Well good because Senators Dianne Feinstein and Marco Rubio want Mr. Petraeus to testify, The Telegraph of London reports. Arthur Herman (Fox News) has three questions that he feels must be answered. One question that should be answered is if the Pentagon knew about the attack within 50 minutes of it starting, why did the White House and President Barack Obama lie for weeks that it was a protest caused by a YouTube video?
On the first hour of The Diane Rehm Show today, Mr. Petraeus was the topic and a caller wisely pointed out what others would not: That is it highly unlikely this was his first affair, that at his age, it is highly unlikely it is his first affair. So why lie about that?
Or about when the affair started?
If he was in the military having an affair or affairs, he could lose one of his stars.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Tuesday,
November 13, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, questions for Jalal
Talabani in Parliament, Nouri continues Operation Command Tigris, the
Parliament does work to block Nouri from a third term, the confusion
around the weapons deal with Russia continues, the actions of Petraeus
have now resulted in a raid/search last night and a statement from the
US Secretary of Defense today, and more.
Then-General
David Petraeus became a high profile figure when he was the top US
commander in Iraq from February 2007 to September 2008. The press
followed him around with their tongues hanging out. And not just the
female reporters that he 'flirted' -- in fact he never 'flirted' Thomas
E. Ricks though, clearly, few reporters have spent as many fevered
nights, tossing on sweaty sheets moaning David's name. Sounding like
the woman not asked to bed down, Ricks posts a clutch-the-pearls response at his Foreign Policy
blog -- it's actually a clutch-the-pearls hide behind a clutch-the
pearls response as he hides twice behind by posting a statement he made
to Reuters. Clucking so loudly you picture him wearing one
of Barbra Bush's ugly blue moo-moos, Ricks wants to wonder why sex
can't be private?
It's not
really about sex, it's about a CIA Director stepping down three days
after a presidential election. Supposedly, a CIA Director stepping down
to avoid being compromised on national security issues. It's about a
CIA Director putting himself in the spotlight with actions that
apparently threatened US security.
Was Petraeus a risk for blackmail? I think a strong case could be made for that and I didn't believe that until I read the report today by Sari Horwitz, Kimberly Kindy and Scott Wilson (Washington Post).
According to the report, his "closest advisers" told the journalists
that Petraeus had no plans to resign even after he admitted the affair
to the FBI. What changed? When he found out that the affair was going
public, he decided to resign. He wasn't bothered by it being known by
the FBI or others in the government. But he didn't want it to go
public. If the report is accurate, that would indicate that there was
the potential for blackmail and that does make him a security risk.
There
are other issues as well. It's about how the White House could not
have known about the investigation or the impending resignation prior to
the election. It's about how Petraeus is a potential security risk and
the administration -- as far as we know currently -- had no idea that
was the case. It's about what happened in Benghazi. Especially since
the mistress is now all over YouTube in an October speech she gave where
she asserts that the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi September
11, 2012 -- the attack that killed Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean
Smith and Chris Stevens -- was a result of the CIA holding Libyan
prisoners. Here's one example at YouTube.
Paula
Broadwell: I don't know if a lot of you heard this but the CIA Annex
had actually -- had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner
and they think that the attack on the Consulate was an effort to get
these prisoners back.
And that could be the tip of the iceberg. If Broadwell's claims about the CIA holding detainees in Benghazi also turns out to be true, that whole separate scandal is potentially far bigger, as keeping that secret, along with the administration's already shaky history of truth-telling on Benghazi, could suggest there really was a cover-up in the wake of the attack on the consulate, that the Obama Administration lied about ending the use of CIA black sites, and got their own ambassador killed in doing so.
The possible fallout of all that, even coming after the presidential election, is virtually unfathomable, and as a part of the story continues to center on a sordid affair the real information about very really issues seems to be coming out as well.
In addition, Kevin Johnson, Jim Michaels and Carolyn Pesce (USA Today) reported
this afternoon, "On Monday, FBI agents searched the Charlotte, N.C.,
home of Broadwell, who is also Petraeus' biographer. Broadwell had high
security clearances as part of her former job as a reserve Army major in
military intelligence. But those clearances are only in effect when a
soldier is on active duty, which she was not at the time she researched
the biography. FBI spokeswoman Shelley Lynch said agents arrived
shortly before 9 p.m. at Broadwell's home. Lynch declined to elaborate
on what prompted the search." And Andrew Tilghman (Navy Times) reports
that General John Allen is now the focus of an investigation. The US
Defense Dept issued the following statement from Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta today:
On
Sunday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation referred to the Department
of Defense a matter involving General John Allen, Commander of the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
Today,
I directed that the matter be referred to the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense for investigation, and it is now in the hands of
the Inspector General. I have informed the Chairman and Ranking Member
of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The House Armed Services
Committee has also been notified.
While the
matter is under investigation and before the facts are determined,
General Allen will remain Commander of ISAF. His leadership has been
instrumental in achieving the significant progress that ISAF, working
alongside our Afghan partners, has made in bringing greater security to
the Afghan people and in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a
safe haven for terrorists. He is entitled to due process in this
matter.
In the meantime, I have asked the
President - and the President has agreed - to put his nomination on hold
until the relevant facts are determined. I have asked both Senators
Levin and McCain that the confirmation hearing on General Allen's
pending nomination to be Commander of United States European Command and
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe be delayed.
The
President has nominated General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of
the Marine Corps, to succeed General Allen at ISAF. I respectfully
requested that the Senate act promptly on that nomination.
These are real issues and that's why it was the topic on the first hour of The Diane Rehm Show today, Diane and her guests Mark Jacbosn (Truman National Security Project), Michael O'Hanlon (Brookings), Evan Perez (Wall St. Journal) and Rachel Smolkin (POLITICO) discussed the issues involved. With any story, someone will always go smutty (such as John R. Talbott at Huffington Post
today). Equally true, there will always be shrieking harpies like
Thomas E. Ricks who are more devoted to an individual (always a man, in
Ricks' case) than they are to the truth so they will clutch-the-pearls
and pretend that there's no story there and someone's being persecuted.
Spare us all from the Drama Queens like Thomas E. Ricks.
US News & World Reports takes the issue to their Debate Club for three views. In a rare instance for the Debate Club, all are of the same mind (but for different reasons).
Yes — You can't both lead the CIA and recover from a public betrayal of your family
MIEKE EOYANG, Director of Third Way's National Security Program Comment (0 )
Yes — But Petraeus should still testify before Congress to quiet conspiracy theorists
ROBERT NOLAN, Editor at the Foreign Policy Association Comment (0 )
Yes — Petraeus understood his institutional leadership was compromised by his own actions
HEATHER HURLBURT, Executive Director of the National Security Network Comment (0 )
At the Los Angeles Times, conservative Max Boot offers a column on what he sees as Petraeus' accomplishments.
Oliver Stone is a film director and screenwriter (directing credits include JFK, Platoon, Nixon, Wall Street, Savages, W. and Alexander) He and historian Peter Kuznick have created Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States,
a documentary mini-series airing on Showtime (first run episodes of
each of the ten chapters begin airing each Monday night) and also a book. Disclosure, I know Oliver. He addressed the topic of Petraeus on Piers Morgan (CNN -- link is video) last night. Excerpt.
Oliver
Stone: Well the American media has come up with narrative that he's an
American hero who was betrayed by the woman. He takes the fall. It's
the classic. It sales well. It's a good soap opera. But it's not
true. I see no evidence of his heroism. There has been no success in
Iraq. The so-called 'surge' has been over-hyped by the media as a
success when, in fact, Iraq was trashed almost from the beginning to the
end. And it was in worse shape when he left. He didn't leave it
well. And then when he went to Afghanistan, he -- First of all, he
conned Obama into adding 30,000 troops -- was in Afghanistan with a plan
that he'd win with this counter-insurgency program. Well where is it?
Where are the results? They're non-existent. Afghanistan is worse
off. He's supervised the Predator explosion [the Drone War] and the
missiles not only into Pakistan and Afghanistan. And he's exaserbated
the entire region and the people that are there are going to hate us,
more so for civilian damage, collateral damage. And top of it, he's
built up this reputation -- I mean, first of all, as a military man, I
really think he's overdoing it as a show man because he goes in front of
Congress to talk about the counter-insurgencies wearing -- if you
notice, the ribbons grow every year. He's got now like a regular fruit
salad up here [holds right hand to left pectoral] and it's disgusting.
General [George] Marshall who was one of the greatest heroes of WWII is
famous for having been a modest man and going in front of Congress and
wearing hardly anything
Piers Morgan: I mean he had this reputation as King David --
Oliver Stone: Very much so.
Piers Morgan: That was what a lot of people in the forces -- and didn't always mean it as a compliment
Olive Stone: No.
Piers Morgan: It meant as he was slightly regal.
Oliver
Stone: But success? America values success. What's success in Iraq
and Afghanistan? He's left many weeping widows out there. And it's not
worked, counter-insurgency. Our involvement in a foreign country --
whether it's Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq I, Iraq II -- it doesn't work.
We go in, we have a lot of money, we make a lot of friends --
temporary friends -- they know we're leaving. And when we leave, which
they know we will leave, they value their lives so they are our tempory
friends.
Oliver
Stone: In American media, they're praising him as a hero. I don't see
the hero. I see a misguided policy in Iraq, an even more misguided
policy in Afghanistan. I don't think the 'surge' worked, I think that
was a lot of media hype. And I -- And I -- And I don't trust his
credientials. He never was in Vietnam but he wrote -- He made his
reputation writing about counter-insurgency in Vietnam -- in which his
main recommendation, a US military man told me, was, "You know what?
Get the press on your side." That was his counter-insurgency proposal.
And he's very good at that. So when he appears on Congress, I don't
know if you saw the rows of medals the first time, he appeared.
Gayle King: I saw them, yes.
Oliver
Stone: He seemed to woo the Congressmen. They were falling at his
feet. The military worship in this country has reached unhealthy
proportions.
On
videos. A number are asking that we note a video report. I agree that
normally we would. We're not noting it. "Off the record" is off the
record. I don't think the person discussing an e-mail they received
from a _____ at ____ (military institution) grasped what they were doing
on camera. That is great work. But someone still in the military?
That person would be off the record for a reason. He or she could be
drummed out. Could be punished. I like the person doing the report and
we have noted the person before and will many times again and this is
surely a topic I support and believe in. But I don't think the person
doing the report grasped that he or she had just outed someone and, if
not outed, started an investigation on the base. I'm hopeful that no
one else will notice. I think we're the last website left in the US
that gives a damn about that issue. So I doubt it will be amplified
by others. But I really think that report needs to be taken down and
edited. My opinion. When someone in the military tells you something
that could get them in trouble and they tell you it is off the record,
you don't need to be sharing what base they're on and what position they
hold. It is very easy, from there, to narrow down the _____s on the
base and to check their computer history and determine which one it is
without even asking any witnesses (who are also identified indirectly,
if you think about it). If this confused you, we'll note it Saturday
without noting what installation, what rank or where the report came
from.
Onto Iraq and the never-ending political crisis where tensions remain high among the various political blocs. Yesterday, Alsumaria reported that State of Law MP Sami al-Askari is calling Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi a failure and he told Alsumaria that the Kurds are playing up the Sunni - Shi'ite divide. Today Kurdistan Alliance MP and leader Muhsin al-Sadoun tells Alsumaria
that al-Askari's remarks are not helpful and that the suffering that
has taken place has been under Nouri al-Maliki's leadership as people
have increasingly lost confidence in the government's ability to provide
as a result of the vast corruption and the failure to provide
security. al-Askari hasn't stopped trashing politicians. Al Rafidayn reports
he went on Alsumaria television tonight and trashed Iraqiya's Osama
al-Nujaifi who is the Speaker of Parliament. He stated that al-Nujaifi
is indebted to the Kurds who pushed for him to be Speaker of Parliament,
implying that he does their bidding. Iraqiya came in first in the 2010
parliamentary elections. After Nouri refused to honor the Constitution
and give up the post of prime minister and Jalal was bound and
determined to remain prime minister, that only left one post for the
political bloc that got the most votes. Iraqiya was always going to get
the spot and al-Askari knows that, he's just attempting to inflame
tensions with his bitchy nature.
Yesterday Al Mada reported
that Kurdistan Alliance MP Mahma Khalil had announced 150 members had
signed on to the bill to limit the prime minister to two terms. At the
start of 2011, when Iraq had protests going on across the country about
Nouri's inability to deliver basic services or jobs and the
disappearance of so many into Iraq's 'justice' system, Nouri announced
he would not seek a third term. Almost immediately this was retracted
though outlets like the New York Times that rushed to 'report'
Nouri wouldn't seek a third term went on to 'forget' to report that the
pledge had been withdrawn. Since then Nouri's attorney has repeatedly
reminded the press that there is nothing that can prevent Nouri from
seeking a third term. The proposed bill is an attempt to make it
illegal. Among those who support this proposal? Iraqiya and Moqtada
al-Sadr's bloc.
Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) reports
on the bill and notes, "Since the last American troops left Iraq nearly
a year ago, the country's Shi'ite, Sunni Muslim and ethnic Kurdish
parties have been caught up in a power-sharing stalemate that has left
key oil and investment laws paralyzed in parliament. Kurdish parties,
the Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc and even some rivals in Maliki's own
Shi'ite coalition failed earlier this year to trigger a vote of no
confidence against a prime minister whom they accuse of consolidating
power at their expense." Failed or were betrayed? Iraqiya MP Hamza Allrtani tells All Iraq News
that the people should not forget that when the political blocs came up
with a plan to withdraw confidence and merely needed Talabani to pass
it on to Parliament, Jalal refused to do so. Dar Addustour adds
that Kurdish MP Moahmmed Chihod is calling for Jalal to appear before
Parliament to give a status report on his months -- since the middle of
September -- of talks with political blocs to resolve the crisis.
Meanwhile All Iraq News reports Jalal has declared his support of Nouri al-Maliki.
Months ago, Nouri launched Operation Command Tigris which is not helping to ease tensions. Dropping back to the October 25th snapshot:
Al Mada reports
that he is attempting to swarm Kirkuk with Operation Tigris. (Operation
Tigris has been going on for weeks now.) Nouri has declared that the
Peshmerga (Kurdish force) is in violation of the law and the
Constitution by providing protection and refusing to surrender areas to
his army.
Those who've paid attention will remember that General Ray Odierno warned of this. It's a shame the White House refused to listen to him and took the word of the idiot Chris Hill instead. (Yes, I know, after Robert Gates set up a meeting between Odierno and Hillary Clinton, she took the issues to the Cabinet. By then, however, it was too late.)
Kirkuk is disputed territory. This issue of Nouri sending in forces to disputed territory has raised its head before. In the past, the US military would mediate. What happens now?
Those who've paid attention will remember that General Ray Odierno warned of this. It's a shame the White House refused to listen to him and took the word of the idiot Chris Hill instead. (Yes, I know, after Robert Gates set up a meeting between Odierno and Hillary Clinton, she took the issues to the Cabinet. By then, however, it was too late.)
Kirkuk is disputed territory. This issue of Nouri sending in forces to disputed territory has raised its head before. In the past, the US military would mediate. What happens now?
The
US press ignores it but we've covered it here. It is a major issue.
He's sending the Iraqi military into disputed and oil-rich Kirkuk. In October of 2008, Corey Flintoff (NPR's All Things Considered -- link is text and audio) explained,
"The potential wealth has made Kirkuk a tormented city ever since oil
was discovered in 1927. Today the city's three main ethnic groups,
Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens, are vying for demographic and political
control." The Kurds claim Kirkuk as their own. And, at present, that's
a solid claim. Does the KRG deserve Kirkuk?
Right now, it probably does. Baghdad does not. That's not taking sides on ethnic or historical grounds. That's noting that Iraq's Constitution (written and passed in 2005) outlined how Kirkuk would be resolved in Article 140: a census and referendum. Both would be held by the end of 2007. Nouri becomes Prime Minister of Iraq in spring of 2006. And refuses to implement Article 140. One of the things he promises in the contract known as the Erbil Agreement (2010) is that he will implement Article 140. Nouri has still refused to implement Article 140. When Nouri refuses to honor the Constitution he took an oath to uphold, that means, by default, the other side looks better.
Right now, it probably does. Baghdad does not. That's not taking sides on ethnic or historical grounds. That's noting that Iraq's Constitution (written and passed in 2005) outlined how Kirkuk would be resolved in Article 140: a census and referendum. Both would be held by the end of 2007. Nouri becomes Prime Minister of Iraq in spring of 2006. And refuses to implement Article 140. One of the things he promises in the contract known as the Erbil Agreement (2010) is that he will implement Article 140. Nouri has still refused to implement Article 140. When Nouri refuses to honor the Constitution he took an oath to uphold, that means, by default, the other side looks better.
This struggle has been ongoing and many think tanks have weighed in. Dropping back to the July 26, 2011 snapshot for more on this issue:
Of greater interest to us (and something's no one's reported on) is the RAND Corporation's report entitled "Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops."
The 22-page report, authored by Larry Hanauer, Jeffrey Martini and Omar
al-Shahery, markets "CBMs" -- "confidence-building measures" -- while
arguing this is the answer. If it strikes you as dangerously simplistic
and requiring the the Kurdish region exist in a vacuum where nothing
else happens, you may have read the already read the report. CBMs may
strike some as what the US military was engaged in after the Iraqi
forces from the central government and the Kurdish peshmerga were con-
stantly at one another's throats and the US military entered into a patrol
program with the two where they acted as buffer or marriage counselor.
(And the report admits CBMs are based on that.) Sunday Prashant Rao (AFP) reported
US Col Michael Bowers has announced that, on August 1st, the US
military will no longer be patrolling in northern Iraq with the Kurdish
forces
and forces controlled by Baghdad. That took years. And had outside actors.
The authors acknowledge:
Continuing to contain Arab-Kurd tensions will require a neutral third-party
arbitrator that can facilitate local CMBs, push for national-level negotiations,
and prevent armed conflict between Iraqi and Kurdish troops. While U.S.
civilian
entities could help implement CMBs and mediate political talks, the
continued presence of U.S. military forces within the disputed internal
boundaries would be the most effective way to prevent violent conflict
between Arabs and Kurds.
As
you read over the report, you may be struck by its failure to state the
obvious: If the US government really wanted the issue solved, it would
have been solved in the early years of the illegal war. They don't want
it solved. The Kurds have been the most loyal ally the US has had in
the country and, due to that, they don't want to upset them. However,
they're not going to pay back the loyalty with actual support, not when
there's so much oil at stake. So the Kurds were and will continue to be
told their interests matter but the US will continue to blow the
Kurdish issues off over and over. Greed trumps loyalty is the message.
(If you doubt it, the Constitution guaranteed a census and referendum
on Kirkuk by December 31, 2007. Not only did the US government install
Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister in 2006, they continued to back him
for a second term in 2010 despite his failure to follow the
Constitution.)
[. . .]
Page
nine of the report notes that the consensus of US military, officials,
analysts, etc. who have worked on the issue is that -- "given enough
time -- Arab and Kurdish participants will eventually have a dispute
that leads to violence, which will cause the mechanism to degrade or
collapse."
The
report notes that, in late 2009, Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in
Iraq at that point) had declared the tensions between Arabs and Kurds to
be "the greatest single driver of instability in Iraq." It doesn't
note how the US Ambassador to Iraq when Odierno made those remarks was
Chris Hill who dismissed talk of tensions as well as the issue of the
oil rich and disputed Kirkuk.
Operation Command Tigris is seen as a way for Baghdad to take control of Kirkuk. Al Mada notes that Kurdistan Regional President Massoud Barzani has been attempting to work out a unified opposition position with Jalal on this issue. Barzani issued a statement declaring that public opinion is against it and that they have waited for Talabani to solve the issue but no solution has come forward and what is taking place is unconstitutional. The statement is posted on the Kurdistan Regional Government's website. In the statement, Barzani notes that there were concerns and fears about the formation of the so-called Operation Command Tigris and it does nothing to help with the application of Article 140. Instead, Operation Command Tigris was formed with intentions and goals that go against the hopes of the Kurds, against the democratic process and does nothing to help the Baghdad-government and KRG get along. Barzani notes that he waited so that Talabani would have an opportunity to put into play promises he had made about stopping the situation; however, that has not come to be. All Iraq News points out that State of Law MP Jawad Albzona immediately declared Barzani's statement to be wrong and inaccurate.
Not
in the statement but also pertinent, Nouri's refused to fund the
peshmerga in the latest federal budget which has caused additional
problems. Today Al Monitor offers an article translated from Azzaman which notes the conflict:
For their part, the Kurdish parties organized
a demonstration in Kirkuk against what they described as the
militarization of civil society and the deployment of the Tigris forces,
formed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in Kirkuk.
Meanwhile,
political sources inside Kirkuk told Azzaman that Kirkuk's population
is living in terror, fearing the outbreak of armed clashes between the
Tigris forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Asaish forces.
The
sources said that dozens of foreign companies, especially Turkish ones,
have suspended their activities and closed their doors because of the
security situation. They said that the city's trade activities are
experiencing a downfall.
The sources
explained that the North Oil Company (NOC), which is composed of Kurdish
elements, has upped the level of surveillance on oil wells and NOC
department buildings in Kirkuk for fear of attack on the part of the
Tigris forces, but the sources said that oil production is still normal.
In
the United States, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office issued the following today:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
Murray Applauds Senate Passage of Veterans Cost-of-Living Increase
Sen.
Murray fought hard to secure passage after an unnamed Republican
blocked the traditionally non-controversial bill in September
(Washington,
D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, announced that a bill to provide a
Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) of 1.7% for America's veterans has
passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent. Senator Murray fought hard
for COLA passage, after an unnamed Senate Republican blocked the traditionally non-controversial bill in late September. The
Veterans COLA will affect several important benefits, including
veterans' disability compensation and dependency and indemnity
compensation for surviving spouses and children. It is projected that
over 3.9 million veterans and survivors will receive compensation
benefits in Fiscal Year 2013.
"A cost-of-living increase for our veterans is well deserved," said Senator Murray. "Particularly in this difficult economy, our veterans deserve a boost in their benefits to
help
make ends meet. I am so glad we were finally able to move forward with
passage of this bill. Caring for our nation's veterans should never be a
partisan issue."
The
COLA is designed to offset inflation and other factors that lead to the
rising cost of living over time. The COLA rate will match the annual
increase provided to Social Security recipients and is based on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index.
###
