Paula Broadwell

All (Taken) In?

Was the ambitious General David Petraeus targeted for take-down by competing interests in the US military/intelligence hierarchy—years before his abrupt downfall last year in an adultery scandal?

Previously unreported documents analyzed by WhoWhatWhy suggest as much. They provide new insight into the scandalous extramarital romance that led to Petraeus’s resignation as CIA director in November after several years of rapid rise—going from a little-known general to a prospective presidential candidate in a stunningly brief time frame.

Among other revelations the documents show that:

-Petraeus was suspected of having an extramarital affair nearly two years earlier than previously known.

-Petraeus’s affair was known to foreign interests with a stake in a raging policy and turf battle in which Petraeus was an active party.

-Those providing the “official” narrative of the affair—and an analysis of why it led to the unprecedented removal of America’s top spymaster— have been less than candid with the American people.


According to internal emails of the Austin-based private intelligence firm Stratfor, General David Petraeus was drawing attention to his private life much earlier than previously believed. Because it was his private life that resulted in his being forced out as CIA director, alterations in our understanding of the time frame are significant.

Until now, the consensus has been that Petraeus began an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, in the fall of 2011, after he retired from the military and took over the CIA.

Lt. Col. John Nagl, a friend of Petraeus, claims the Petraeus-Broadwell extramarital affair did not begin until after Petraeus became CIA director, which was in September 2011. And retired US Army Col. Steve Boylan, a former Petraeus spokesperson, says the affair did not begin until several months after August 2011, when Petraeus retired from the Army.

But documents—researched by WhoWhatWhy and published for the first time as part of an investigative partnership with WikiLeaks—suggest otherwise. These documents characterize Petraeus as having regular dinners in early 2010 with Abdulwahab al-Hajri, then Yemen’s ambassador to the US, and note that Petraeus brought to at least one of those dinners a woman “not his wife”—whom the Yemenis believed was “his mistress.” It’s possible—although not confirmed—that this woman was Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’s biographer and mistress, who sent allegedly threatening emails that spawned the strange FBI investigation that precipitated the former Army general’s resignation on November 9, 2012.

Stratfor has a longstanding position of not commenting on the emails obtained by WikiLeaks. The company’s boilerplate public response regarding the internal documents in WikiLeaks’ possession is that it “will not be victimized twice by submitting to questioning about them.”

Petraeus’s attorney, Robert Barnett, declined to comment.


According to the Stratfor emails, Petraeus brought a woman believed to be his mistress to at least one dinner at al-Hajri’s house as early as January or February 2010. It is known that by late 2010, after Petraeus took command for the Afghanistan war, Paula Broadwell had already established what has been called “unfettered” and “unprecedented” access to Petraeus, including lodging on his Kabul base.

By bringing to such a gathering a younger woman who aroused such suspicion, Petraeus was already exhibiting the kind of recklessness not uncommon to highly ambitious people on the rapid ascent. This was especially true given the stakes involved—and Petraeus’s own formidable enemies within the US government.

If the young woman was Broadwell, her willingness to accompany a top military official to such a closed-door, high-level event should draw additional attention to her thinking and motivations. Broadwell was a military intelligence reservist—and her take on what was discussed at precisely those kinds of dinners would have been of interest to her superiors.

By the date of these 2010 dinners, Broadwell had known Petraeus for four years—and had been working closely with him on his biography since the previous year. She says she first met him in the spring of 2006, when she was a graduate student at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and asked if she could write his biography. She began work on the biography in 2009 when he headed CENTCOM, the US Central Command. With the biography as her justification, she followed him to Afghanistan where he led the US forces.

Thus, if Stratfor’s Yemeni diplomat source is correct, and the woman was Broadwell, an attractive military intelligence reserve officer was far more deeply entwined than previously known with a controversial, fast-climbing figure at the center of some of America’s and the world’s hottest disputes—at the risk of compromising him and his future.

Stratfor’s Source: a Yemeni diplomat based in DC

Mohammed al-Basha, press attaché for the Yemen embassy in Washington DC, is one of Stratfor’s informants, referred to by DC-based Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla as her “Yemeni diplomatic source.”

In an interview with us, al-Basha confirmed that Petraeus dined with Abdulwahab al-Hajri at the former ambassador’s house in DC for “an event or a party” while Petraeus was head of CENTCOM. Petraeus was CENTCOM commander from October 31, 2008 until July 18, 2011— which is within the scope of the Stratfor emails and before the dates Nagl and Boylan give for the start of the affair.

Al-Basha told WhoWhatWhy he had “no idea” whether Paula Broadwell attended a dinner with Petraeus and the Yemeni ambassador. “I have no idea. No, no, I have no idea,” he said. “That’s the first I’ve heard this.” He then denied being Stratfor’s source.

However, there are at least one hundred and twenty emails between the Yemen embassy’s al-Basha and Stratfor’s analyst Bhalla in the WikiLeaks cache; many consist of al-Basha answering her questions. In Email-ID 81508, sent January 15, 2010, Bhalla and al-Basha discuss Yemen’s terms for surrendering American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki; al-Basha tells Bhalla he is “not sure about the terms… I will assume a fair prosecution can be part of the plea”; in Email-ID 1098283, sent the same day, Bhalla forwards his exact words to other Stratfor analysts, telling them they came from her “Yemeni diplomatic source.”

In Email-ID 90306, sent February 5, 2010, Stratfor Watch Officer Michael Wilson tells the firm about a champagne party where he learned that Petraeus brought an intriguing woman to a dinner with al-Hajri. The email states that a Stratfor source, a “Yemeni diplomat based in DC” and handled by Bhalla, provided the information. Unless Stratfor has multiple Yemeni diplomat sources in DC handled by Bhalla, that source is al-Basha. Furthermore, the WikiLeaks cache appears to contain no email contacts with any other Yemeni diplomats.

Having acknowledged the Petraeus/al-Hajri dinner, al-Basha nonetheless requested that the event not be reported. Then, in a follow-up email exchange, he cited an unnamed former colleague’s assertion that “the General never came over with his biographer to any of our events public or private.” That statement is constructed in such a way that it does not actually deny Petraeus’s presence at the dinners with a woman who was not his wife, or even deny that the woman was Broadwell. Technically, it only excludes a scenario in which Petraeus arrived with Broadwell. We were unable to clarify further because repeated requests that al-Basha identify the former colleague went unanswered.

Why Champagne Hangovers Suck

Email-ID 90306 (with the droll subject line “Re: INSIGHT – YEMEN – why champagne hangovers suck”) contains Wilson’s report of “a hectic, late night” meeting occasioned by Abdulaziz bin Fahd, a son of Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, former king of Saudi Arabia, challenging “everyone to a champagne bottle drinking contest.”

Wilson, writing of what he learned that night, says:

“Petraeus has become BFF [slang for best friends forever] with the Yemeni ambassador here. Dinners every other week at the amb’s house. Last time he came with this woman, not his wife. The Yemenis think she was his mistress, but i seriously doubt that he’d be that stupid considering how high profile he is. You can see Petraeus taking a much deeper interest in Yemen these days though. Petraeus (after he drinks a few) says privately there is an Iranian link in Yemen, but it is not yet critical.”

A 2010 US diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks reports that on January 2, 2010 — that is, around the time of Petraeus’s dinners with the ambassador — Petraeus met with then-president of Yemen Ali Abdullah Saleh, who, referring to secret US air strikes in Yemen, promised Petraeus “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.” Broadwell’s biography of Petraeus, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, briefly mentions Petraeus trips to Yemen, but does not indicate if she went along.

The Turf War

Control over US policy in Yemen was at stake, and General Petraeus was right in the midst of it. The CIA and the Pentagon had competing objectives in Yemen. The CIA was pushing Obama to authorize the agency to deploy its pilotless drones against radical Islamist forces, while the military wanted to train and supply Yemeni special forces to handle the country’s problems. Debate raged over whether US drone operations—which often involve civilian casualties—were not just further alienating the local population and thereby playing into those Islamists’ hands. Both sides were leaking information to the press to try to influence the White House, and Petraeus himself was one of the leakers. (Later, as CIA director, Petraeus would advocate for increased use of drones.)

Email-ID 1204569, sent September 4, 2010, while Petraeus was CENTCOM commander, contains Stratfor analyst Bhalla’s report of a discussion over hookah (“sheesha”) with her “Yemeni diplomat source” and two younger sons of President Saleh.

She mentions “leaks from a couple weeks ago on CIA recommendations to the [Obama] administration to carry out drone strikes in Yemen,” and says: “There’s a huge turf war between CIA and JSOC over this, which is why all these leaks are coming out,” and notes that

CENTCOM leaked their rec for $1.2 billion assistance funding for Yemeni special forces (this was all Petraeus, who has a very good relationship with the Yemenis and goes to the Yemeni ambo’s house pretty regularly for dinner.) The Yemenis are nervous about [General James] Mattis taking over Centcom.  They could deal well with Petraeus, whom they consider a ‘diplomat.’ Don’t know yet how to read Mattis.

Why Yemen?

Powerful competing US (and international) interests and factions have stakes in Yemen that are not transparent to the public nor shared with it.  The political landscape in Yemen is complex and shifting (Saleh is no longer in power, and some reforms are underway), but certain realities must be understood. Some of these were noted nearly a year ago on the site Small Wars Journal, put out by ex-Marines with an interest in nuances that often get lost:

Over the last decade the US has viewed Yemen almost exclusively through a counterterrorism lens.  This has proven short-sighted and often counter-productive.  Some make a compelling case that Ali Abdullah Saleh kept the terrorism threat alive to secure both US funding and ultimately his regime, which was dubbed by Yemen expert Robert Burrowes as nothing short of a “kleptocracy.”


A careful look at the map reveals that Yemen is the hinge between East and West.  The Bab-el-Mandeb – which links the Suez Canal to the Indian Ocean via the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden – highlights Yemen’s vital geostrategic location.  Most will be familiar with the strategic and economic importance of the area, particularly the Canal, which remains at the heart of world trade and commerce.


[A] restructured, well-led and well-equipped Yemeni Coastguard active in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden could be leveraged in support of Combined Task Force 150 and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) forces to counter piracy and also quell the aspirations of both Al-Shabaab and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).  Additionally, the US would have a trusted ally acting across the CENTCOM – AFRICOM boundary.

That tracks with public discussions of regional policy. But what is the interest of Stratfor in Yemen, besides generating content for its subscription newsletters? According to its internal emails, in 2010 the private intelligence firm was providing custom analysis on Yemen for its clients National Oilwell Varco (a Houston-based multinational which builds oil rigs), and Hunt Oil (for more on Ray Hunt—a member of President George W. Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board—and his Middle Eastern operations, including in Iraqi Kurdistan, see this.) Email ID 5300460, sent May 23, 2011, shows Stratfor’s work for Hunt Oil included creating a database of incidents of violence, with precise information such as GPS coordinates. This is yet another reminder that where political struggles play out, the pursuit of profit cannot be far afield.

Petraeus, a canny man, surely understood the factors besides pure military strategy that underlie foreign policy calculations. Also, it was during this period that he was being mentioned as a possible opponent to Obama (Listen here to a top Fox News executive repeating speculation to Petraeus that he was being brought into the CIA to derail a possible run against Obama—and how Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and their Fox News team would get behind him if he chose to run. Petraeus deflected the talk about a presidential run, saying, with a laugh, “My wife would divorce me.”)

Who Gets Credit?

One of the more revealing aspects of the Stratfor memos is their candor about the narrow and self-serving behavior of agencies and departments whose official justifications are too seldom questioned by the media.

In Email-ID 1204569, coming a year before the US raid on Bin Laden’s haven in Abbottabad, Pakistan, Bhalla writes, with brutal cynicism:

There’s been a ton of media spin and leaks later about Anwar al Awlaki being the next bin Laden. OBL is becoming old news now. CIA and JSOC want a new target to claim success, so there’s a concerted campaign going on right now to play up al Awlaki as the #1 terrorist. Al Awlaki is much easier to target anyway and they have leads on him, so every agency wants to be the one to say they got him. [Emphasis added.]

The month before this September 4, 2010 email, the Obama Administration had placed Anwar al-Awlaki on a “kill or capture” list. A little over a year later, on September 30 2011, a US drone strike killed al-Awlaki in Yemen without his having been charged, given any due process or trial, and without any of the evidence against him being made public—an unprecedented attack on a US citizen.

That Stratfor analysts report a “turf war” between the CIA and JSOC also foreshadows what many see as the biggest fallout from installing a military general as head of what had been regarded as a civilian agency — the further militarization of the CIA’s mission. The fact that the general had a mistress in tow (or—if one assumes that the woman mentioned in Stratfor’s intelligence about that dinner in Yemen wasn’t Paula Broadwell—a series of mistresses) can only add to the disquiet.

It may be that Petraeus shared foreign policy secrets with Broadwell, possibly granting her unauthorized access to classified information. A speech Broadwell gave at the University of Denver near or within the time frame of the FBI investigation of her suggests she may have had inside information about the controversial response to the attacks on the US consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi.

It is unfortunate how little interest the media has shown in Broadwell’s work as a military intelligence officer. She directed the Counterterrorism Studies Center at Tufts, which stresses advance planning and soft power over military efforts: “We’re playing chess, they’re playing poker.”  Clearly, she was not just an eager young scribe falling in love with a brave commander.

Ostensibly, Petraeus was toppled for his involvement in a secret extramarital affair— which became public knowledge with the revelation of Broadwell’s reportedly threatening behavior toward socialite Jill Kelley, whom Broadwell allegedly perceived as a romantic rival.

By agreeing to Broadwell’s original request that he admit her into his life as his biographer, the ambitious general may have unwittingly allowed himself to be set up. If he did invite her along to private dinners where confidential international strategy was discussed, she presumably was quite glad to go, and may even have suggested it. Their affair thus became a sub rosa time-bomb, the fuse of which was in her control.

General David Petraeus’s headlong fall from grace cannot be dismissed as the denouement of yet another peccadillo in an unforgiving moral climate. The plot is thicker than that—perhaps as thick as the often-unnamed heart of the story: oil.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Uncle Albert

I am persuaded that there was some sort of insider political “job” done on the intrepid general. I am, in other words, in agreement. But, if in one political theater there’s a dark conspiracy, then why not in others? Can it be that the entire horizon is based in or materially influenced by dark manipulations? Recalling the famous dictum of FDR – that when things happen in politics it’s not an accident – many will see the sinister hand of what Bismarck called the black chamber at work almost everywhere. Is it credible that the hoop-la about guns is not one of these? Inciting an emotional and fake “issue” may be seen by some as serving to obscure the looting of social security at the same time it disarms the general population and increases the arming of so-called “police” – who everybody know are now a national para-military organisation.

Auntie Em

NO it is not. Stop inserting the gun baloney into every other subject. Way too transparent. Or at least remember to pick up your check from the NRA propaganda dept.

Tom Hession

How much does your govt disinformation job pay? Your employer should hire people who are able to make logical and coherrent rebuttals. Or at least sound convincing.

james warren

Aunti Em, perhaps the reason for Albert’s idea to bring into this discussion the gun problem is because we are a nation of gun enthusiasts AND the current bubbling caldron in Washington is a sign that this is one of the few issues in our political history in which a valid holistic approach has been taken to a level of collaborative national problem-solving. Most remedies to conflict and national conversations deal in piecemeal solutions which are no longer useful in a global world.

Uncle Albert

Just pointing out that the overall view sure looks like the “sheep” are being manipulated in some sort of son-of-cointelpro program. There are no (or not very many) “accidents” in the political arena. Why now has “X” become a celebrated “issue”? Yes, just now X is the so called “gun problem” (what problem?), but it can be real or planted “kiddieporn” of real or imagined “corruption” – anything to divide people. General P may have refused to play ball, or maybe he was simply in the way. People who know the sordid details of the nazi history in Germany will have long ago recognised the similarities…


@ Auntie Em: what Uncle Albert raises is actually a valid point. For example, different subject, same problem. If the central banks want to fully ‘enslave’ a population into the chains of ‘national dept’, they will go after every source of revenue as a means to pay off the (fake) IOU’s. The one some quarters suggest not being touched (certainly not to the extent others have) is Social Security because it would affect far too many people. It’s a powder-keg of ‘entitlement’, a ‘class’ of people they most certainly don’t want armed, or maybe they do?. And that’s the point, especially in regards to the article above; Government looks after it’s own interests and tells the ‘truth’ only when it’s expedient to those aims. This has absolutely nothing to do with the NRA [:rolleyes:] and everything to do with “We The People..” being treated as intelligent ‘individuals’ rather than coerced ‘chattel’.

Tom Hession

You are correct Albert. Government corruption is evident even to 6 year olds. It has become the norm.


I am also inclined to believe that Petraeus was taken down from the inside. Two relatively unknown whistle blowers, Sibel Edmonds and Russel Tice, have testified about two different surveillance programs that spy on the most powerful members of the government, including members of congress, senators, top military brass, federal judges including all supreme court justices, the secretary of state, presidential staffers, and Obama himself. Petraeus was specifically mentioned on that list of targets.

One possible motive has occurred to me…. that Petraeus was removed for an entirely different sort of indiscretion – the boastful spilling of highly classified spying schemes in a public forum that made it into print. Check this one out:


If your timeline is correct, then what is the status of Petraeus’ pension?


While juicy bits of intrigue have loads of entertainment value, we shouldn’t treat this as unusual. In DC everybody is out to get everyone else. Were I a student of Asimovian “psychohistory” I’d put the empire at the Bel Riose stage.


so, he found love, had a lover .. so what?

his “fall” is not about that .. it is something else, completely

james warren

The “fallen” are Petreus AND our national security!

james warren

Thank you again so much, Russ, for your dogged journalism and first-rate ethics when you present it. Some of what you have reported makes me realize that a lot of the human “power points” involved in these Byzantine scandals and cover-ups are masters at the art of parsing emails and official statements to obfuscate the real truth while paying lip service to some safe narrative of the events themselves.


All In? Is that her new book about how Petraeus went balls deep?

Jack Thomas

The last paragraph in the article is key. Any analysis would look at the likelihood broadwell had security clearances wayyy above national guard service. National guard was only her cover. Thats where the plot thickens in interesting directions.

Percy Sledge

amazed at all the commenters who are sloppy. article doesnt say “national guard,” it says “military intelligence.” those are VASTLY different creatures to begin with. Doh!

Charlie Fricke

Actually, is says Military Intelligence Reservist. The Reserves aren’t vastly different from the National Guard. Both are mostly part-timers, with the major difference being that the NG is usually under the command of the governor except when deployed. Since the 1st Gulf War, the distinction between part and full-timers has become somewhat “fuzzy”, as more frequently the “weekend warriors” are spending more time in the war zones than a lot of active duty military. The Reserves are in fact probably a better place to hide a mole since it’s sometimes easier and less noticeable to pluck someone out of their civilian life on an “as needed” basis for these little jobs.

Idon't Know

They are of course vastly different and certainly different in important ways in this story.

Charles Frith

Paula Broadwell is military intelligence. She laid back and thought of the United States while Petraeus was boning her. She is the epitome of American Patriotism. We owe her everything.


The David Petraeus story is not a complicated one.

He did not resign because of his affair with Paula Broadwell. That relationship was a matter of record for a long time, as the above article suggests.

Patraeus resigned because Paula Broadwell was caught on video talking about a secret CIA base in Benghazi (and the prisoners who were allegedly held there).

You can’t remain CIA director when your girlfriend is going around talking about secret CIA bases, whether the CIA bases exist or not.

I don’t understand why Americans don’t get this. This is not a complicated story. What part are you having trouble with?


Petraeus was not too big too fall (no pun intended). His power hunger got him, basically. The Senate INTEL Cmmittee knew of his questional personal behavior and approved him anyway for the CIA post. He is a silly, aging, rather pathetic man.

Idon't Know

Because it is really really obvious there is far more to this. You obviously didn’t read this article btw.

David Burgess

I’m glad someone like to write, but this whole article could have been cut to 1/2 page…it instead wastes my time with very little revealing info!!! this is my last visit!!!

Idon't Know

That’s a huge loss not to have your insight here. Really.


it has always been a rewarding experience to read you.

The . pleasure is mine. THANK YOU, SIR(S). SEE YOU SOON


The sex scandal is seedy, but the real break of public trust is Petraeus’s influence-peddling in Afghanistan and his blatant misuse of taxpayer funds. More should be written about this. He should never again serve in public life – no Pentagon consulting contracts, etc.

James Buchanan

I guess you people have never seen the video of betrayus and Faux news corp leader, I believe it was in the late 90’s-early 2000’s where they were trying to get betrayus to consider runing for office after he left the military, just like Ike. And the subsequent revelations about October suprizes, that propelled Regan into office. I believe there is more to this then you think. Politics.


General Betrayus! So I guess you had to dig that up from the idiots who ran that add in the NY Times! David has done far greater things in his life than your wonder boy Obummer! You need to show a man who served in theatre who actually put his life at risk more respect! So he is a Republican that makes him bad! He is brilliant, courageous,& a true Patriot! The fact he was banging a hot chick is not a big deal! Anyone that understands democrats know he was brought down by the left! They feared his popularity and knew had he run in 2016 he would have won in a land slide!

Idon't Know

You are what is called a useful idiot.


Crap article. Patreaus gave the Kagens a desk in Kabul. Patreaus was an Israeli cockroach.


“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Operations]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.”

Idon't Know

Which has what to do with this article…nothing..

Charlie Fricke

This whole affair also serves the purpose of sending a couple of very important messages. One, it serves as a warning to others in similar positions. You can have your fame, money and even a little bit of power, but if you stray too far off the reservation, you WILL be brought down. Two, even as sordid as the whole story is, it helps instill confidence in the minds of the general public that the wrong actually ARE punished in our society. “Go back to sleep America, all is well!”

One final thought. I’m not questioning your journalistic integrity or hard work, but how difficult were the facts in this story to dig up? If the answer’s anything less than “pretty darned difficult”, I’d say you’ve only begun to dig. I’ve always been suspicious of the easy answers. Old training dies hard.


My first instinct on this entire charade from the very beginning was that Paula Broadwell was an operative. Its the only thing that makes sense. She ran the oldest scam in the biz. It imploded exactly as it was meant to.

Idon't Know

Very possible.

Dan Allen

Makes complete sense that Broadwell could predict that Jill Kelly would take the threatening email to her highly-placed friends in government, leading back to the account Broadwell was sharing with Petraeus. That is how Petraeus was busted, but the FBI has never explained how they gained access to that account. Could have been a warrant to Google, but there is no grounds for rulling out a warrantless tap into a database kept by the FBI.

In 2005, when the wiretapping of the internet was reported, at least one report stated that a tap line went from major internet hubs to the FBI in Quantico. Not much has been made public since, but it is hard to imagine the FBI just gave up the practice. They had to get Petraeus’s email somehow. Is there no record of how the FBI got into that account?


Could not have set it any better.

David Whitson

A woman accompanied Petraeus to dinner, so, without any evidence as to who she was, or that she was sexually involved with him at that time, except for the assumptions of Yemenis, this writer spins that Broadwell controlled the fuse to a time bomb ? Is this piece supposed to be journalism ?

Idon't Know

Read the article again because you either didn’t really read it or failed to comprehend it.

david t. krall

from: david t. krall
As per the above info regarding Petraus, this is exactly how I “read” and sensed what was “going down” and happening…
a deep and powerful tidal turf-war within the national-security
establishment. This a not that all unrelated to the current
“scandals” regarding the NSA/IRS….I feel that its actually
between the neo-cons on one side and those who disagree
with them on the other…Being a student of history, I have felt
for the last several years that the truth, or most of it, regarding
the JFK Assassination would only come out or be revealed inadvertently thru some other scandal either by default some other avenue by a current scandal relating to vast (what else is new?) corporate & gov. intelligence corruption and abuses.
Well, here we are on 6/17/13….and day by day it seems like 1974, ’75 or 1976 all over again….all we need is what what we as nation should have…AN INFORMED CONGRESS WITH
This is a form a political acid that destroys democarcies!!!!!
from: david t. krall

John Goatbirth

Paula is FIT!

Dan Allen

How did the FBI gain access to the Gmail account Petreaus shared with Paula Broadwell? The NSA is saying none of their data could be used for an investigation of an American. Could this mean the FBI collects more data about Americans than the NSA, in their own, separate deals with the the internet companies, not revealed by Snowden, but just as real?

Dan Carpenter

According to the FBI they read Jill Kelley’s email too, as part of a “routine process”. It doesn’t mention if they had a warrant.

Leah Camper

Wow i applied for a job with the CIA. I am currently blacklisted. Politics is a dirty business and reading your article reinforces my original trepidation about the application. These people have hunted me like I am Osama Bin Laden. I am a former defense contractor. I could kick my self for ever applying. Who knew applying for a job would result in threats of destruction, two months in jail for no reason other than being on the government and CIA poop list.
These are facts and not speculation. After reading your article, it reinforces the fact that this is one nasty little groups of tyrants. Thanks for the information.

Dan Allen

Leah, this is a fascinating and provocative post. Is your arrest record public?

Are you at liberty to disclose a more detailed account of the way you were hunted, the job you applied for, and the blacklist you are on?

It is hard to accept that your experience is the way you have described, unless there is a way to verify the details. I am sure you are intelligent and sane, but unfortunately, for statements like yours to help the public understand the truth, we need details you can go on record with. I know that might be impossible for you.

I try reading anything I can get hold of related to the CIA, and i have not seen a story about what happens when people apply, especially not where a person had negative consequences just from applying. Going on the record with details would be a significant disclosure. I hope you can do that.


something not ringing true is based on the generally accepted ‘moral values ‘applied to most people today – Why was this an issue in the first place ?