It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
That great line comes from Ace of Spades. He explains:
Jill Kelley, the woman who was (allegedly) threatened by Gen. Petraeus's squeeze Paula Broadwell and who (apparently) started the FBI investigation that led to Petraeus' ouster, who went to the FBI for help after the threats and then (allegedly) had a relationship with the FBI agent in charge of her own case, who (allegedly) sent her shirtless pics of himself, also (apparently, allegedly) had "compromising" communications with Gen. John Allen, the Big Damn Commander of our war effort in Afghanistan.
The thing about the FBI guy with the shirtless pics reminds me of something very important to keep in mind as a media consumer. Pretty much every advance in this story has been from interested parties spilling the beans to reporters. The original Wall Street Journal story about the FBI agent was clearly designed as a hit against him. You don't learn that Jill Kelley contacted him for help with the harassing emails until some time after (years, it sounds like) he sent her the pictures. You learn that from the New York Times piece on the same.
But the agent, who was not identified, continued to “nose around” about the case, and eventually his superiors “told him to stay the hell away from it, and he was not invited to briefings,” the official said. The Wall Street Journal first reported on Monday night that the agent had been barred from the case.
Later, the agent became convinced — incorrectly, the official said — that the case had stalled. Because of his “worldview,” as the official put it, he suspected a politically motivated cover-up to protect President Obama. The agent alerted Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, who called the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, on Oct. 31 to tell him of the agent’s concerns.
Sounds like this FBI agent is being retaliated against in the media for his whistleblowing.
That's a separate issue, of course, from whether the FBI should have handled the case differently. I'm wondering what you think. Should the FBI have snooped around in Paula Broadwell's email? Once they discovered the affair, what should they have done?
- Comment (50)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
Well, the only press corps in the world I trust to uncover a sex scandal is the British Press, so I think a call to Her Travesty's Indiscreet Service was in order.
Nov '12
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
OK, that title was funny!
But on a more serious note, what the heck!?! This was a widely known scandal and yet no one, NO ONE in the MSM picked up on this....I have serious disdain for all political conspiracy theories because I just don't believe people are smart enough to pull it off, but this is starting to agitate me.
Makes me wonder if, about the time of the first debate when there was chatter about a big story that was going to break in a bad way for Obama, the President wasn't in shock because he thought this would be it? (It turned out to be the well known credit-card verification non-scandal...well, non-scandal as long as you're a Democrat)
And in other bizarre romantic-triangle news - tickle-me Elmo takes on a whole new creepy dimension....
Edited on November 13, 2012 at 3:36pmSep '10
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
According to established protocol, they probably should have done something. But do they follow protocol strictly and indiscriminately? Probably not. Do they end up getting information that is truly helpful in terms of national security? Probably not. Good gossip? No doubt. This is one of the main reasons it's so difficult to correct the Message. It's six levels below the everyday world, and digging isn't near as much fun as unearthing a lot of juicy rubble.
Sep '10
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
To riff on Richard Epstein's post below:
One Nation Under the Covers.
Sep '10
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
The FBI's handling of the case is driven by what they do not know, not by what they know. I assume prior to this Petraeus' FBI folder portrayed him as someone who was faithful to his wife. Likewise Broadwell's folder was clean. Once evidence is unearthed that this is probably not so it brings into question everything else the FBI thinks it knows about them.
Assuming nothing was found other than the sex, one might want to ask why investigate. But how does one know there is nothing but the sex without investigating?
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
Assume that it is established that neither of these ladies are compromised and feeding inside dope to the enemy.
If that's the case, why should I care about any of it from a national interest perspective?
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
Tommy De Seno: Assume that it is established that neither of these ladies are compromised and feeding inside dope to the enemy.
If that's the case, why should I care about any of it from a national interest perspective? · 9 minutes ago
That's exactly what I'm wondering. I think liberal jim nails it in the comment just above yours, though -- how do you know that nothing was compromised without investigation? I mean, we do know that Petraeus is a liar and a cheat relative to the one person in his life to whom he had the highest obligation. Are we to believe he'd betray the mother of his children but not the people cutting him a paycheck?
This is a fine morality tale -- and I'm a bit terrified of the government's surveillance powers -- but I'm not sure I'd advocate less investigation into how we may have been compromised ...
Aug '11
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
At first I assumed that getting to the bottom of L'Affaire d'Petraeus would help us get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. But now I'm beginning to wonder if this is meant to distract from Benghazi. And what's more distracting than a shiny sex-scandal?
Nov '11
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
Tommy De Seno: Assume that it is established that neither of these ladies are compromised and feeding inside dope to the enemy.
If that's the case, why should I care about any of it from a national interest perspective?
Here's a better question: Why does sex blind Libertarians?
You should care that leaders in possession of national security secrets compromised themselves by entering into those relationships in the first place.
We can count ourselves extremely fortunate if it turns out that national security info was not revealed, but that good luck would not negate the fact that these leaders acted recklessly and did risk national security secrets.
Prison time is appropriate.
It appears that Broadwell probably did, in fact, give away info about CIA operations in Lybia. She is an attention-seeker, more than a little crazy, based on the emails she sent to Kelly. Broadwell obviously loved to show off her connections and milked those connections to advance her career, so who knows what all she "dropped."
As long the bus doesn't crash, why should you care if the driver gets himself "serviced" while rolling along the route?
Nov '12
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
The New York Post has excelled itself in its front page coverage of this affair. I'm new to this site, so I don't know how to embed the link, but if you look at nypost.com/archives/covers and go back to November 10 and November 11, you'll see what I mean. If the number of parties in the affair reaches eight, we could move to three dimensions and represent them as the vertices of a cube, noting the irony that it's one of the so-called Platonic solids.
Sep '10
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
I think its more like 3 dimensional Chess that Spock and Kirk used to play. Which means the only thing missing from this is a William Shatner Denny Crane send up.
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
That's exactly what I'm wondering. I think liberal jim nails it in the comment just above yours, though -- how do you know that nothing was compromised without investigation? I mean, we do know that Petraeus is a liar and a cheat relative to the one person in his life to whom he had the highest obligation. Are we to believe he'd betray the mother of his children but not the people cutting him a paycheck?
This is a fine morality tale -- and I'm a bit terrified of the government's surveillance powers -- but I'm not sure I'd advocate less investigation into how we may have been compromised ... · 25 minutes ago
Understood and I am interested in what you posted yesterday about her claiming we were holding prisoners there which didn't seem to be public knowledge.
I remember saying what you said above about Clinton - if he can't be faithful to the people he loves what chance is there he will be faithful to me, a complete stranger? Clinton's hold on power after his impeachment seems to have Europeanized us a bit, much to my disappointment.
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
Astonishing
Tommy De Seno: Assume that it is established that neither of these ladies are compromised and feeding inside dope to the enemy.
If that's the case, why should I care about any of it from a national interest perspective?
Here's a better question: Why does sex blind Libertarians?
Youshouldcare that leaders in possession of national security secrets compromised themselves by entering into those relationships in the first place.
We can count ourselves extremely fortunateifit turns out that national security info wasnotrevealed, but that good luck would not negate the fact that these leaders acted recklessly anddidrisk national security secrets.
Prison time is appropriate.
It appears that Broadwell probably did, in fact, give away info about CIA operations in Lybia. She is an attention-seeker, more than a little crazy, based on the emails she sent to Kelly. Broadwell obviously loved to show off her connections and milked those connections to advance her career, so who knows what all she "dropped."
As long the bus doesn't crash, why should you care if the driver gets himself "serviced" while rolling along the route? · 13 minutes ago
Excellent points.
Oct '10
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
Egggxactly. I'm haven't followed this story at all, but isn't everyone off chasing the titillating stuff as Benghazi fades away. Or will this bring us back around to it?
Jan '11
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
I have no idea what's going on. However, that won't prevent me from the sheer fun of speculation.
The point of undergoing a thorough investigation before receiving a clearance is to make sure you can't be blackmailed or intimidated. Normally, we assume that the blackmailer would be some foreign government or sinister group. Now I'm wondering if the intimidator is the same group America just elected for another four years.
If it wasn't such a serious matter, I'd say "pass the popcorn." But this does matter, and it is serious.
Nov '11
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
Severely Ltd.
Egggxactly. I'm haven't followed this story at all, but isn't everyone off chasing the titillating stuff as Benghazi fades away. Or will this bring us back around to it? · 5 minutes ago
I've worried about that, too, but it seems to me that it depends on whether the House subpoenas Petraeus. If they do, Benghazi will be front and center.
Aug '12
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
Severely Ltd.
Egggxactly. I'm haven't followed this story at all, but isn't everyone off chasing the titillating stuff as Benghazi fades away. Or will this bring us back around to it? · 2 minutes ago
The purpose is three-fold, as far as I see it:
It just seems so obvious to me. And it's so shady that it gives me chills.
Nov '11
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
I just wish the MSM had spent a fraction of the time on the many Obama scandals as it has on this one.
May '10
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
Maybe what we're seeing is competent independent thinkers being removed from key positions, and replaced by compliant hacks (John Kerry for Secretary of Defense? Really?).
Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
Or at least read:
In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin by Erik Larson
Nov '11
Re: It's Not A Love Triangle. It's A Love Pentagon.
More likely than the blackmail risk: Broadwell was a security leak waiting to happen.
She loved to brag about her connections and her insider's knowledge.
Apparently, her sexual relationship with Petraeus was an open secret in certain circles. Human nature is we tend to share inside info with our sexual intimates; we talk to them about the everyday details of our work. That's just the way it is. Add in the fact that Broadwell was also Petraeus's biographer, and a West Point grad. Petreus trusted her. So I would be surprised if Petraeus did not share confidential info with her. With knowledge of her intimacy with Petraeus, a foreign government could send someone to "befriend" Broadwell, take her out for dinner, buy a few bottles of her favorite wine, and then get her into a bragging contest. Broadwell would probably give away everything. Nothing could be easier.
(For a foreign intelligence operation, the hardest part would be sorting through everything Broadwell said to figure out what was brag and what was fact.)