"Over the weekend it emerged that his relationship with biographer Paula Broadwell was discovered by FBI agents while they investigated harassing emails she allegedly sent to a second woman, who was named on Sunday by the Associated Press as Jill Kelley, a state department military liaison.
"In the days following his announcement to step down, a steady flow of leaks to the US media have given more detail to the affair that cost Petraeus his job. The makings of his downfall were in a series of apparently vicious emails sent by his lover -- a 40-year-old former army reservist who co-authored All In, a fawning biography of the CIA chief -- to Kelley, a state department liaison to the military's Joint Special Operations Command.
"It is thought that the threatening nature of the missives led the Florida-based recipient to seek the protection of the FBI An investigation of Broadwell's personal email account uncovered letters of an explicit nature between her and Petraeus, who has been married for the past 38 years to his wife Holly."- Advertisement -
Hell hath no fury, eh Truthseekers! How threatening does an email have to be for a State Department employee to seek FBI protection from the email attacker, Petreaus' lover-cum-biographer? Who needs daytime soap operas when you have MSNBC and sexy tidbits like these? The real winners in this scenario, as always, are the media who were at a loss as to how to maintain viewer interest now that the elections were over. What to do ... what to do ... Poof! Out pops Petraeus' hanky panky!
It's a pre-Festivus media miracle! But is it a coincidence?
Rumors are trickling out that the Friday news dump of the Petraeus Affair/resignation was timed to coincide with the Benghazi Congressional Inquiry. Plus -- even more scandal-icious, it seems the bodacious Mrs. Broadwell gave a speech to a Denver audience on October 26th in which she revealed some potentially classified details about certain terror suspects the US has holding in ... (wait for it) our consulate annex in Benghazi!
This is from The Washington Post's blogspot today:
"In an Oct. 26 speech at the University of Denver, she said that Libyan militants had attacked the post to retrieve some fellow fighters who'd been taken prisoner at the nearby CIA annex. She also seems to suggest that Petraeus himself knew about it, implying that he may have been her source. Here's the relevant passage from the speech, transcribed in full here:
"Now, I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted. The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he's not allowed to communicate with the press. So he's known all of this -- they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening."
Naturally, the CIA is denying the possibility that the US was holding (torturing?) prisoners in our consulate. What else would they say? The story certainly seems more plausible than the "official" claptrap about an anti-Muslim movie that so inflamed the rebels they instigated this attack.
Either way, we're sure to be treated to more titillating tidbits over the next few weeks, as tales of Petreaus' Two Hotties dominate the news cycles and fill our telescreens.