal to us. For the Rich and Wealthy of the Special Interest Billionnaires, they ganged against President Obama, but God intervened for Obama and he won. This is a great lesson and it remains to each and everyone to have their choice, God has spoken.

Ø However, everything that has a beginning must have an end

Ø Everyone who goes up must come down

Ø Those under oppression, pain and suffering must be freed

Ø Nothing is permanent, we are born and finally we all shall one day die

Ø The Rich and Poor are the same in the eyes of God we must remain loving,

sharing and caring for each other

Ø We must not destroy the world, but must leave it better than we found it

Ø If we make Love our commandment at which all our lives rotate, we will care

to do good all the times and the rich and poor will live in harmony and at peace

with each other but united to balance life and nature for the good of all

If we obey the law and share in our burden, God we see us at the point of our needs and lighten our loads. The whole world is at pain and like the Bible days, although King Solomon the son of David was favored by God to build God a Temple and it was because David’s hands were tainted with blook, Kind Solomon was favored by Leaders of the world for which He received many gifts from Rulers of the world including Queen of Sheba who tested King Solomon’s wisdom after she arrived in Jerusalem with a large group of attendants and a great caravan of camels loaded with rare spices, large quantities of gold and precious jewels. When she met with Solomon, she talked with him about everything she had on her mind and tested his wisdom with questions and riddles. Solomon had answers for all her questions, and nothing was too hard for the king to explain to her. When the queen realized how very wise Solomon was, and when she saw the palace he had built, she was overwhelmed. She was also amazed at the food on his tables, the organization of his officials and their splendid clothing, the cup-bearers, and the burnt offerings Solomon made at the Jerusalem Jerusalem Temple. Sheba is identified with Saba, a nation once spanning along the Red Sea, on the coasts of what today are Eritrea, Ethiopia and Yemen. Some modern Arab academics place the queen not in Yemen, as did older Islamic sources, but rather as a ruler of a trading colony in Northwest Arabia. It is related further that the queen was awed by Solomon’s great wisdom and wealth and pronounced a blessing on Solomon’s God. Solomon reciprocated with gifts and “everything she desired.” Solomon offered to give her everything she desired and asked for “besides what he had given her out of his royal bounty.” Then, according to the Bible, “she turned and went to her country, she and her servants.” The queen apparently was quite rich, however, as she brought four and a half tons of gold with her to give to Solomon (1 Kings 10:10).

Queen of Sheba, who, being intrigued by the stories of Solomon’s wisdom and wealth, embarked on the 1,400 mile journey from Sheba to Jerusalem to meet him. She had to cross the desert sands of Arabia, and travel along the coast of the Red Sea, up into Moab, and over the Jordan River to Jerusalem. Such a journey required at least six months time round trip each way, since camels could rarely travel more than 20 miles per day.

The Song of Songs, according to many scholars, is not about one man’s love for a woman, but really about the mutual love of God and his people. The author simply uses the device of human love to describe the relationship between the two entities. The Queen of Sheba was a monarch of the ancient kingdom of Sheba and is referred to in Yemeni and Ethiopian history, the Bible, the Qur’an, Yoruba customary tradition, and Josephus. She is widely assumed to have been a queen regnant, although there is no historical proof of this; in fact, she may have been a queen consort.[1] The location of her kingdom is believed to have been in Ethiopia[citation needed] and Yemen.

The biblical accounts of this royal meeting, can be found in both the book of Kings 1 and in the book of Chronicles 2. The same is repeating itself with President Obama’s leadership and Obama’s roots in Africa Kenya is not a coincidence…Luos are spread out and can be traced from Ethiopia………

Account in the New Testament. The Queen of Sheba is commonly believed to be the Queen of the South referenced in Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31 in the New Testament, where Jesus indicates that she and the Ninevites will judge the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries who rejected him.

Things like these dont just happen, there is a reason…….If God say NO, no one can say YES and if God say YES, no man can say NO……….The majority of the world want peace and no want to go for war, it is not right to destroy the world, as there is enough destruction and pollution in the world, we all should strive how to improve the mess we already have………and if we do this, there are better things to come……

Let us all strive to do good for the sake of Love and hapinness ………and all shall be well with us……..

Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com

– – – – – – – – – –

CIA Director Genral David Petraeus’ Alleged Mistress Paula Broadwell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwLlenehmuc
Published on Nov 11, 2012 by ohhellmaybe
As a biographer to Gen. David Petraeus, Paula Broadwell enjoyed tremendous access to the general during the year they spent together in Afghanistan, finding out the idiosyncrasies that helped shaped the man who was the public face of the war.

“He was really motivated to please his father when he was younger,” Broadwell told ABC News’ Christiane Amanpour earlier this year. “His father doled out what he called gruff love, so he was always working hard to keep his father happy and I think that’s reflected in his personality now.”

It was clear in interviews Broadwell gave to promote her book, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus” that she and the general shared a mutual trust. What remained unseen, however, was an extramarital affair that sources say was discovered by the FBI after intimate emails sent from the CIA director were found in Broadwell’s email inbox.

By all accounts, Broadwell seemed to have it all.

The 40-year-old resides in Charlotte, N.C., with her husband, Dr. Scott Broadwell, who works as a radiologist, and their two young sons.

Growing up in Bismarck, N.D., Broadwell was the high school valedictorian and homecoming queen.

She went on to attend West Point, where she was ranked No. 1 in overall fitness in her class. She spent some time in the Black Ops and later earned post-graduate degrees from Harvard and King’s College in London.

On Monday, just days before before Petraeus would step down from his post with the CIA, a story by Broadwell was published on Newsweek’s website titled “General David Petraeus’s Rules for Living.” No. 5 is notable in light of the news about his extramarital affair.

“We all will make mistakes,” he said. “The key is to recognize them and admit them, to learn from them, and to take off the rear-view mirrors — drive on and avoid making them again.””

Petraeus resigned on Friday, citing personal reasons and an extramarital affair.

“Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the president to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA,” he said in a statement. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the president graciously accepted my resignation.”

From ABC

David Petraeus Affair: FBI Probe Into Inbox of Paula Broadwell Uncovers ‘Human Drama’

Gen. David Petraeus and biographer Paula Broadwell are shown in this undated photo. (PaulaBroadwell.com)
Auto Start: On | Off
Nov. 10, 2012

A disturbing email sent to a woman associated with Gen. David Petraeus spurred an FBI investigation that ultimately traced the message back to the inbox of Petraeus’ biographer, Paula Broadwell, where authorities discovered intimate emails she had exchanged with the CIA director, who has since resigned.

Sources familiar with the investigation tell ABC News that Petraeus and Broadwell were carrying on an affair.

The FBI stumbled across the affair after the unnamed woman, who received the troubling email several months ago, alerted authorities, who began a probe to track the source of the message.

The suspicious email was traced to the inbox of Broadwell, where investigators were said to have found emails indicating a romantic or sexual relationship between the married biographer and Petraeus, who has been married to his wife, Holly, for 37 years.

The FBI uncovered no compromising of classified information or criminal activity, sources familiar with the investigation said, adding that all that was found was a lot of “human drama.”

WATCH: Paula Broadwell interviewed on “Around The World with Christiane Amanpour”

The timing of Petraeus’ resignation, which came days before he was scheduled to testify to the House and Senate intelligence committees regarding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “was what it was,” an official told ABC News, adding that the time had come to tie up any loose ends in the investigation and confront Petraeus.

The CIA director stepped down from his position as the head of the intelligence agency on Friday, acknowledging he had engaged in an extramarital affair. He did not provide any further details.

“Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the president to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA,” he said in a statement. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the president graciously accepted my resignation.”

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was made aware of the Petraeus situation on Tuesday evening around 5 p.m. by the FBI, according to a senior intelligence source.

Sept. 16, 2008: Gen. Petraeus Steps Down Watch Video
Paula Broadwell Spent Year Embedded With Petraeus

After having several conversations with Petraeus that evening and the following day, Clapper advised Petraeus that the best thing to do would be for him to resign, the source said.

Clapper notified the White House the following afternoon that Petraeus was considering resigning, according to the source.

Petraeus then went to the White House Thursday and told the president he thought he should resign, and the following day the president accepted his resignation, the source said.

Clapper is not currently initiating an investigation into the matter, according to the source.

The news shocked officials in Washington. Petraeus was perhaps the military’s most respected general of his generation. He is seen as a problem-solver, and was entrusted with key roles by two presidents from different parties.
PHOTOS: Politics Sex Scandals

Petraeus, then working as a general in Afghanistan, spent a year in close quarters with Broadwell, a 40-year-old married mother of two who embedded with him to write his biography.

In February, when promoting her book, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” the West Point and Harvard-educated Broadwell told ABC News’ Christiane Amanpour she was able to learn more about what makes the four-star general tick.

“His father doled out what he called gruff love, so he was always working hard to keep his father happy and I think that’s reflected in his personality now,” she said. “It’s interesting to apply that on every one of his assignments, even looking at now, he’s trying to please this president.”

Broadwell wrote a story that was published this week on Newsweek’s website titled “General David Petraeus’s Rules for Living.” No. 5 is notable in light of the news about his extramarital affair.

“We all will make mistakes. The key is to recognize them and admit them, to learn from them, and to take off the rear-view mirrors — drive on and avoid making them again,” he said.

Flashback: Martha Raddatz profiled David Petraeus when he retired from the military. Watch that here.

Petraeus Resigns: CIA Director Cites Affair Watch Video

Petraeus on CIA Nomination Watch Video
Sept. 16, 2008: Gen. Petraeus Steps Down Watch Video
The departure of Petraeus will add another hole to Obama’s leadership team, which is expected to lose some high-profile faces in the coming weeks and months. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is among the cabinet members who have said they will not stay in the administration for a second term. A hole at CIA will add yet another position that requires Senate confirmation to that list.
Petraeus Mistress Had Access to His Private Email
Petraeus’s vaunted integrity apparently wasn’t enough to stop from letting an affair compromise US security
by John Glaser, November 10, 2012
Print This | Share This

The focus on CIA Director David Petraeus’s resignation – which he declared was because of an extra-marital affair he had – has turned to the access that his mistress had to his personal email account.

The FBI investigation that eventually uncovered the affair began because associates of Petraeus had received “anonymous harassing emails” that were then traced to his mistress, Paula Broadwell, the author of a biography on Petraeus.

”It didn’t start with Petraeus, but in the course of the investigation they stumbled across him,’’ according to a congressional official.

Petraeus is almost universally thought of among the political and media establishment as a stand-up guy, an American hero. But his supposed integrity – the kind not associated with running drone programs that kill innocents abroad or heading a lawless, covert, para-military army – was apparently not deep enough to refrain from letting an affair potentially compromise US security.

“If Petraeus allowed his Gmail security to be compromised even slightly,” writes Max Fisher at the Washington Post, “by widening access, sharing passwords or logging in from multiple addresses, it would have brought foreign spy agencies that much closer to a treasure trove of information.”

Emails from former CIA chief David Petraeus to mistress Paula Broadwell referenced ‘sex under a desk’

An FBI source alleges that Petraeus sent mistress Paula Broadwell sexually explicit emails during the course of their affair.
Comments (8)
By Victoria Cavaliere / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, November 10, 2012, 1:17 PM

Alex Wong/Getty Images
U.S. Gen. David Petraeus arrives at a confirmation hearing before the Senate (Select) Intelligence Committee June 23, 2011, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Gen. Petraeus will become the director of the Central Intelligence Agency if confirmed.

Former CIA chief David Petraeus sent some saucy emails to his ex-mistress, including one that referenced “sex under a desk,” a conservative news website reports.

An FBI source told Newsmax that Petraeus sent his former girlfriend and biographer, Paula Broadwell, sexually explicit emails during the course of their affair. It was unclear if the desk reference was a fantasy or something that had actually transpired.

PAULA BROADWELL HEAPED PRAISE ON CIA DIRECTOR’S WIFE

DAVID PETRAEUS RESIGNS AS CIA DIRECTOR, ADMITS EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR

DAVID PETRAEUS SCANDAL GROWS: MISTRESS SENT MENACING E-MAILS TO MYSTERY WOMAN SHE FEARED THREATENED AFFAIR

Broadwell, who was embedded with Gen. Petraeus while he was Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, broke up with him before he took the helm at the CIA, Newsmax reported.

Petraeus’ stunning resignation came with a mea culpa about the affair.

The FBI had been investigating Petraeus and combing through his emails for several months before he stepped down.

MSNBC reports that Broadwell is also under investigation as she might have had access to some confidential information during her close relationship with Petraeus.

Before affair went public, David Petraeus’ mistress said general had ‘no dirty secrets’

Back in January, while promoting her biography of Petraeus, ‘All In,’ on ‘The Daily Show,’ Paula Broadwell made the statement that now looks downright awkward given the scandal that forced the CIA director to resign.
Comments (55)
By Charlie Wells / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, November 10, 2012, 2:33 PM

Paula Broadwell promoting her Petraeus biography last January on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.”

Months before their sexual affair sent shockwaves through Washington, David Petraeus’ mistress said publicly that the four-star general had “no dirty secrets.”

Paula Broadwell made the statement in a January “Daily Show” interview meant to plug her book on Petraeus that now looks downright awkward given the ambitious CIA director’s career has been kinked by scandal.

Talking about the book, a biography titled “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” which was released earlier this year, Broadwell offered up a slew of personal details on the highly respected military man that even had host Jon Stewart wondering about how she could get such close access to one of the nation’s highest military officials.

DON’T MISS: EMAILS FROM FORMER CIA CHIEF DAVID PETRAEUS TO MISTRESS PAULA BROADWELL REFERENCED ‘SEX UNDER A DESK’

A lifelong high achiever with a young husband, Broadwell said her relationship with Petraeus got off to a physical start.

Comedy Central/Screen grab
Broadwell’s book, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” which was published in January.

It was centered on long runs together that took place both in Washington and Afghanistan.

“This is a typical mechanism he uses to get to know young people, he’s done it throughout his life,” she said. “That was the foundation of our relationship.”

On one run within the Beltway, “the talk turned to heavy breathing and we reached a 6-minute-per-mile pace,” she wrote in the preface of her book.

She told Stewart that Petraeus had “no dirty secrets” and if a difficult subject came up on one of their runs, “he would just pick up the pace so neither of us could talk.”

BEFORE: DAVID PETRAEUS RESIGNS AS CIA DIRECTOR

Like Petraeus, Broadwell described herself as an avid runner and athlete. She had lettered in cross country in high school and finished first in fitness in her class at West Point.

Through her runs with the general, which she said Petraeus viewed as mentoring opportunities, as well as other research methods that even included a trip to visit the general in Afghanistan, Broadwell came to find out much about the man some believed might one day run for president.

Petraeus’ nickname is “Peaches,” she told Stewart, and it was a name that followed him from high school through West Point.

Broadwell called him “tenacious” and “relentless in whatever he does.”

RELATED: PAULA BROADWELL HAD ‘IDYLLIC FAMILY’

“He’s a very high-energy person, and I think he does gain energy from feeling like he’s consequential and making a difference,” she said, adding that, “He loves serving, he loves to be in the arena.”

Broadwell started interviewing Petraeus for a doctoral dissertation she was preparing for at King’s College at the University of London. She eventually turned the project into a book.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/petraeus-emails-reference-sex-desk-article-1.1199953#ixzz2C36F1AWJ
David Petraeus scandal grows: Mistress, Paula Broadwell, sent menacing e-mails to mystery woman she feared threatened affair
Comments (168)
Published: Saturday, November 10, 2012, 7:46 PM
Updated: Sunday, November 11, 2012, 5:14 AM

Alessandro Bianchi/Reuters
Gen. David Petraeus quit CIA post after admitting an affair.

New York Daily News
The cheating spy agency boss never saw the sneak attack coming.
A mystery woman sparked the scandal that ended the career of Gen. David Petraeus after she was bombarded with threatening emails from the CIA chief’s alleged mistress, an official told the Daily News.
The woman, who is said to be close to the general, was so disturbed by the menacing missives from Petraeus’ lover Paula Broadwell that she went to the feds, begging the FBI for protection, U.S. officials told The Associated Press.

“As soon as the announcement was made, I knew in an instant who it was,” a military source told businessinsider.com.

“Everything made sense. Who had exclusive access to him? Who wrote the hagiography on his life? Who framed their entire existence around his persona?

“In the end I believe she got her claws — so to speak — in him,” he added.

Still, the scandal left dozens of Washington insiders thunderstruck.

Broadwell, meanwhile, was under investigation by the FBI for “improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information,” NBC News reported.

Law enforcement officials do not expect criminal charges and stressed that Petraeus is not under investigation.

The timing of Petraeus’ resignation — just three days after President Obama was reelected and only a week before a congressional hearing on the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others — has sparked a fury of speculation about who knew what and when.

Greg E. Mathieson, Sr./Splash News
David Petraeus was sitting before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for his confirmation hearing as the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency while his wife Holly Petraeus (left) and author Paula Broadwell (right) watched on June 2011.

“I think he should be called to testify either Thursday or at a later date,” Rep. Pete King said. “He’s a critical witness, whether or not he’s still the CIA director.”

The exact timeline of when the FBI launched its investigation remains sketchy, but the inquiry is believed to have started at least several weeks ago.

“It didn’t start with Petraeus, but in the course of the investigation they stumbled across him,” a congressional official told The Times. “We were stunned.”

Petraeus was first questioned roughly two weeks ago and was told at the time that no criminal charges would be forthcoming, according to the Washington Post.

But it was not until Tuesday that the Justice Department notified James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, about Petraeus’ illicit relationship.

Clapper then set up a meeting with Petraeus and told him to resign, the newspaper reported.

Petraeus sent a letter to President Obama on Thursday asking that he be allowed to resign. Obama gave the green light on Friday.

“He is truly remorseful about everything that’s happened,” said Steve Boylan, a former Petraeus spokesman who talked with the former general on Saturday. “He screwed up, he knows he screwed up, now he’s got to try to get past this with his family and heal.”

Christopher Berkey/AP
Gen. Petraeus, then a commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division, kisses wife Holly as son Stephen (left) and daughter Anne watch upon his return home from Iraq to Fort Campbell, Ky. in 2004.

Petraeus, who married his wife, Holly, inside a West Point chapel in July 1974, has two children: a daughter, Anne, and a son, Stephen, who led an infantry platoon in Afghanistan as an Army lieutenant.

A married mother of two boys — Lucien and London — Broadwell met her radiologist husband Scott Broadwell while training to become members of a ski patrol in Germany.

She has lived a life studded with success.

A high school valedictorian and homecoming queen, Broadwell went on to attend West Point, where she took top honors for overall fitness in the class.

Broadwell, who served in the military for more than 15 years and spent time in Black Ops, was a well-known figure in the Washington media scene.

Daniel Coston/Charlotte Observer
Scott and Paula Broadwell at the Patriot Gala in Charlotte, North Carolina.

She planned to celebrate her 40th birthday party in the nation’s capital this weekend, with many reporters invited. But her husband emailed guests Friday night saying the soiree was canceled.

It’s unclear when Petraeus began sleeping with Broadwell — but the pair are believed to have first met at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Broadwell, a graduate student at the time, approached Petraeus after he gave a speech there and walked away with his business card.

“I later discovered that he was famous for this type of mentoring and networking, especially with aspiring soldier-scholars,” Broadwell wrote in the preface of her book.

“I took full advantage of his open-door policy to seek insight and share perspectives.”

But at some point, their relationship turned romantic, with Broadwell referring to the general by his childhood nickname “Peaches.”

With News Wire Services

rschapiro@nydailynews.com
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/paula-broadwell-threatened-petraeus-lover-article-1.1200101?pgno=1#ixzz2C33ZtbyF

Official: Petraeus paramour emailed woman in Fla

By ADAM GOLDMAN, ANNE FLAHERTY and KIMBERLY DOZIER | Associated Press – 14 mins ago

Enlarge Photo
Associated Press/Susan Walsh, File – FILE – In this Aug. 31, 2011 file photo, former Commander of International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan Gen. Davis Petraeus kisses his wife Holly …more during an armed forces farewell tribute and retirement ceremony at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall in Arlington, Va. Gen. Petraeus, the retired four-star general who led the U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, resigned Friday, Nov. 9, 2012 as director of the CIA after admitting he had an extramarital affair. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File) less
Related Content
prevnext
Enlarge Photo
In the frame grab from C-SPAN Book …
Enlarge Photo
FILE – In this Feb. 1, 2009 file …
Enlarge Photo
FILE – In this Aug. 31, 2011 file …
Enlarge Photo
In this Jan. 15, 2012 photo, Paula …
Enlarge Photo
FILE – In this Feb. 14, 2004 file …
WASHINGTON (AP) — David Petraeus never shied away from the public eye before in times of crises. Now, he might not have a choice.

As details emerged about his extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, including a second woman who allegedly received threatening emails from the author, members of Congress said Sunday they want to know exactly when the now ex-CIA director and retired general popped up in the FBI inquiry, whether national security was compromised and why they weren’t told sooner.
“We received no advanced notice. It was like a lightning bolt,” said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee.

A senior U.S. military official identified the second woman Jill Kelley, 37, who lives in Tampa, Fla., and serves as the State Department’s liaison to the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, where among other duties, secret drone missions are worked on.
The military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation, said Kelley had received harassing emails from Broadwell, which led the FBI to examine her email account and eventually discover her relationship with Petraeus.

A friend of Kelley and Petraeus, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, also said the two saw each other often, but the nature of their friendship was unclear.
Petraeus resigned while lawmakers still had questions about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA base in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Lawmakers said it’s possible that Petraeus will still be asked to appear on Capitol Hill to testify about what he knew about the U.S. response to that incident.

Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the circumstances of the FBI probe smacked of a cover-up by the White House.
“It seems this (the investigation) has been going on for several months and, yet, now it appears that they’re saying that the FBI didn’t realize until Election Day that General Petraeus was involved. It just doesn’t add up,” said King, R-N.Y.
Petraeus, 60, quit Friday after acknowledging an extramarital relationship. He has been married 38 years to Holly Petraeus, with whom he has two adult children, including a son who led an infantry platoon in Afghanistan as an Army lieutenant.

Broadwell, a 40-year-old graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and an Army Reserve officer, is married with two young sons.
Broadwell has not responded to multiple emails and phone messages. Attempts to reach Kelley were not immediately successful.
Petraeus’ affair with Broadwell will be the subject of meetings Wednesday involving congressional intelligence committee leaders, FBI deputy director Sean Joyce and CIA deputy director Michael Morell.

Petraeus had been scheduled to appear before the committees on Thursday to testify on what the CIA knew and what the agency told the White House before, during and after the attack in Benghazi. Republicans and some Democrats have questioned the U.S. response and protection of diplomats stationed overseas.

Morell was expected to testify in place of Petraeus, and lawmakers said he should have the answers to their questions. But Feinstein and others didn’t rule out the possibility that Congress will compel Petraeus to testify about Benghazi at a later date, even though he’s relinquished his job.
“I don’t see how in the world you can find out what happened in Benghazi before, during and after the attack if General Petraeus doesn’t testify,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wants to create a joint congressional committee to investigate the U.S. response to that attack.

Feinstein said she first learned of Petraeus’ affair from the media late last week, and confirmed it in a phone call Friday with Petraeus. She eventually was briefed by the FBI and said so far there was no indication that national security was breached.

Still, Feinstein called the news “a heartbreak” for her personally and U.S. intelligence operations, and said she didn’t understand why the FBI didn’t give her a heads up as soon as Petraeus’ name emerged in the investigation.

“We are very much able to keep things in a classified setting,” she said. “At least if you know, you can begin to think and then to plan. And, of course, we have not had that opportunity.”

The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, was told by the Justice Department of the Petraeus investigation at about 5 p.m. on Election Day, and then called Petraeus and urged him to resign, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

FBI officials say the committees weren’t informed until Friday, one official said, because the matter started as a criminal investigation into harassing emails sent by Broadwell to another woman.

Concerned that the emails he exchanged with Broadwell raised the possibility of a security breach, the FBI brought the matter up with Petraeus directly, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation.

Petraeus decided to quit, though he was breaking no laws by having an affair, officials said.

Feinstein said she has not been told the precise relationship between Petraeus and the woman who reported the harassing emails to the FBI.

Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, called Petraeus “a great leader” who did right by stepping down and still deserves the nation’s gratitude. He also didn’t rule out calling Petraeus to testify on Benghazi at some point.

“He’s trying to put his life back together right now and that’s what he needs to focus on,” Chambliss said.

King appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Feinstein was on “Fox News Sunday,” Graham spoke on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” and Chambliss was interviewed on ABC’s “This Week.”

___

Associated Press writers Michele Salcedo and Pete Yost contributed to this report.

More Politics News
Official: Petraeus paramour emailed woman in Fla AP – 14 mins ago
Feinstein: FBI should have told us about Petraeus AP – 4 hrs ago
Senators discuss comprehensive immigration changes AP – 1 hr 24 mins ago
Cattle raiders kill at least 12 Kenyan policemen Reuters – 29 mins ago
Activist preacher voted head of Syria opposition group Reuters – 30 mins ago
Obama Marks Veterans Day at Arlington National Cemetery ABC OTUS News – 43 mins ago
FBI probe of Petraeus began with “suspicious emails”
By Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball | Reuters – 22 hrs ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The FBI investigation that led to the discovery of CIA Director David Petraeus’ affair with author Paula Broadwell was sparked by “suspicious emails” that initially did not contain any connection to Petraeus, U.S. law enforcement and security officials told Reuters on Saturday.

But the CIA director’s name unexpectedly turned up in the course of the investigation, two officials and two other sources briefed on the matter said.

It was “an issue with two women and they stumbled across the affair with Petraeus,” a U.S. government security source said.

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that the FBI probe was triggered when Broadwell sent threatening emails to an unidentified woman close to the CIA director.

The woman went to the FBI, which traced the threats to Broadwell and then uncovered explicit emails between Petraeus and Broadwell, the Post said.

Attempts by Reuters and other news media to reach Broadwell, an Army reserve offer and author of a biography of Petraeus, have not been successful.

The FBI and CIA declined comment on Saturday.

Many questions in the case remain unanswered publicly, including the identity of the second woman; the precise nature of the emails that launched the FBI investigation; and whether U.S. security was compromised in any way.
Nor is it clear why the FBI waited until Election Day to tell U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who oversees the CIA and other intelligence agencies, about its investigation involving Petraeus.

The CIA director announced his resignation suddenly on Friday, acknowledging an extramarital affair and saying he showed “extremely poor judgment.

The developments likely ended the public career of one of the United States’ most highly regarded generals, who was credited with helping pull Iraq out of civil war and led U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, new details emerged on Saturday about developments in the final days leading to Petraeus’ departure from atop the CIA.

Clapper was notified by the FBI on Tuesday evening about 5 p.m. – just as returns in the U.S. presidential election were about to come in – about “the situation involving Director Petraeus,” a senior intelligence official said. Clapper and Petraeus then spoke that evening and the following morning.

WHITE HOUSE NOTIFIED WEDNESDAY
“Director Clapper, as a friend and a colleague and a fellow general officer, advised Director Petraeus that he should do the right thing and he should step down,” the official said.

Clapper is a retired Air Force lieutenant general; Petraeus served nearly four decades in the U.S. Army.

On Wednesday, Clapper notified the National Security Council at the White House that Petraeus was considering resigning and President Barack Obama should be informed, the official said.

U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials agreed to discuss the Petraeus matter only on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity and because it is the subject of a law enforcement investigation.

Once Petraeus’ name turned up in the investigation, the importance of the FBI inquiry was immediately escalated, as investigators became concerned the CIA chief somehow might have been compromised, the law enforcement official said.

However, the official and two sources briefed on the matter said no evidence has turned up suggesting Petraeus had become vulnerable to espionage or blackmail. At this point, it appears unlikely that anyone will be charged with a crime as a result of the investigation, the official said.

The FBI investigation began fairly recently – months ago rather than years ago, when Petraeus would still have been in uniform as one of the U.S. Army’s top field commanders, the official said.

Representative Peter King, Republican chairman of the House of Representatives’ Homeland Security Committee, said in an interview on MSNBC the FBI was “investigating or monitoring … the director of the CIA for four or five months.”

Several officials briefed on the matter said senior officials at the Pentagon, CIA and Congress knew nothing of the FBI’s investigation of Petraeus until Thursday afternoon at the earliest, and some key officials were not briefed on the details until Friday.

There is no evidence at this time that anyone at the White House had knowledge of the situation involving Petraeus prior to the U.S. presidential election on Tuesday, which saw Obama elected to a second four-year term.

Another U.S. government security source said it was not until Friday afternoon that some members of the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees were notified about Petraeus’ resignation by Clapper’s office.

The congressional committees were told that it was a personal issue that Petraeus had to discuss with his wife. When pressed, a representative of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said it involved another woman.

(Writing by Warren Strobel; Additional reporting by Doug Palmer and Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Todd Eastham)

Petraeus affair: From romantic jealousy to the downfall of ‘King David’

Details are emerging about the extra-marital affair that led to CIA Director David Petraeus’s resignation. Some in Congress want to know why the FBI waited so long to inform them.
By Brad Knickerbocker | Christian Science Monitor – 4 hrs ago

The sudden resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus apparently started out in prosaic fashion, based on romantic jealousy that sounds like junior high school.

According to news reports that grew in detail over the weekend, the retired four-star Army general’s paramour – identified widely as Petraeus biographer and confidant Paula Broadwell – had become jealous of another woman close to Mr. Petraeus. She sent harassing e-mails to the other woman, who filed a complaint eventually taken up by the FBI.

When agents investigated Ms. Broadwell’s e-mail account, they discovered romantic exchanges she had had with the CIA director. Concerned about possible security breaches, agents looked at Petraeus’s personal email account. In a short time he was admitting to an extra-marital affair and handing his resignation to President Obama.

RECOMMENDED: 5 ways events overseas could shape Obama’s second term

At this point, there is no evidence that intelligence or national security secrets were compromised during the hidden affair, officials have said. It was via his personal Gmail account – not his secure CIA email – that Petraeus and Broadwell communicated. As a West Point graduate and Army Reserve officer, Broadwell had her own security clearance, although she would not have had the “need to know” required for the highest levels of secrecy.

As the scandal broke, official Washington remained generally laudatory of Petraeus.

With a reputation as one of the best thinkers in the US military (he has a PhD in international relations from Princeton University) as well as battlefield commanders, he designed and led the military surge in Iraq, then was tapped by President Obama to take over as top US commander in Afghanistan when Gen. Stanley McChrystal was relieved of duty in 2010 for controversial comments in Rolling Stone magazine.

A year later, Petraeus was confirmed as CIA director when Leon Panetta moved on to become Secretary of Defense.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), adultery is a punishable offense for soldiers if the conduct is shown to be detrimental “to good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”

As a civilian now, Petraeus does not fall under the UCMJ. But an extra-marital affair leaves one vulnerable to blackmail that could threaten national security, and it’s hard to set an example for proper conduct to others in the spy agency – until now, Petraeus has had a reputation for probity and integrity – when the director has been caught up in a very public scandal that demonstrated “very poor judgment,” as he put it in his resignation letter to the President.

“Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours,” he acknowledged in a statement to CIA employees.

The coming week will see a scramble in Washington, not only to find a permanent replacement for Petraeus but also over the ongoing controversy involving the CIA’s response when terrorists attacked the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans – including two former Navy SEALs working on contract for the CIA.

Some lawmakers wonder why the FBI didn’t notify the White House and relevant congressional committees earlier – before the election – that the CIA director was under investigation.

“The FBI should have had an obligation to tell the president,” Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Peter King (R) said Sunday on CNN. “It just doesn’t add up.”

“I have real questions about this. I think the timeline has to be looked at,” Rep. King said. “I’m suggesting there’s a lot of unanswered questions.”

King also says Petraeus still should testify before his committee this coming week on the Benghazi attack.

“David Petraeus testifying has nothing to do with whether or not he’s still the CIA director, and I don’t see how the CIA can say he’s not going to testify,” King said. “He was at the center of this, and he has answers that only he has.”

Meanwhile, the story of two families impacted by personal scandal continues, played out in the media, including Saturday Night Live. Both Petraeus and Broadwell are married with children. Broadwell has yet to comment publicly, nor has Petraeus since his resignation Friday. Despite Petraeus’s military accomplishments covering an extraordinary career, “critics fault him for ambition and self-promotion,” Broadwell wrote in her glowing biography, “All In: The Education of David Petraeus.” His nickname – “King David” – was not always used by subordinates as a compliment.

“As word of his resignation resounded across the Pentagon on Friday,” the New York Times reported, “more than one officer cited the biblical adultery of King David and Bathsheba.”

RECOMMENDED: 5 ways events overseas could shape Obama’s second term

Related stories
War with Iran? 5 ways events overseas could shape Obama’s second term.
General Petraeus affair raises deep personal and public questions
Petraeus resigns over affair, as criticism grows of CIA response in Libya
Benghazi fallout: CIA reveals secret intelligence hub was nearby
Read this story at csmonitor.com

Enlarge Photo
Associated Press/C-SPAN Book TV – In the frame grab from C-SPAN Book TV video taken Feb. 6, 2012, author Paula Broadwell speaks to an audience about the book she co-authored, “All In: The Education of General …more David Petraeus,” at the Politics and Prose bookstore in Washington. The scandal that brought down CIA Director David Petraeus started with harassing emails sent by his biographer and paramour, Broadwell, to another woman, and eventually led the FBI to discover he was having an affair, U.S. officials told The Associated Press on Saturday, Nov. 10, 2012. Petraeus quit Friday, Nov. 9, after acknowledging an extramarital relationship. (AP Photo/C-SPAN Book TV)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Paula Broadwell first met fellow West Point graduate David Petraeus in the spring of 2006, when she was a graduate student at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

He was a lieutenant general working on a counterinsurgency manual that would be tested during his command in Iraq. The university had invited him to give a speech.

Broadwell was in the Army Reserve after being recalled three times to active duty since the Sept. 11 attacks to work on counterterrorism issues and intended to return to active duty or get into the policy world, according to the preface of the Petraeus biography she would later write with a Washington Post editor.

Petraeus, who held much-praised military commands in Iraq and Afghanistan, resigned Friday after admitting he had an extramarital affair, a disclosure that ended the retired four-star general’s civilian career as director of the CIA.

He carried on the affair with Broadwell, now 40, according to several U.S. officials with knowledge of the situation. The officials spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss publicly the investigation that led to the resignation. The FBI discovered the relationship by monitoring Petraeus’ emails, after investigators were alerted that Broadwell may have had access to his personal email account, two of the officials said.

Broadwell wrote in the preface to “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” published by Penguin in January, that while at Harvard, Petraeus passed along his card and offered to help her academic work on leadership. The book’s ranking on Amazon.com jumped from 76,792 on Friday to 111 by midday Saturday.

“I later discovered that he was famous for this type of mentoring and networking, especially with aspiring soldier-scholars,” Broadwell wrote, adding that “I took full advantage of his open-door policy to seek insight and share perspectives.”

Broadwell is a research associate at Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership and a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, according to her biography on Penguin’s website. According to The Bismarck (N.D.) Tribune, she grew up in North Dakota and moved to Charlotte, N.C., more than three years ago with her husband, a radiologist, and their two young sons.

The book began as research for her dissertation, a case study of Petraeus’ leadership. It evolved into an authorized biography written with Washington Post editor Vernon Loeb after President Barack Obama put Petraeus in charge of Afghanistan in 2010.

Two years earlier, she wrote in the book’s preface, while visiting Washington he had invited her to join him and his team for a run along the Potomac River.

“I’d earned varsity letters in cross-country and indoor and outdoor track and finished at the top of my class for athletics at West Point; I wanted to see if he could keep stride during an interview. Instead it became a test for me,” she wrote. He eventually increased the pace “until the talk turned to heavy breathing, and we reached a 6-minute-per-mile pace. It was a signature Petraeus move. I think I passed the test, but I didn’t bother to transcribe the interview.”

In the Army Reserve, she specialized in military intelligence, spending time at the U.S. Special Operations Command and the FBI Counterterrorism Task Forces before pursuing an academic career, according to her Penguin bio. She “lived, worked, or traveled in more than 60 countries during more than 15 years of military service and work in geopolitical analysis and counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations,” her bio states.

Broadwell made multiple trips to Afghanistan, with unprecedented access to Petraeus, and also spent time with his commanders across the country.

When Petraeus left the military and took the job at the CIA, Broadwell kept in contact with him and sometimes was invited to his office for events such as his meeting with actress Angelina Jolie.

“History has yet to fully judge Petraeus’ service in Iraq and Afghanistan, his impact on the U.S. military and his rank among America’s wartime leaders,” Broadwell wrote in the preface. “But there is no denying that he achieved a great deal during his 37-year Army career, not the least of which was regaining the strategic initiative in both wars” after Sept. 11, 2001.

“His critics fault him for ambition and self-promotion. I will note in the pages that follow that he is driven and goal-oriented, but his energy, optimism and will to win stand out more for me than the qualities seized on by his critics.”

In an interview with The Bismarck Tribune shortly after the biography was published, Broadwell said Petraeus was a motivational force not only for organizations but individuals as well.

“He inspires people of all ages to improve themselves. On that note, I would conclude that his sheer energy whether applied to soldiering, scholarly pursuits, public outreach or mentoring can be equally empowering for an organization or an individual subordinate,” Broadwell said.

With the book done, Broadwell told friends she was returning to her dissertation, using part of her research on Petraeus to complete her doctorate.

Paula Broadwell, Army counterintelligence reservist, co-wrote general’s biography
By The Associated Press | Associated Press – Sat, Nov 10, 2012

WASHINGTON – Paula Broadwell first met fellow West Point graduate David Petraeus in the spring of 2006, when she was a graduate student at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

He was a lieutenant general working on a counterinsurgency manual that would be tested during his command in Iraq. The university had invited him to give a speech.

Broadwell was in the Army Reserve after being recalled three times to active duty since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to work on counterterrorism issues and intended to return to active duty or get into the policy world, according to the preface of the Petraeus biography she would later write with a Washington Post editor.

Petraeus, who held much-praised military commands in Iraq and Afghanistan, resigned Friday after admitting he had an extramarital affair, a disclosure that ended the retired four-star general’s civilian career as director of the CIA.

He carried on the affair with Broadwell, now 40, according to several U.S. officials with knowledge of the situation who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss publicly the investigation that led to the resignation. The FBI discovered the relationship by monitoring Petraeus’ emails, after investigators were alerted that Broadwell may have had access to his personal email account, two of the officials said.

Broadwell wrote in the preface to “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” published by Penguin in January, that while at Harvard, Petraeus passed along his card and offered to help her academic work on leadership.

“I later discovered that he was famous for this type of mentoring and networking, especially with aspiring soldier-scholars,” Broadwell wrote, adding that “I took full advantage of his open-door policy to seek insight and share perspectives.”

Broadwell is a research associate at Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership and a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, according to her biography on Penguin’s website. According to the Charlotte (North Carolina) Observer, she grew up in North Dakota and moved to Charlotte more than three years ago with her husband, a radiologist, and their two young sons.

The book began as research for her dissertation, a case study of Petraeus’ leadership. It evolved into an authorized biography written with Washington Post editor Vernon Loeb after President Barack Obama put Petraeus in charge of Afghanistan in 2010.

Two years earlier, she wrote in the book’s preface, while visiting Washington he had invited her to join him and his team for a run along the Potomac River.

“I’d earned varsity letters in cross-country and indoor and outdoor track and finished at the top of my class for athletics at West Point; I wanted to see if he could keep stride during an interview. Instead it became a test for me,” she wrote. He eventually increased the pace “until the talk turned to heavy breathing, and we reached a 6-minute-per-mile pace. It was a signature Petraeus move. I think I passed the test, but I didn’t bother to transcribe the interview.”

In the Army Reserve, she specialized in military intelligence, spending time at the U.S. Special Operations Command and the FBI Counterterrorism Task Forces before pursuing an academic career, according to her Penguin biography. She “lived, worked, or travelled in more than 60 countries during more than 15 years of military service and work in geopolitical analysis and counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations,” her biography states.

Broadwell made multiple trips to Afghanistan, with unprecedented access to Petraeus, and also spent time with his commanders across the country.

When Petraeus left the military and took the job at the CIA, Broadwell kept in contact with him and sometimes was invited to his office for events such as his meeting with actress Angelina Jolie.

“History has yet to fully judge Petraeus’ service in Iraq and Afghanistan, his impact on the U.S. military and his rank among America’s wartime leaders,” Broadwell wrote in the preface. “But there is no denying that he achieved a great deal during his 37-year Army career, not the least of which was regaining the strategic initiative in both wars” after Sept. 11, 2001.

“His critics fault him for ambition and self-promotion. I will note in the pages that follow that he is driven and goal-oriented, but his energy, optimism and will to win stand out more for me than the qualities seized on by his critics.”

With the book done, Broadwell told friends she was returning to her dissertation, using part of her research on Petraeus to complete her doctorate.

Petraeus may be called in U.S. inquiry on Benghazi: Feinstein
By Deborah Zabarenko | Reuters – 2 hrs 53 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Despite an adultery scandal that ended David Petraeus’ tenure as CIA chief, the general may be called to testify in a Senate inquiry into the killing of four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Senator Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.

Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on the “Fox News Sunday” program that Petraeus’ resignation on Friday “was like a lightning bolt.”

She said there will be an investigation into why the FBI failed to inform her and others on the intelligence committee before Friday about the extramarital affair between Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, when the FBI probe had been proceeding for weeks.

The California Democrat said there was no connection between Petraeus’ resignation and the September 11, 2012, killings in Benghazi. Petraeus had been scheduled to testify about the Benghazi case on Thursday in a closed session of the committee; Mike Morrell, the acting CIA director, is now expected to do so.

She said the committee may decide to call Petraeus in a future meeting of the intelligence panel on the Benghazi killings. Four U.S. citizens were killed, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

“My biggest concern is, there are literally hundreds of threat warnings in the material that has been accumulated,” Feinstein said. “There were five attacks during the year, one prior attack on the consulate itself. The question I have is … why wasn’t something done about it?”
U.S. Representative Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, raised questions about why it took FBI investigators so long to inform President Barack Obama and others in his administration that Petraeus was involved.

FBI TIMELINE QUESTIONED
“The timeline has to be looked at and analyzed,” the New York congressman said on CNN’s “State of the Union. “Because obviously this was a matter involving a potential compromise of security and the president should have been told about it at the earliest stage.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he was ready to turn the page on the scandal that prompted Petraeus to resign, but said the former general must testify before Congress about what he called a “national security failure” at Benghazi.

Graham, of South Carolina, called for a Watergate-style joint select committee of members of the House and Senate to investigate the matter.

Speaking on “Face the Nation” on CBS, Graham said the Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community have much to explain in this case, but singled out Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for her role.

“I don’t, quite frankly, trust her rendition of Benghazi,” Graham said. Rice initially described the attack as a spontaneous outburst rather than a planned attack. Her handling of the matter provided fodder to Republican opponents in the final months of Obama’s re-election campaign.

Rice has been mentioned as a possible choice by Obama to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but Graham said Rice’s nomination to this post “would have incredibly difficult time getting through the Senate.”

“I would not vote for her unless there’s a tremendous opening up of information explaining herself in a way she has not yet done,” Graham said of Rice.

(Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Romney Considering David Petraeus for Vice President?
Tuesday, August 7, 2012 15:27

Talk about a choice that would make the collective head of the Obama camp explode like an amateur after the Nathan’s Famous 4th of July hot dog eating contest. Governor Mitt Romney’s kicking around the idea of tapping CIA Director and four-star General David Petraeus as his running mate. Could it be true?

Drudge broke the story… The source? An unnamed Obama fundraiser.

President Obama whispered to a top fundraiser this week that he believes GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus to the VP slot!

“The president wasn’t joking,” the insider explains to the DRUDGE REPORT.

Sounds a little like the Harry Reid / Mitt Romney paid no taxes for ten years / investor to me; but I can admit I’m no less intrigued.

The White House was asked about it Tuesday. No surprise, they said “Be mindful of your sources.”

“I can say with absolute confidence, such an assertion has never been uttered by the president.” Carney said. “And again be mindful of your sources.”

So, what do we make of this?

First off, anonymous sources are anonymous sources. Take them for what they’re worth. That said, as sad as it may be, I’ll take a Drudge source over a Harry Reid source any day that ends in “Y”. I say that even in the context of months of speculation that Drudge is serving as the go-to destination for Romney camps tips and leaks.

It’s also worth pointing out that “considering” someone does not mean Romney has chosen or will choose said person. Even if he’s on a long list, short list, final list, or the list doesn’t mean he is going to wind up on the ticket. For all we know, Romney may very well have considered Sarah Palin for .2 seconds before thinking better of it. What I’m saying here is that Drudge and the anonymous source won’t necessarily be wrong if the general is not the VP choice.

Do I think Petraeus would be a good choice? Part of me says yes; and part of me is stuck in maybeville.

I like the idea of having a military man on the ticket and in the Executive Branch. I like the fact that he would bring a substantial base of knowledge regarding the Middle East to the table and could fill in some gaps on Romney’s foreign policy resume. I like that the Obama camp would hate his selection.

But…

We know very little about his politics. We assume he’s a conservative. Frankly, we assume he’s a Republican. While we know folks in Washington like him as evinced by his unanimous confirmation to the CIA Director position, we haven’t the slightest clue about what the American People think about Petraeus the candidate. His Bush ties could be offset by his Obama ties; but the mainstream media tends to practice revisionist history. That may be a push or it may stir up old reservations and frustrations.

As I’ve said a number of times here before, we often choose a president because he has the skill set to handle a specific list of problems or issues facing the country. In this case, that would be the economy. But what typically happens is new issues and problems arise and the man we picked to tackle the former issue number one has to then handle new issue number one. Remember, we didn’t elect George W. Bush to deal with global terrorism.

My point is, it wouldn’t hurt to have a backup plan just in case the economy is the least of our worries 6, 8, or 18 months from now. With the Middle East still looming large and dangerous on the horizon, it wouldn’t hurt to have an ace in the hole should one be needed. Is Petraeus the man for that job?

I’m still undecided. But in the mean time; I’m going to enjoy the heck out of knowing it may be keeping folks in Obama’s camp up at night worrying that Romney may be leaning that direction.

Murdoch’s Anti-Obama Twitter Drive: Christie, Petraeus and More
By Edmund Lee

Nov. 5, 2012 1:26 PM EST |
Posted in Election 2012, Politics, Social Media, White House

Photograph by Jonathan Fickies/Bloomberg

Rupert Murdoch in New York.

Rupert Murdoch, the News Corp. CEO at the helm of some of the world’s most influential media outlets, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, has close to 360,000 followers on Twitter — and they all know exactly who the boss wants for the White House.

It’s not President Barack Obama.

Murdoch, who prefers to air his unedited, unvetted, unvarnished opinions via Twitter, has increased the volume of his politically potent posts in the run-up to Election Day, making him one of the most vocal executives on U.S. politics this season.

He recently criticized Obama’s remarks that voting against Republican Mitt Romney would be the best revenge, and he’s been reminding his followers that a continued Obama presidency would be disastrous for the economy.

The media mogul also has claimed that news coverage appears to have slanted in favor of Obama — he has lamented about how the “monolithic media” appears to be pushing for the current president.

That could be considered a contrarian critique given the fact that Murdoch manages a $56 billion media company that owns the Wall Street Journal, the highest-circulating newspaper in the U.S., as well as Fox News, the highest-rated cable news network. Murdoch’s company also owns Twentieth Century Fox film studios, HarperCollins book publishers and the New York Post.

More recently, the 81-year-old executive went so far as to chastise New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for his full-throated praise of President Obama’s handling of relief efforts in the wake of super-storm Sandy, which decimated the Jersey Shore: “Christie, while thanking O, must re- declare for Romney, or take blame for next four dire years.”

Twitter’s 140-character limit fits the blunt Murdoch, who’s well known for going off-script on quarterly earnings calls with analysts and reporters.

But unlike his comfortable candor on Twitter, Murdoch has chosen to skip those conference calls for the past year after a hacking scandal erupted at one of his U.K. newspapers.

That controversy has followed Murdoch to Twitter. Most of his posts are widely re-Tweeted and often elicit sharp responses.

After a recent post on which Murdoch claimed CIA chief David Petraeus had “taken fall” for Obama’s handling of the terrorist attack in Libya, a Twitter user responded, “Who took the fall for you when you bugged all those phones?”

Murdoch didn’t reply. Instead, he followed up on his previous post by writing: “Ignore last tweet. Sorry. Petraeus has NOT taken fall for O.”

Twitter, nonetheless, remains Murdoch’s most frequent and consistent personal media outlet, questioning news reports on the latest polling data and calling out politicians.

Still, one common refrain found in Murdoch’s prolific posting is something one might not expect from an executive not shy about grousing about the Beltway powerful: “Why can’t we debate civilly?”

comment
Gil Rodveltz
How can you not pay attention to such an honest,ethical man?…….Even if he pays your salary.

sleeve
Murdoch is desperate for a Romney win due to the DOJ investigation into several of Murdoch’s companies bribing government officials and many police officers in UK; in addition to illegal wiretapping of celebrities phones on US soil. Also since News Corp is listed on NYSE, he can be charged for his company’s multiple efforts to drive competitors into bankruptcy by publishing their dish TV access codes on the internet so users could pirate their product. He is a common dirt bag extraordinaire, in all aspects. News International is even possibly tied to the murder of a witness about to spill details. A big bad criminal syndicate all rolled up in a tiny, scowling little prune of a man.
Only a president named Romney will call off the investigation into his mafioso operations.

JPH

Owner of Fox News: “Why can’t we debate civilly?”
Bugger ought to clean up his own act first.

Scott Broadwell’s letter sent to NY Times’ The Ethicist reveals he knew about his wife’s affair with David Petraeus

New reports claim that Paula Broadwell’s husband, Dr. Scott Broadwell, sent a letter to New York Times advice column The Ethicist back in July that revealed he knew of her affair with CIA Director David Petraeus. That intriguing possibility has been raised after canny observers dug out the July 13th edition of Chuck Kloste…
Dr. Scott Broadwell is not the author of The Ethicist letter, says New York Times editor

t and pointed to extraordinary parallels between the letter and the now scandalous love tryst that led David Petraeus to hand in his resignation as details of the affair came to light. But yesterday, the editor of the New York Times magazine denied that the column and the Petraeus scandal are related. Hugo Lindgren tweeted:…

Read more: http://www.bellenews.com/search/petraeus-paula-braodwel-love-affair/#ixzz2C2v3TxCL

Read more: http://www.bellenews.com/search/petraeus-paula-braodwel-love-affair/#ixzz2C2uldWlV
No, Gen. David Petraeus Will Not Be Mitt Romney’s Running Mate
Here are seven reasons why.
By Fred Kaplan|Posted Wednesday, Aug. 8, 2012, at 1:31 PM ET

CIA Director David Petraeus on Jan. 31 in Washington, D.C.
Photo by Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images.

The notion that David Petraeus might be Mitt Romney’s running mate—the banner headline on the Drudge Report Tuesday—is preposterous on at least seven levels. Let’s look at them, one by one.

First, Petraeus doesn’t want to run for political office, he really doesn’t. He has been asked this question over and over, and each time he answered unequivocally. There’s no evasiveness in his reply, nothing like “I have no plans at present …” or “I have no intention of running ….” Rather, he’s said, simply, “No.” As in: “I thought I’d said ‘no’ about as many ways as I could. I really do mean no. … I will not ever run for political office. I can assure you.” Or: “I am not a politician, and I will never be, and I say that with absolute conviction. … No way, no how.” His press office at CIA headquarters issued a similar statement in response to queries yesterday.

Second, Petraeus is director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a much more interesting job on the slowest of days than the vice presidency is on all but the very fastest. And, according to several people who are in touch with him regularly, he likes the job a lot. “I’m living the dream,” he told one acquaintance who asked how things were going. Petraeus is something of an egghead; he’s proud of his academic achievements (a Ph.D. from Princeton) and regards himself as a serious analyst as well as a man of action. The top slot at CIA lets him be all those things.

Third, Petraeus is a shrewd operator. Even if he were interested in the veep’s job (and, again, he isn’t, for reasons elaborated below), it would be a huge risk to go for it now. Whether or not he follows Nate Silver, he must know that Obama is the odds-on favorite to win. If he jumped ship to join the GOP ticket, and if Romney lost, his career would be finished. No Democrat (except, maybe, Joe Lieberman) would ever again appoint him to a serious position. Republicans would probably drift away as well, dismayed that his putatively magical powers (“the miracle man of Mosul!”) don’t apply to the home front. He might go write analytical papers for a think tank (something that he would like to do in the future), but they would be seen as partisan tracts, not professional studies. His reputation remains as high as it does now, across party lines, precisely because he’s viewed as apolitical; if he ran for office, especially against a sitting president who has been his commander in chief, that image would be blown.
Meanwhile, if Petraeus stays where he is and Romney somehow won, he’d probably get some juicy position: maybe a renewed term at Langley or maybe a callback to active duty as a four-star general and an appointment as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bottom line: There is no percentage in budging from where he is.

Fourth, Petraeus is a modern Army officer—which is to say, he rose through the ranks, from his time as a West Point cadet, imbued with the principle that civilians control the military. Ever since Gen. Douglas MacArthur tried and failed to subvert President Harry Truman’s command in the Korean War, officers have been drilled, over and over and over, that they are to stay out of politics—the higher the rank, the more intense the drilling. In recent times, if generals ever feel tempted to stray from this edict, the example of Wesley Clark serves to stiffen their resistance. Clark, an intelligent, capable retired general, ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004 after writing a book that was highly critical of George W. Bush—and bombed out quickly. The message to other generals who were watching: Not only are we not supposed to go into politics, we might not be any good at it.

Fifth, Petraeus almost certainly realizes that he would not be very good at it. When he was commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was exposed to a lot of politicians: He briefed them and gave them tours of the battlefield; he testified before their committees; he met with them behind the scenes. He got to know some of them well, even to like them. But according to a few of his associates at the time, he concluded that their club was one that he wouldn’t want to join. There was too much fundraising, too much glad-handing, too much caving in to interest groups for no good substantive reason. And, although it’s unclear whether he knows this, there’s something else about Petraeus: He isn’t the most riveting public speaker.

Sixth, it’s unclear what Petraeus would bring to a Romney ticket. Yes, he has executive experience, but Romney’s supposed to have that. Yes, he has foreign policy experience, which Romney wincingly lacks, but this experience is that of a combatant commander (he may have displayed broader skills in his current job, but he can’t talk about it, it’s all highly classified), and even that is a double-edged sword. Petraeus had success in Iraq, in that he turned an impending disaster into a situation sufficiently stable for the United States to pull out, leaving the Iraqis to screw things up for themselves. But he didn’t exactly close the deal in Afghanistan—mainly because, it turned out, there was no deal to close, but still, it was his to make or break. When the time for “transition” began, he recommended a much slower withdrawal of troops than President Obama wound up ordering—which, whatever one might think of that, is hardly a position to win popular favor. Beyond that, the type of war in which Petraeus made his name—large-scale, protracted counterinsurgency campaigns—is precisely the sort of war that nobody wants to enter ever again. (That doesn’t mean we won’t ever actually get involved in such a war, but the Army’s 2006 counterinsurgency field manual, which Petraeus was once celebrated for writing, isn’t the most winning campaign document in 2012.)

Seventh, hey, let’s back up a bit. We are talking about a story on the Drudge Report. Here’s Drudge’s lead:

President Obama whispered to a top fundraiser this week that he believes GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus to the VP slot. ‘The president wasn’t joking,’ the insider explains to the Drudge Report.

For one thing, Drudge wasn’t claiming that Romney wants to name Petraeus, only that Obama told someone that he thinks Romney wants to. For another, Obama’s press spokesman, Jay Carney, said when asked about this lead: “I can say with absolute confidence that such an assertion [has] never been uttered by the president.” No equivocations there.

Drudge also wrote, “Romney is believed to have secretly met with the four-star general in New Hampshire.” Again, two things to note. First, this “is believed” by whom? Second, a source close to the four-star general told me that Petraeus has met with Romney only once, when the former governor visited Afghanistan. There has been no other meeting, secret or otherwise, in New Hampshire or anyplace else.

Drudge reported with his usual breathlessness: “A Petraeus drama has been quietly building behind the scenes.” If so, it’s happening far, far behind the scenes, as far away as in Matt Drudge’s head.

Romney, Netanyahu, and George Washington’s Warning
Posted: 08/01/2012 8:55 am

Mitt Romney’s campaign stop in Jerusalem has been criticized for the grossness of the subservience that the candidate exhibited toward Israel. This reaction was surely factored in by his handlers. Liberals, internationalists, human rights advocates might demur, but Romney’s intended audience was none of these people. Nor was it the Arab world, nor was it American voters, with a possible exception for the state of Florida. Romney was aiming to reach two distinct but related target groups: first, a small set of extremely wealthy donors, and second, a group composed of one person, Benjamin Netanyahu. Both have long been potent players in American elections. Both were already helping Romney. It was necessary and useful at this time to cement the alliance in public.

Judged in the light of that purpose, Romney’s visit must be counted a success. And it was a success in one other respect. The billionaires and the prime minister wanted Romney to bring the United States closer to supporting a war with Iran. Romney obliged, and we are now closer to war. He recognized, he said, the “right” of Israel to defend itself. Who ever denied that right? He meant: the righteousness of a preventive attack on Iran. This left open the question, Does Iran have the right to defend itself? A question that Americans and Israelis, as effectively propagandized as we have been, can be trusted not even to ask. So Romney’s intervention in Jerusalem amounted to approval of war — and a war before November if Netanyahu happens to find that desirable. As a candidate in an election season, Romney gave the green light to a power whose engagement in war would involve the United States.

Nothing like this has ever happened before in American politics. But then, there has never been anything in history remotely like the present relationship between the United States and Israel. President Obama, who is thought to be lukewarm by Romney’s supporters, in March described our alliance with Israel as “sacrosanct.” A month earlier, he had assured Israel and its warmest American partisans that his administration was marching in “lockstep” with Israel in our approach to Iran. All this Obama said and did in deference to Benjamin Netanyahu and without regard to American interests. For he had been told by the CIA that Iran is not working at present on a nuclear weapon, and he was warned by the Pentagon that a war with Iran would be a regional disaster for the United States. Even so, he gave Netanyahu in effect a yellow light: proceed with caution. And to sweeten the transaction, he promised to issue no traffic ticket if Israel speeds up. It was the same at this year’s AIPAC convention where Obama again assured Netanyahu: “I have Israel’s back.”

A corny line from the playbook of the younger Bush, suggesting a false analogy between a gunfight and a world war, but Obama at the start of an election year knew very well what the script called for.

It has been said by members of the Israel lobby that Obama’s actions speak louder than his words, and that his actions have hurt Israel. Let us recall some of the actions. In response to the onslaught on Gaza in December-January 2008-2009, in which 1,300 Palestinians were killed and 13 Israelis, Obama observed a silence which he has never broken. When, in November 2010, Netanyahu balked at the proposal of a 90-day partial extension of the freeze on West Bank settlement expansion, Obama offered twenty F-35 fighter jets if he would change his mind; Netanyahu refused, and Obama gave him the jets anyway. Only a week ago, the president donated another $70 million, on top of U.S. assistance already given, to build up the Israeli “Iron Dome” defense against rockets. Yet it is felt that Obama’s love of Israel has been insufficiently demonstrative. The reason is simple but it is seldom mentioned quite candidly.

Twice, in the last four years, this president lapsed from the post-1992 American protocol toward Israel of undiluted flattery and largesse. In June 2009 he called for a settlement freeze, and in May 2011 he spoke of the 1967 lines as the starting point for the creation of an independent Palestine. Now, the de facto policy of the Netanyahu government is annexation of the West Bank. These diplomatic hints and reminders from the president were therefore as unwelcome as they were unexpected.

As for Iran, Israelis themselves (except Netanyahu and those in his immediate circle) are a good deal more cautious than their American neoconservative supporters. At a public meeting in April, in the Israeli city of Kfar Saba, Yuval Diskin, who in 2011 retired as head of Shin Bet (the Israeli FBI), said that he had “no faith” in Netanyahu’s policy or his instincts on Iran. Two days later the former chief of Mossad, Meir Dagan, emphatically concurred and praised Diskin for his honesty.

What does it mean for an American like Romney, unskilled in international politics and innocent of the complexities of the Middle East, to back the pressure now being exerted by Netanyahu against the advice of the American president and against the advice of high-ranking intelligence and military officers in Israel? It means that Romney is not a friend of Israel so much as he is a friend of Netanyahu. Or rather, for Romney, as for the billionaires he had in tow, the personal is political. For them, Netanyahu is Israel. A point to which we shall return.

Joe Biden and Leon Panetta in recent months have taken care to issue statements along the lines of Obama himself, implying American avoidance of any war short of necessity, but adding that Israel is a sovereign nation and America does not pretend to control it. And yet we give Israel fighter jets, Iron Dome technology, and more than three billion dollars a year in foreign aid. If there is ever again an American president capable of deciding to concern himself more with the soundness of policy than with his chances in the next election, that president will have considerable control over Israel. Obama, however, works slowly and he starts worrying about the next election a year ahead. That does not leave much margin for inventive policy or persuasion. On the Middle East, his boldness in theory and timidity in practice seems to have roused the adventurism of Romney’s neoconservative advisers. But Obama does occasionally offer convincing signs of not wanting the war with Iran that the Pentagon says would be a disa
ster. Romney, by contrast, with his quarterback-audible in Jerusalem, signaled that a war would be fine with him.

What are the actual stakes for Israel? Netanyahu has called the possession of a nuclear weapon by Iran an “existential threat,” but nobody known for sanity, including his own defense minister Ehud Barak, has agreed with him about this. An existential threat conjures an image of war-loving Iran poised on the brink of exterminating the Jews of Israel. The evidence for that intention is a statement by the anti-Semitic president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who did indeed say that history would wipe the “Zionist entity” off the map. What only readers who follow politics are likely to know is that Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful figure in Iran and that after the next election he may be out of a job. The cost to the mullahs of bombing Israel, with a weapon they are not yet close to possessing, would be massive retaliation by Israel, whose nuclear arsenal is estimated between 200 and 300 weapons. That picture is so improbable that Netanyahu has been forced to adopt a different stratagem.

On the argument that he now presses, even low-enrichment uranium is a danger in the hands of Iran. Obama and the European capitals, in the October 2009 negotiations, had offered Iran an agreement allowing 5% enrichment, and at the time Netanyahu raised no public objection. He now says he will not settle for any enrichment at all by Iran. He is lowering the threshold to justify an attack. And Romney last week in Jerusalem, with the support of his war party advisers, fell into step in with the Netanyahu ultimatum. Nothing less than zero enrichment will satisfy Mitt Romney.

Still, if Iran is not an existential threat, why is the wish to attack Iran so strong in Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition? The reason is fear of Iran as a regional competitor. A powerful hostile nation induces any rival to hesitate before wielding power as often as it would like. An Iran with a serious armed force could not equal Israel, or thoroughly deter Israel, but it would doubtless inhibit Israeli military ventures in the Arab world. And that, for an advocate of Greater Israel, is intolerable. Israeli designs must go forward unhindered. So Netanyahu is asking for American support against Iran for much the same reason that his predecessor Yitzhak Shamir wanted America to go to war with Iraq in 1991. Iraq, like Iran, was pursuing nuclear research but had no nuclear weapon. In 1991, however, Iraq did have a formidable army, and Israel had an interest in seeing that army destroyed. Some side effects of the elimination of Iraq as a military power are now a familiar part of the regional landscape: the air, land, and sea blockade on Gaza, and the Israeli annexation of the West Bank, which proceeds with fresh evictions every day.

Romney was asked by a reporter at the Western Wall if he endorsed the annexation of the West Bank by Israel. The question was put to him three times, and three times Romney ignored it. The channeling to the settlers of West Bank aquifers, the uprooting of Palestinian olive groves, the expulsion of Bedouin shepherds from their grazing lands all are done under the ostensible explanation of military necessity by Israel. Anyone who recalls the Jim Crow society of the American South in the 1950s knows the real purpose of such actions: to assert and make visible by force the superiority of one caste of people over another, and to drive the inferior people from places of value.

At the King David Hotel, Romney addressed campaign donors from America who had traveled thousands of miles to another country to affirm their loyalty. But loyalty to what and whom? Are the United States and Israel the same country? This was one of the weirdest exhibitions of transnational financial muscle in recorded history. It probably has no precedent. Will it have a sequel? Let us try a thought experiment. Imagine the American reaction to an American presidential candidate who calls a meeting of wealthy Italian-Americans in Vatican City in order to declare their unconditional fidelity to the Pope. The United States was once the country of protestant nonconformity. What is happening to us?

The ad-lib comments that Romney spoke on this occasion have received plenty of notice, but they cannot be quoted too often. They display with a fine economy the good-natured insolence of Romney himself alongside the conventional racism of the Republican Party and its roots in Social Darwinism. “As you come here,” he said,
and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality.

Such was his revelation for the self-made party donors, as well as the heir and heiress billionaires. But there was more: “As I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.” Among the other things of course was “the hand of providence,” the non-denominational shorthand notation for Tetragrammaton or Jesus Yahweh Smith. But the key word here was culture. There is a good culture, we know, of self-respect and commercial success and technology. And that culture looks a lot like Israel. Then there is a culture of poverty and inertia and resentment, and it looks like the West Bank. The occupation has nothing to do with the difference. For the slow-of-wit, Romney clarified his idea by adding that a similar disparity exists between other neighboring countries like Mexico and the United States.

Note that this division between the deserving and less deserving peoples scarcely departs from the old anti-Semitism. It uses the same clichés: the despised people are crafty but sullen, lacking in Western energy, discipline, and refinement. The prejudice has now been turned against another Semitic tribe, the Palestinians. The Jews of Israel, by contrast, are praised for their adaptation to the ways of commerce, and are treated as honorary Christians.

Pass from Romney to his audience. These people, as reported by the New York Times, were high net worth individuals whose total holdings may well have approached half a trillion. We will never know, since they have multiple accounts in the Cayman Islands, where some of them also have alternate private residences. But it is worth following up a few details of the Times story by Jodi Rudoren and Ashley Parker. “Sheldon Adelson…wore a pin that said ‘Romney’ in Hebrew letters,” yet Adleson is troubled, these days, by an investigation of the links between his casino holdings in Las Vegas and Macau.

“Much of Mr. Adelson’s casino profits that go to him come from his casino in Macau,” John McCain pointed out in a recent interview. “Maybe,” McCain speculated, “in a roundabout way, foreign money is coming into an American political campaign.” Also not so roundabout. The money coming from the crowd at the King David Hotel evidently came from Americans and was going back into an American campaign. What, then, was the symbolic importance of having it routed through an event in Israel timed to begin at the end of the religious day of mourning Tisha B’Av?

Other members of the Romney-Netanyahu billionaire entourage were touched on briefly in the Times account. Cheryl Halpern, a New Jersey Republican and big party donor, was named by George W. Bush the successor to Kenneth Tomlinson as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and served in that office during the years 2005-07. She disciplined NPR for political bias and, along with Tomlinson, succeeded in bending the tone and content of NPR toward the platitudes and human interest by which it is mainly known today. John Miller, the chief executive of the National Beef Packing Company, helped Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick to find the $244 million they needed for the startup of a private equity fund, Solamere Capital, which in its early days shared an address with the Romney campaign headquarters.

Paul Singer, founder of the $20 billion hedge fund Elliott Associates and its affiliate Elliott Management, operates a “vulture fund” that specializes in buying up third-world debt. Elliott trawls for assets that have drastically fallen in value, and then sues countries for full value, with a legal threat if they refuse. It goes after vulnerable nations like Panama, Peru, Argentina, and Congo, offering rigor-mortis prices to the panicked holders of collapsing bonds, before it compels the derelict governments to buy them back at a swollen price or suffer international disgrace and an utter loss of autonomy at the hands of financiers. The ingenuity and detective work that goes into Elliott is perhaps another clue to what Romney means by culture. But where Romney’s Bain bought, gutted, repackaged and sold factories and store chains, and held in thrall occasionally the happiness of a town or a pension plan, Elliott transfixes the life holdings of large tracts of the world, including tribes and peoples whose names its officers will not have known how to pronounce until they began to reduce them to finance fodder. Will the vulture funds take out a second mortgage on the Parthenon? “Elliott hasn’t [yet] built up a hold-out position in Greek debt, according to an individual close to the firm. Last year it profited instead by trading Greek credit default swaps.”

These people, so important because of their money, are united in their belief that Israel stands in grave peril because of the neglect or hostility of Barack Obama. Yet Obama’s actions toward Israel — the gifts of weapons and security systems, the reflex vetoes on U.N. resolutions — have been dangerous if anything by their one-sided solicitousness on behalf of Israel. Obama has conducted himself toward Israel, in fact, as he has acted toward establishments like the American military and the Wall Street banks and brokerage houses. He mentions his power of refusal chiefly in order to show that, in some technical sense, that power does exist. But his use of the power has been, in all of these contexts, nominal and decorative. Again and again he has said he could bring results and has not brought them: tougher bank regulations, faster withdrawal from Afghanistan, “hands-on” presidential engagement in negotiations to create a Palestinian state and achieve peace with Iran. In all of these settings, Obama’s practice has been hands-off, no matter what he may have pledged. Still, it is true that Romney would be a distinct improvement from the point of view of Netanyahu. Rhetorically, as well as in fact, he would be hands-on in Israel’s favor at all times.

Because the Tisha B’Av spectacle was so bizarre, almost grotesque, one cannot help asking again: why were those American donors going to Israel to cheer an American candidate in an American election? Is being an American no longer good enough? In a speech in Israel in 2010, Sheldon Adelson regretted that “the uniform that I wore in the military unfortunately was not an Israeli uniform, it was an American uniform.” Such an attitude of abasement or self-subordination toward Israel, often accompanied by a peculiar vicarious nostalgia, is not confined to American Jews or billionaires. On arriving in Jerusalem in March 2010, Joe Biden said “It’s good to be home.” What was he thinking?

As Netanyahu looks at these postures of genuflection, it is no wonder that he feels himself entitled to criticize an American president in front of the American Congress, or to “vet” Republican vice-presidential hopefuls such as Chris Christie and Rob Portman. If Netanyahu is now the most effective bundler in the Republican Party, why should he not have a say in the party’s choice of a vice-president?

George Washington thought that being Americans should be enough for us. In his great Farewell Address, he also gave some reasons why attachment to a foreign power, no matter how sentimental the affection, could only impair American liberty and independence and serve to draw the country into unnecessary wars. “Nothing,” said Washington,
is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. . . .Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. . . .The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity.

Can there be any doubt what George Washington would have made of the scene of Mitt Romney and his high-rolling backers at the King David Hotel?

Washington summed up his criticism of such attachments in these climactic words of warning:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. . . .Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.

A contrary understanding has become so familiar in our politics that it is hard to recall when anyone last worried about excessive partiality for one nation.

We should expect no compunction, no reservation, no self-consciousness regarding the “passionate attachment” to a “favorite nation” by Romney and his foreign policy team. Part of the reason lies in the composition of the team itself. They are, to a man, alumni of the Cheney circle and the post-2001 Patriot Act security establishment, and close affiliates of the Israel lobby. But another reason for the partiality goes far back in Romney’s own life. He has been a friend of Netanyahu since their younger American corporate years together; the two have gone to each other for advice ever since, as Michael Barbaro disclosed in an April 8 story in the New York Times: they consult casually and with implicit trust, in every walk of political practice, from discussing the right strategy against Iran to canvassing the sharpest method for cutting state pensions. They share, said Barbaro (with less irony than he needed), “the same profoundly analytical view of the world.”

To readers who know this personal history, it may seem that Romney went to Jerusalem to confirm one detail of Barbaro’s story: “Mr. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu — a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Mr. Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation, even as it appeals to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians who are fiercely protective of Israel.” Romney could not fail to consult his personal friend who happens to lead a foreign power, since he has pledged to do so without exception, in all decisions affecting that power. It is exactly the situation that George Washington described and warned against; but Romney seems unaware of any conflict of duties or even a possible tension. During a December primary debate, Barbaro notes,

Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?'”

“What would you like me to do.” Those are the words of our intendant decider, and he means to address them, with an implied vow of fidelity, to the leader of another country. Can we read Washington’s words of 1796 addressed “to the people of the United States,” and compare Romney’s words addressed to his donors in Jerusalem, and not feel a deep disturbance? What would you like me to do?

@@@@@@@@@@@

Commentaries
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
490 Fans
03:20 PM on 09/17/2012 Excellent commentary David, Thank you!

The quote from General/President Washington is indeed exactly appropriate in criticism of what I consider the modern subversion of our foreign policy and electoral politics by that “favored nation”, most recently by PM Netanyahu who blatantly injected himself & narrow world view into what is arguably our most important election in recent times. The rationale is Romney would be more “supportive” (or malleable & controllable) of Israeli warmongering regardless how reckless; war & conflict is the Israeli MO in Palestine to secure continuing Israeli occupation & illegal colonization.

The influence & lobbying for the foreign nation by that nation’s leaders, & supporters in this country with a cultural or religious connection is increasingly detrimental to our national security & best interests when they push for increased blind support, financial, military and political to advance the current increasingly right-wing racist actions by Israeli factions toward the Palestinians and wider ME Islamic world, most dangerously in fomenting & advocating military attacks on Iran with unknown potentially devastating consequences.

The US has a long record of political meddling in Iran, from deposing the popular Mossadegh government & installing the hated brutal regime of the Shah in 1953; Iran has a lot to remember in negative terms of US intentions & actions; we should not support any Israeli attack that will be seen as a US sanctioned act carried-out with US supplied weapons! Our problems with Iran are our own, long in the making.
basenji
Dog lover
334 Fans
10:28 PM on 08/09/2012
Polls show 70% of Americans view Wall Street negatively. Why does the twit think they will elect a Wall Street Vulture Capitalist when they know income disparity has gotten totally out of hand in recent decades?
salish-orca
86 Fans
05:55 PM on 08/06/2012
This is one of the best and most important articles I have ever read on HP.
Valdeir Faria II
11 Fans
01:52 AM on 08/06/2012
Is a possible president really bowing his head to a foreign nation? What happened to our nation sovereignty and autonomy? What kind of question is “what do you want me to do?” If Romney wins(Lord help us if he does) I have a suggestion for him, he should bring the president of Israel to hold his hand during the oath ceremony and maybe set up a desk for him in the oval office as well seeing that the Israeli president will be holding Romney’s hands majority of the time…
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stanley Spenger
I Believe You Seamus
102 Fans
12:13 AM on 08/06/2012
“We can’t return, we can only look behind from where we came,
And go round and round and round in the circle game..”
Hearing this on my itunes right now.
How tragic this is. How perfectly this article exposes Romney’s real motives. But most of all, how implicitly it assumes, (as do we all, in the “new normal” of the 2000s), that nothing will ever, ever happen to improve the situation in Israel/Palestine. Romney’s long standing friendship with Bibi makes it all make sense. Romney’s Israel “policies”, such as they are, would be no threat whatsoever to the status quo of occupation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicholas Kocal
301 Fans
10:43 PM on 08/05/2012
Muslims claim Jerusalem as one of their sacred cities. Any nuclear explosions in Israel would impact Jerusalem. Iran is not about to destroy or make uninhabitable one of their sacred cities.
obgynobgyn
54 Fans
10:28 PM on 08/05/2012
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, for caring enough about America, your fellow Americans, and the wisdom of the founding fathers. We should care about Israel and other allies equally, but it should never be at the cost of destroying America. Romney is selling America to warmongers while his 5 healthy sons refuse to go into the military. Relations between the USA and Israel would improve if Netanyahu was voted out of office. There are decent sensible rational people capable of bringing people together in that region if power hungry, money hungry warmongers were not allowed to interfere. A casino donor of Romney’s is under investigation for bribery, prostitution, and money laundering. That same man did not want to wear the uniform of the USA military, but another country. In any book that is a traitor. And people screamed about Bill Ayers? Why has this administration and the ones prior, Bush, Reagan, Clinton giving away our weapons, intelligence, and technology just to please Israel? My grandparents worship their homeland but not to the point of destroying America. What will happen if a politician dare to say NO?
What would happen if Netanyahu decided to turn his weapons against America unless we obey him?
The best thing that can happen for everyone who cares about America and Israel is to vote him out of office in Israel and protect America by NOT voting Romney in. Please tweet this original article by David Bromwich to help educate Americans.
cbchill
6 Fans
09:11 PM on 08/05/2012
Romney cedes US Middle East foreign policy to BenNet. That is the net effect of Romney’s pronouncements. He defers to BenNet & sanctions a pre-emptive war while Obama at least tries to deter him from starting a pre-emptive war. I personally prefer the later. One thing made clear by Romney’s pronouncements and the pronouncements during his trip to Israel: Neoconservatism is alive and very well in the foreign policy “brain” of Mitt Romney. Heaven help us if we get into a third Middle Eastern war. Three is definitely not the charm the Neoconservatives tout so persistently.
pedernales
futile
744 Fans
08:46 PM on 08/05/2012
Over the years, Netanyahu spent serious time sitting in gold chairs with our TV evangelicals while they flim-flammed the Social Security checks from their ignorant viewers. Netanyahu and other Israelis leaders worked ceaselessly to empower theocracy in the United States in order to have their way with our democracy and they have succeeded. I don’t know about you, but I’m really sick of Israel and all its unnatural, violent, thieving activities that undermine our national security and buy our cheap, rotten politicians.

—
Karibu Jukwaa la www.mwanabidii.com
Pata nafasi mpya za Kazi www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
Blogu ya Habari na Picha www.patahabari.blogspot.com

Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda