FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH IN THE PETRAEUS PROBE

By Jon Rappoport

November 16, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The punchline of this story is an unconstitutional US imperial war machine, dedicated to empire, contributing to a Globalist planet by destabilizing and causing massive chaos in the Middle East and Africa.

In this criminal effort, one American soldier has stood out above the rest. He has been made into a heroic myth. He represents the best of the best.

Seeing his character, his honor, millions of Americans have concluded that whatever our Armed Forces are doing, it must be right and good.

If David Petraeus is our fearless leader, we’re on the side of the angels.

If he succumbed to a moment of misguided passion, we can forgive him. His grand portrait must continue to hang on the wall. Petraeus gives legitimacy to war, destruction, empire-building.

He’s the scoop of vanilla ice cream on the poisonous pie.

So the general will be given protection.

An hour ago, he testified behind closed doors, to Congressional committees, claiming he knew, within a day, that the Benghazi attack was launched by terrorists. So far, reporters’ questions indicate Petraeus won’t be hammered hard about why he has changed his story. In September, he blamed an anti-Muslim video for the attacks. Now it’s terrorists. Incredibly, the protection of the general’s reputation is holding, to this point.

Meanwhile, federal agencies, trying to figure out how deep the Petraeus scandal really goes, are fashioning a cover story, to shield the guilty.

From the NY Daily News: “Reuters reported on Wednesday that investigators found substantial classified information on a computer used by [Paula] Broadwell. According to law enforcement and national security sources, investigators are examining whether the information should have been stored under more secure conditions.”

That’s a double-talk lie. You don’t need to consult complicated manuals to know that, when you transfer classified information to a place it doesn’t belong, a home computer, you’re already breaking the law.

And when the FBI can quickly find the classified data on the home computer, as they did, you realize it wasn’t buried under sophisticated protection. So that’s another clear indication of a crime.

You might as well have secret memos lying on the kitchen counter.

The feds are lying about this. What else are they lying about?

It’s obvious the whole Washington establishment and their media allies are lying, too. They’re trying to stitch together a fake story to cover a horrendous series of security breaches.

And what secrets may sit under those breaches.

For example, was Broadwell, an experienced Army officer, leaving classified data in open view because she was trying to sink Petraeus by association? Was this part of her plan? If so, there is little doubt she was involved in a full-scale, long-term operation, whose leaders remain unknown.

Broadwell, whose only visible track record as a published writer, aside from academic papers, was a pair of dry op-ed pieces in the Boston Herald and the NY Times, was suddenly co-writing a biography of the most famous soldier in America.

This is now explained by Petraeus’ sexual attraction to her. But on her side, she dedicated a tremendous amount of effort to meeting and charming the general. She traveled to Afghanistan to seal the deal. It doesn’t require a great leap to suspect she was working a classic honey-trap.

Here is a rogue’s gallery of top government officials telling lies..

FBI Director Robert Mueller claims he was unaware of an investigation into Petraeus until after the election. This is about as likely as a drunken sailor climbing the side of the Empire State Building.

Leon Panetta, the secretary of defense, is playing “I know of no other names in the scandal,” as if he’s the executive producer of TMZ, presiding over a tabloid story. “I only know what I read in the papers,” he says.

Eric Holder, contemplating his next cushy job in the private sector, casually states there were no national-security implications discovered in the Petraeus-Broadwell case.

Holder’s off-the-cuff “final judgment” about national security implications is ludicrous. In a case with this much potential for leaks of classified data and blackmail, he’s clueless. He’s just spouting what he’d been told to.

Obama himself is adopting a relaxed attitude. Commenting on Petraeus at his first press conference since winning reelection, he astoundingly said, “My main hope right now is that he and his family will be able to move on.” Was he doing a Dr. Phil impression?

Several conservative pundits have speculated that the White House held the Broadwell affair over Petraeus’ head to force him to say, in September, that the Benghazi attack was the result of an amateur film trailer.

A flood of liberal pundits have responded to these claims, calling them woo-woo conspiracy theories.

No surprise here. Conservatives go after the White House. Liberals defend the White House.

Neither side is willing to look at the big picture.

And neither side gives a thought to how the intelligence establishment views this scandal, as loud alarm bells keep ringing at Langley.

Let’s see. Not a CIA agent, but the director of the CIA has a secret affair with a woman who is not his wife. This woman has a significant amount of classified information on her unsecured computer at home.

She herself is compromised and vulnerable, because she is having an affair with him and she is married. And no one knows who she might be covertly working for.

Before the CIA director publicly confesses the affair and resigns, he has access to millions and millions of pieces of highly secret CIA data, some of which even the president never gets to see.

No one, however, is particularly worried that the general may have been blackmailed.

What would blackmailers seek to get from Petraeus?

In addition to what he knows from his tenure at the CIA, he served at the top of the heap in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He was in Iraq, where billions of dollars in “US aid” went missing. Who stole the money? Those names? An extremely useful nugget, if Petraeus could provide it.

Then in Afghanistan, details on the restructured heroin-trade operation would be another gem. As would reports on poppy yields and the names of drug warlords who were replacing old mainstays. Dope Inc. is a trillion-dollar business, and what Petraeus could pass along would rate as prime industrial espionage. He would know a great deal about US government involvement in drug trafficking.

Then you have oil deals vis-a-vis the hoped-for Afghan pipeline. Can’t tell the shifting players without a scorecard. You’ve got newly minted Russian oligarchs, Chinese operatives, competing oil companies, bank financiers, drug kings looking for a place to wash and multiply their money. Everybody and his brother wants a slice of that action.

Petraeus was there on the ground. He was connected. Anything he knew about oil deals would be prized intelligence, useful to a great many competitors.

General MacArthur once said, “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” Now old soldiers reach out for the cash. The unimaginative ones sit on boards of security companies and defense contractors. The clever ones dig deeper. Holding companies, banks, finance groups, places where sums of money that would make you reel cross over the transom every day, as the global laundry machine pumps away digital blood and bankrupts nations.

Paying off a general and a CIA director (if you can) to extract very, very valuable intell and information is a natural. Having an affair to hang over his head, an affair to which he has not confessed, is a jackpot.

But no one is particularly worried that Petraeus may have passed information on to blackmailers.

Then we have this. The general had an enormous amount of information about the US Armed Forces’ strengths and weaknesses, about classified military bases, about deployment numbers, special ops missions, weapons capabilities and limitations in the field, under actual battle conditions. He knew other generals and officers, and could speak, authoritatively, to their methods, abilities, and deficiencies. If they had personal secrets, he would have known some of them.

But no one is particularly worried that Petraeus may have passed information on to blackmailers. It’s only important that he and his family can move on.

During his tenure in the Army and the CIA, Petraeus spoke with Obama many times. He could offer up, from personal experience, assessments of the president’s character, methods, operational strengths and weaknesses.

But no one is particularly worried that Petraeus could have passed information on to blackmailers.

There is Benghazi. Petraeus has crucial information about what actually happened there. There is a good chance he could sink the president’s second term before it even begins.

But no one seems worried Petraeus could have already passed on that information to blackmailers.

No one seems worried because they’re quaking in their boots and covering up their fear. They’re hoping against hope that the artificial portrait they had painted of Petraeus, as a mythical national hero, holds together long enough to let the ongoing uproar fade down the memory hole.

There are other matters as well. Petraeus could offer blackmailers an inside view of West Point, the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense.

He could discuss, in intimate detail, perception vs. reality vis-a-vis the inner workings of the CIA, conflicts within the White House. He could disclose secrets about defense contractors, future US weaponry, the revamping of the Armed Forces, classified experiments at DARPA, research on creating the “superior soldier,” dissident military officers who are against the president and his policies and might be trying to drum up various rebellions in the ranks.

And much, much more.

But no one is worried.

Of course not.

Petraeus slipped and had an affair. That’s the beginning and end of it.

A man walking around with miles and miles and miles of invaluable unique information in his head…a man, in that respect, like no other in America…is no problem at all.

The US military-industrial complex needed a man like Petraeus, at a time when a two-front war was stretching personnel thin. Soldiers, ordered to do multiple tours, loaded up with psychoactive drugs, were starting to push back.

Petraeus came in and provided a sense of order and renewed purpose. Of course, it was all fake. It was a “new theory” on how to fight enemies while pacifying civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as if the wars were, in reality, a humane enterprise.

Obama was Bush with a kinder face.

Petraeus was hailed as a brilliant innovator, a leadership guru. Broadwell celebrated and extolled the leadership angle in her book.

But really, Petraeus was just providing the US war machine with longer shelf life.

He gave that machine cover, and now they’re giving him cover.

And everybody will keep tap-dancing and lying.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

GENERAL PETRAEUS AND “THE SPY WHO LOVED HIM”

by Jon Rappoport

November 12, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s absurd to think the FBI just found out about CIA Director Petraeus’ affair with Paula Broadwell, his biographer. The timing is too convenient.

The FBI knew about the affair some time ago and, under strict orders, kept their mouths shut until just after Election Day. If they hadn’t, the scandal would have blown up during Obama’s campaign run.

During the period the FBI knew about Petraeus’ affair, they also knew he was completely vulnerable to blackmail. In FBI and CIA circles, to have done nothing about it is considered treasonous. Putting a gag on these FBI people had to been done by the White House.

The latest word is that Petraeus will not testify before Congress about what really happened in Benghazi. He “may be called” on the carpet at a future time, which could mean never.

His absence will help conceal details of the Chris Stevens murder and the build-up of US-sponsored terrorists in the Benghazi sector of Libya.

In fact, Petraeus’ initial statements to Congress, behind closed doors on September 14, led legislators to believe that absurd film trailer was the cause of the “uprising” at the house where Stevens was attacked and killed. Was the General’s ridiculous declaration made under orders from the White House, who had the blackmail goods on him?

Then, finally, on October 26^th, Petraeus, perhaps fed up at how he was being used by the White House to provide cover for the president, stated: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need [in Bengazi]. Claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

In this whole scenario, we would be looking at a potential case of double blackmail. First by the White House, who knew of the affair sometime ago, and second, by whoever might have wrung CIA and military secrets out of Petraeus because they knew about his affair with Broadwell.

What does that make Paula Broadwell. In intelligence parlance, she would be a classic “honey trap.”

By circumstance, by accident, or on purpose?

She has a long military background. A graduate of West Point, she directed counter-terrorism studies at Tufts University. She worked with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. She is no innocent.

She very well knew that, during the time of their extended affair, Petraeus was vulnerable to any number of blackmail vectors. This did not make her waver.

She knew this wasn’t just some fling with a lieutenant colonel or even a run-of-the-mill general. Petraeus was head of all forces in the Afghanistan war. Then he was CIA director.

There are a lot of ways to write a biography that don’t involve sleeping with the subject and opening him up to blackmail at a very high level.

People from both sides of the aisle in Washington are expressing deep sorrow that an American hero had to resign. What nonsense. They’re building cover for Petraeus. They’re intentionally avoiding the question of what compromises he may have agreed to during his peak military service and intelligence directorship.

In Afghanistan, Petraeus was Obama’s choice to replace Stanley McChrystal, the general who blew his career during a Rolling Stone interview in which his men took pot shots at the president.

It is quite fair to ask whether Petraeus served as Obama’s man in Afghanistan under the unspoken but implied threat that, if there were any kerfuffles, any deviations, any criticisms of the White House Afghan policy, Petraeus’ affair would become public knowledge.

Despite claims by a friend that the affair with Broadwell began after Petraeus assumed leadership of the CIA, there is a strong possibility it started earlier, when Broadwell was “embedded” with the general in Afghanistan.

Was Paula Broadwell covertly working for the White House during her affair with Petraeus? Was she working for somebody else? Did she start out as an agent? Was she drawn into becoming one because she, too, as a married woman, was open to blackmail?

The public and the mainstream press, playing the part of “oh isn’t this too bad but of course nothing really serious or weird or compromising could have happened here,” doesn’t want to know how the spy game is actually played. They’d rather watch Jeopardy and pop Zoloft.

“Two people, both married, couldn’t resist a great passion. It happens. All of us make mistakes. We understand. Even great men can succumb. And she was obviously smitten. What a shame.”

Yeah. Sure.

Petraeus, the man, is now a legitimate target for serious questions. If he entered into the affair, knowing full well the blackmail it opened him up to, what is he all about? Where have his loyalties resided?

Some starry-eyed people will think asking about this is “impolite,” because, after all, “the man is an American hero.” Nonsense.

Then we have questions about Petraeus’ potential political career. The press went after him with all sorts of questions about what he might do in the 2012 election. The idea was out there. Could he run for president against Obama? Could he become the next Eisenhower?

If he had decided to make the move, he would have had a formidable number of supporters. But he adamantly said no. Was this a genuine expression of disinterest, or was Petraeus already compromised and under the thumb of the White House?

“All right, David, you’re gone from Afghanistan now. You’ve retired from the Army. The hero returns. Don’t get any ideas about running for president. You know what we know about you. By the way, the director of Central Intelligence is open. How would you like that job?”

“Oh no,” people say. “This kind of thing would never happen.”

Really? What kind of world do you think Washington is? The Peace Corp with martini lunches? The Unitarian Church with occasional brandies and cigars?

Remember Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s famous remark when she was asked about the devastation the US was wreaking in Iraq through its economic sanctions?

May 12, 1996, 60 Minutes. Lesley Stahl says: “We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

Now that’s the real world of Washington, once the PR people get out of the way.

Blackmail of a famous general, a director of the CIA? That’s nothing.

A famous general falling under the power of blackmail? A general who knows some of the deep dark secrets about Dope Inc., the trillion-dollar opium growing operation in Afghanistan, a general whose troops have helped to restore the planting of the poppies there? A general who knows about the longed-for oil pipeline running through Afghanistan and the various persons whom it will benefit?

Could Petraeus have been a target for all manner of blackmail mounted by numerous parties?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

by Jon Rappoport

October 22, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

Your big-government-at-work scores again.

In 2003, Congress began pouring money into a program of fusion centers. These 70 outposts, scattered across America, were supposed to coordinate federal, state, and local efforts to gather counter-terrorism intelligence.

You know, to protect America against al-Qaeda.

The lead agency in this program is the US Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS).

Now the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations has issued a chilling report on how this has worked out. Buckle up.

First and foremost, the report indicates that DHS has claimed certain fusion centers exist that don’t exist at all. This should give you a clue about what we are dealing with.

“So how is fusion center #32 doing?”

“Pretty good.”

“Really? Fusion center #32 doesn’t exist.”

“Oh.”

Here is the exact statement from the Committee: “…DHS officials asserted that some fusion centers existed when they did not.”

The Committee also found that DHS hid their own “evaluations highlighting a host of problems at fusion centers and in DHS’ own operations.”

Or in plain language: a) we screw up big-time; b) we cover it up.

But even with all this lying, surely the fusion centers produced useful intelligence, right?

“…the Subcommittee investigation could identify no DHS reporting which uncovered a terrorist threat nor could it identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot.”

What?!

It gets even worse. For the period between April 1, 2009, and April 30, 2010, a third of all fusion center reports weren’t even published for use by DHS or other US intelligence agencies. Why? Because the reports often “lacked any useful information or potentially violated department guidelines intended to protect Americans’ civil liberties or Privacy Act protections…”

In fact, the Committee found, DHS launched an internal review of its own actions that specifically infringed on citizens’ privacy and civil liberties, but the review was extended in time, in order to conceal “most of the troubling reports” and keep them “from being released outside of DHS…”

Translation: a) we violate citizens’ Constitutional rights; b) we cover it up; c) we investigate our own cover-up; d) we conceal our own cover-up.

As the capper on the Committee report, Congressional investigators discovered that “DHS required only a week of training for intelligence officials before sending them to state and local fusion centers to report sensitive domestic intelligence, largely concerning US persons…”

Meaning: incompetent raw DHS employees are deployed to accuse US citizens of being terrorists or aiding terrorists.

Feel safer now?

The bumbling stumbling fusion centers may actually be evidence of something far more sinister: the real mission of DHS is not intelligence at all, and never was. Instead, DHS was tasked with creating its own army, to be equipped with hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo, guns, tanks, and the like. The “gathering of intell” is just a cover story for its ongoing war on the American people.

You can read the Committee report at:

http://publicintelligence.net/hsgac-fusion-centers/

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.