Cloak and Shagg-her : The Petreaus Affair as Well-Utilized Cover….

Did you read media reports about a 2nd Petraeus woman named Jill Kelley? And the original woman, Paula Broadwell, being “concerned” about Kelley and sending harassing e-mails?

Did you read an AP report about Jill Kelley working for the State Dept. as a liason?  Washington Post…….  (Or)   New York Times…….  Odd how two very leftist publications would report the same nonsense.

[...]  A senior U.S. military official identified the second woman as Jill Kelley, 37, who lives in Tampa, Fla., and serves as an unpaid social liaison to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, where the military’s Central Command and Special Operations Command are located.  (AP – ARTICLE)

FUBAR – It’s all BS.

Holly Petraeus, Scott Kelly and wife Jill Kelley

Dr. Scott and Jill Kelley are family friends of the Petreaus’s.   Jill Kelley does not work for the State Dept. as a liaison, or any other position,  and apparently Kelley did not get “threatening” e-mails *from* Paula Broadwell.    Apparently Mrs. Kelley received concerning emails *about* the relationship.

In a statement Sunday evening, Kelley and her husband, Scott, said: “We and our family have been friends with Gen. Petraeus and his family for over five years.

We respect his and his family’s privacy and want the same for us and our three children.”  (article)

I would not jump to any conclusions right now, and I darn sure would not trust the media one iota with the information they provide.   Wait to hear from the horse’s mouth so to speak.   Too much political spin from the White House and left leaning water carriers.

Stay above the story.

About these ads
This entry was posted in CIA, Clinton(s), Election 2012, media bias, Obama Research/Discovery, Predictions, Sept 11, Socialist, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to Cloak and Shagg-her : The Petreaus Affair as Well-Utilized Cover….

  1. Charlotte says:
    Kelley alerted the FBI about the emails that appeared to be an attempt to blackmail Petraeus, which started the investigation, said the sources.

    In addition, the threatening emails might not have come from biographer Paula Broadwell, as widely reported.
    attempted military coup with coverup?
    Investigation started in MAY????

  2. lovemygirl says:

    Sorry about this comment but what is Jill Kelly wearing in the bottom photograph? Is that a pseudo negligee?

    • lovemygirl says:

      Sorry to be a fashion critic tonight but Dr. Scott looks like he shops at Nerds-R-Us with his sportcoat, polo shirt and jeans. Jill must shop at Sluts-R-Us. ;)

      • Knuckledraggingwino says:

        She is definitely a true believer in the “if you got them, flaunt them” fashion philosophy.

        Are they live or are they Mammorex?

        • lovemygirl says:

          She don’t “got them”, they would be at her knees without support.

          • Knuckledraggingwino says:

            On closer examination, it appears that she is wearing some type of support under her negligée.

            • retire2005 says:

              Come on, guys. Let’s not be judgemental about a person’s mode of dress. I have known many military wifes that are faithful and loyal to their husbands, even during times of long deployments, that dress like hookers. If we start making judgements because of the way someone looks [in a damn picture, no less, not knowing why] what does that say about us?

              My mother always told me that she felt it her responsibility to keep her appearance up, dress wise and weight wise, so that my dad and us kids would be proud of the way she looked. Too many people get way to comfortable in their marriages and forget what made them attractive in the first place.

              • Inckledraggingwino says:

                Good point.

                I’ll still amuse myself by imagining the the animosity between Paula Broadwell and Jill Kelly degenerating into a Catfight with Kelly starting the melée in that negligée and Broadwell in the dress she gave her recent speech in.

              • stellap says:

                You are probably right about being judgmental; it’s not nice of us. Look at the other people in the photo. They are all dressed very differently. That’s why her attire stands out.

              • Sharon says:

                I understand your caution about “being judgmental” from many perspectives. However, I have also lived through 50 years of adulthood as a Christian church lady being screamed at by first this section of the country and then that section of the country that Christians were too judgmental…..and that cacophony finally redefined the word “judgmental” or the phrase “to judge” to mean: No one is allowed, EVER, to draw any conclusion or formulate any opinion about any person or situation based on behaviors, language, reputation, dress, bad body odors, habits of lying, patterns of business behavior, spending habits, family relationships (kind or abusive), alcohol use, drug use, driving habits, ….

                ….and I keep noticing how that has worked out. Today there is no wrong. There is no shame. There is no capacity to correct disasters, because in the process we might have to shine the light on those who fed them. There is no capacity to teach truth, because we might make liars feel uncomfortable.

                We may have a tendency to bash and mock someone’s excess or foolishness at a time and in a way that is unnecessary and inherently nasty…when we catch ourselves doing that….fine. So stop it and step back.

                But I will not be made to feel again, ever, in my life that it is not my right to make judgments–evaluate, consider, conclude, understand, have wisdom about.….all of these things are what “making judgments” are about.

                I know that retire is not attempting to lecture us in a personal rebuke–my rant has to do with the generalizing of legitimate caution into “you’d better not be judgmental!”

                Our country wouldn’t be in the damn serious mess it is if a couple of decades’ worth of us normal, churchy, moral, non-cursing, non-God-despising fools hadn’t bought into the screaming that started in the 60’s that “You’re just being judgemental.”

                No more.

                PS: retire–how do you know that those women who dress like hookers have been faithful. Rhetorical question, thus no question mark.

            • Probably one of those magical girdles that pushes her belly up under her breasts. Maybe it’s called the Belly brassiere LOL

      • Sharon says:

        just really poor taste. doesn’t get out much probably.

    • stellap says:

      I must be shallow and off-topic too, because that’s exactly what I thought. That “dress” is ridiculous and it’s unflattering to boot.

    • Bijou says:

      Maybe she thought it was a ‘pajama party’. /s
      She also has a very “bold” expression on her face.
      Maybe a mid-life crisis…insecure? In any event, she’s very skanky looking.

      • WeeWeed says:

        What’s with her neck?? Izzer head about to fall off???

        • ctdar says:

          That’s her good side

          • janc1955 says:

            Honestly. The pose in both photos of her is identical. She’s cocking her head that way for a reason — someone told her she looks fetching like that. Her “outfits” and posing scream LOOK AT ME. Ugh. I’m absolutely sick to death of all the phony baloney lips, boobs, smiles and poses in pictures these days. It is REPULSIVE. And that other female, the Broadwell person, she appears to be a piece of work as well. She dresses more appropriately than the Kelley female, but the expression on her face in every picture I’ve seen the past few days tells me she has an EXTREME superiority complex. I also see more than a little bit of crazy behind her eyes. Both these females make me feel like throwing something.

    • Pardon the expression, but they are known as “tit-curtains”.
      (bottom of page)

    • marie says:

      We women learn to recognize the pose Jill Kelly has affected in that pic…and her “outfit” speaks volumes.

  3. lovemygirl says:

    Dot connections?
    CNN reported the “Whitehouse” did not know until 5PM election night.
    CNN then reported this story and House majority leader knew of Petraeus matter in October
    Diane Feinstein, trying to get to the bottom of it, says (on CNN no less) “who did what and when – and what was missing?” and she said in an interview why were we not told ahead of time (When a certain R was told in October)

    Anyone but Obama is taking the sword.

  4. TandCrumpettes says:

    What the heck is an “unpaid social liaison?”

  5. gretchenone says:

    Read this article from the WSJ:

    Among other things, it states that in September, during the investigation, officials believed the Petraeus affair was a national security issue. Yet, the president was not informed until AFTER the election? Quote, “Mr. Obama learned of the affair Thursday morning [Nov. 8] and met that day with Mr. Petraeus, who offered his resignation. Mr. Obama didn’t immediately accept it and took a day to consider it.”

    If true, then it proves President Obama is not in charge. In effect, he is not our president. He is merely a figurehead. Empty chair, indeed.

    • ctdar says:

      Horseshit, Obama has known since Petraeus became Director 9/2011 (probably knew even before due to the vetting process) and timed the document dump accordingly.

      • gretchenone says:

        Agreed; yet troubling that the WSJ just spouts the administration propaganda. This is why the truth is so severely hampered. Even so-called conservative media reports what they are fed, almost without question.

        • retire2005 says:

          gretchenone, you’re actually surprised at the “so-called” conservative media parroting what they are being spoon fed by the administration? And what makes you think the WSJ is conservative?

          After spending 10 years in two regional WSJ offices (when it was owned by Dow Jones) I can tell you the reporters who report on this kind of story at the WSJ are NOT conservatives. The only conservatives were the financial reporters. The rest of them were flaming liberals who graduated from schools like The University of Missouri School of Journalism. There is not ONE journalism school in the U.S. that leans right and they haven’t leaned right since the days of Walter Cronkite.

          The [so-called] mainstream press, including the WSJ, have been wholly owned by the left wing mindset for decades. That is why alterternative media (blogs, et al) are so important to really get the truth out to the general public. At least the print form of Newsweek, with its photos of a haloed Barack Obama, will cause us no distress in two months. It is folding.

          • gretchenone says:

            You are correct. Journalism, as classically understood, has been dead for decades. I will adjust. Thank you for the correction!

  6. ctdar says:

    Look at the 2 to the right (one looks like a twin or sister to nightgown)…who are they gossiping & giggling about? Hmmmm the twin appears to be looking right at Mrs Petraeus.

  7. recoverydotgod says:

    FUBAR – It’s all BS


    This NY Times article says Paula Broadwell was questioned for the first time the week of October 21 and given her speech at Denver University was on October 26, she must have been questioned later that day…Friday or Saturday.

    Officials Say F.B.I. Knew of Petraeus Affair in the Summer
    Published: November 11, 2012


    The involvement of the F.B.I., according to government officials, began when Ms. Kelley, alarmed by about half a dozen anonymous e-mails accusing her of inappropriate flirtatious behavior with Mr. Petraeus, complained to an F.B.I. agent who is also a personal friend. That agent, who has not been identified, helped get a preliminary inquiry started. Agents working with federal prosecutors in a local United States attorney’s office began trying to figure out whether the e-mails constituted criminal cyber-stalking.

    Because the sender’s account had been registered anonymously, investigators had to use forensic techniques — including a check of what other e-mail accounts had been accessed from the same computer address — to identify who was writing the e-mails.


    F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Broadwell for the first time the week of Oct. 21, and she acknowledged the affair, a government official briefed on the matter said. She also voluntarily gave the agency her computer. In a search, the agents discovered several classified documents, which raised the additional question of whether Mr. Petraeus had given them to her. She said that he had not. Agents interviewed Mr. Petraeus the following week. He also admitted to the affair but said he had not given any classified documents to her. The agents then interviewed Ms. Broadwell again on Friday, Nov. 2, the official said.

    Based on that record, law enforcement officials decided there was no evidence that Mr. Petraeus had committed any crime and tentatively ruled out charges coming out of the investigation, the official said. Because the facts had now been settled, the agency notified James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, about 5 p.m. on the following Tuesday — Election Day.


  8. Mikado Cat says:

    Given the level of BS the whitehouse lawn must be the greenest on earth.

  9. churchladyiowa says:

    Still another distraction to take the heat off Dear Leader. Yeah, Gen. Petraeus wasn’t forced to have an affair but this business of friend Kelley bullying Ms. Broadwell is very suspicious. Several scenarios: 1. Mrs. Petraeus sensed something was up and confided in Kelley who she thought the other woman might be; on her own, Kelley contacted Broadwell. 2. General Petraeus confessed all to the missus who told Kelley to scare Broadwell in an effort to make sure she stayed away from the General. 3. Kelley herself was having or had had an affair with the General herself, and this is payback to The Other Woman #2. If Broadwell was blackmailing General Petraeus, that is just ugly. What is it about “biographers”? This so smacks of the same meme as John Edwards living the double life with his “videographer”, Rielle Hunter.

    Even brilliant men in high positions seem to lose common sense when it comes to making bad decisions involving sex. I’m convinced the Obama Machine (headed by Valerie Jarrett) has BrownShirts on the ground in all departments of government, at all levels to sniff out any whiff of ammunition that could be used against a colleague or opponent. There is simply no honor anywhere in this administration.

    • Knuckledraggingwino says:

      More like Obama has a cadre of Brown Bras to entice men in critical positions to commit an indiscretion that can be used for black mail. Petreaus couldn’t take it after Ben Ghazi so he outedhimself?

      I feel for Mrs Petreaus.

      • retire2005 says:

        You might be on to something.

        For one thing; it seems that Broadwell broke off the relationship after she returned stateside. And then, to write her book, she chose Vernon Loeb, a left winger if there ever was one, whose articles were often quoted on anti-war websites during the Bush administration, using them as a reference why we should not be involved in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Anti-war sites don’t use hawks as backup for their agenda.

        If Broadwell was so hot and bothered around Petreaus, was it all for show? Why did she dump him immediately after returning stateside? Had she gained the dirt she wanted and had no further use for him? Women are not usually the ones to break off extramarital affairs.

        Vernon Loeb is the key here. Someone needs to dig into his actions. And his politics.

    • marie says:

      I don’t buy that Holly Petraeus didn’t know. Hell, they attended a wedding with Broadwell and her husband arm in arm. What woman can’t see her hubby looking with lust or longing at another woman and more, what woman can’t see another woman looking at her husband that way?

      The only thing I can’t figure out is what the hell Broadwell saw in Petraeus . Makes me think she’s a counterspy or it’s occurred to me that she and he wanted people to think they were having an affair…when they weren’t. Yeah, that’s right, as crazy as it sounds. Make your enemies think there’s a physical relationship or else why flaunt it?

  10. churchladyiowa says:

    Michelle Malkin has tweets from Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin up:

    “Exposure of Broadwell affair may have all to do with Benghazi – sources. Petraeus mistress Broadwell may have revealed classified info.

    “Did Paula Broadwell reveal secret or classified information at Denver speech, suggested real reason for attack were Libyans held at Annex.

    “Broadwell comment on CIA prisoners being reason for attack may be the clue that has been missing about what happened in Benghazi on Sept 11.

    “CIA pushing back on Foreign Policy report re: Broadwell revelations in Denver…suggesting they got out of the detention business in 2009

    “Libyans held at CIA Annex and handed over to Libyan authorities before GRS left base – were they the real reason for the attack on CIA?

    “Interrogations were done at Benghazi Annex. CIA denies, citing 2009 Executive Order 13491 which halted CIA’s detention authority.

    “What happened to the 3 Libyans who were held at the CIA Annex in Benghazi? Source told Fox they were handed to Libyans when annex abandoned.

    “Check Fox shortly for more details on what Broadwell said and what was going on at Annex – was Congress/POTUS aware?”

  11. Josh says:

    Kelley is a little ewww…

    • Knuckledraggingwino says:

      I’ve been on the forefront of crude jokes but let’s be real. For a 37 year old mom with three babies under her belt, Ms Kelly is smoking. While I have an aversion to Silicone, it is possible that they are live rather than Mamorex. If they are live then they are probably sagging to her navel rather than her knees, but real men don’t have a problem with that. The negligée seems inappropriate, but it appears to be decently opaque and she is wearing something under it.

      That being said, I’d. Still like to see an oil wrestling match between Ms Broadwell and Ms Kelly.

  12. retire2005 says:

    Fox News is reporting that Broadwell set up a number of dummy email accounts in order to harass Jill Kelly.

    OK, wolverines, here is the money question of the day: why would Broadwell want to harass Jill Kelly if Broadwell was the one to break it off with Petreaus after she returned stateside? Surely Broadwell knew Kelly was a family friend, and close to Holly Petreaus. So why the harassment? What was Broadwell trying to gain?

    Somewhere in this story is a big, fat hairy rat.

    • Knuckledraggingwino says:

      Broadwell was trying to bring attention to the affair to discredit Gen Petreus?

      Is Broadwell one of Obama’s Brownbras?

      Better take her dress off to check.

      Sorry, this is so sordid that I just can’t help myself.

    • marie says:

      At this point, we have to understand that disinformation is being sent out by all sides. Believe nothing. It’s much too early.

    • ctdar says:

      Need to ignore how it came out & stay focused on main story not get bogged down with girl on girl emails….
      distract, distract, distract til story goes away is Chicago MO
      Petraeus, Clinton etc need to go infront of Congress and swear under oath what they know happened in Benghazi before, during, and after Sept 11 or Congress should file legal charges against them for dereliction of duty..

      • ctdar says:

        Distractions will be full court press until Congress adjoins for holidays…can’t wait to see what whitehouse will try to jam thru in their absence.

  13. I think that normally a situation like this would have been handled quietly, but since the FBI was involved, as well as two women, and the fact that Petreaus was well known to the public, they decided to air it for fear that it might be leaked and come back to bite them. That’s the “Benefit of the doubt” scenario. I have others. The timing was bad not matter what.

    • retire2005 says:

      I think the Oval Office was trying to hold the affair over Petreaus’ head in order to get him to play along with their spin on Benghazi. I also think Petreaus is not the kind to be blackmailed, by anyone, so he just outed himself. That leaves the Oval Office with an empty bag and nothing to hold over him.

      Let the games begin. On Thursday, actually.

      • Hi Retire…That’s an excellent scenario! The question would be “How and when did they have knowledge of the affair”? We just don’t have enough info yet.

        • retire2005 says:

          Let me very clear; you don’t get to be director of the CIA until, and after, certain steps are taken. Petreaus would have had to fill out a lengthy questionaire that would have asked him specifically about any indiscretions that would subject him to a) blackmail or b) national embarrassment, including an extramarital affair. He would have taken a lie decector test, with the same questions. And the FBI investigation would have reported what he had for breakfast as a kindergartner. No stone would have been left unturned.

          That information goes directly to the White House, and consequently, since only the President can make the nomination, directly to the President. All this crap about Obama not knowing leaves only two options: a) it’s a lie or b) Obama is not in control of the Oval Office and is truely an empty chair being controled by Valerie Jarrett. Neither option is comforting.

          • marie says:

            A flurry of stories came out today that float the unbelievable notion that the General didn’t begin his affair until he was out of the army and already the Director. From all reports of journalists who saw their behavior together in Afghanistan, that just doesn’t float.

  14. Jello333 says:

    I’m assuming this is all Benghazi-related, but I still can’t figure out exactly what’s going on. Apparently the affair between Petreaus and the woman (women?) is for real, so I’m not sure how it all fits in. Was there just some convenient “extramarital” stuff that was used against Petreaus when the time was right?

    • 22tula says:

      The affair between Petreaus and the woman (women?),
      IMO this is “The Obama Con,” Women working in The Brief Squad.

      Mission: Side Step
      Benghazi was set up to run guns – Period.
      No gun running = no Benghazi = no dead American Ambassador = no dead SEALS = no dead Americans & Libyans = no love triangles etc.
      Benghazi used as a prison? It doesn’t look as if the Benghazi compound is set up to be a prison. Maybe a Depot/Halfway/Safe House.
      Mission: “Catch & Release” – funneling prisoners from Gitmo? Where is the Blind Sheik ?

  15. Mikado Cat says:

    Also possible the “outing” originated from Broadwell’s husband.

  16. Sharon says:

    Read it for the comments, and look for the themes.

    My thoughts keep going back to this idea: being well informed isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit when you’re up against the Destruction Party. Having endless amounts of information means nothing when the majority is all right with official deception.

    Willful Suspension of Disbelief is now the rule. I’m beginning to think that any time we choose to have a “serious conversation” about anything, it’s so flawed from the outset because most of the raw material from which we draw for content is already not the truth in one form or another.

    Deception: the new reality. Deceived: the voting base.

  17. disgustedwithjulison says:

    OK, here we go:

    One of the democrat leak joints is now saying there may be criminal charges against Petreaus. Definitely, definitely there is someone in the White House that has determined that they better take the heat level against Petreaus to another level. Talk and criminal charges will be slammed on you. Welcome to the world of George Zimmerman, Mr. Petreaus, where media narratives to smear you are carried out when you aren’t falling in line with the story they are told to spin.

  18. Sam says:

    There could be charges under the UCMJ if he had the affair while still in the Army. But it would be unusual since she wasn’t his subordinate in the military. There could be criminal charges against Broadwell if she cyber-stalked Kelly and threatened her.

    This whole thing makes a really nice distraction from Benghazi. Everybody likes a sex scandal but nobody understands Benghazi. I hope this is not the distraction that sinks any further investigation into Benghazi.

    • ctdar says:

      that’s exactly what this sordid mess is, distract from Benghazi and decimate Petraeus to a point his word means nothing on the stand.
      I hope he does not end up like Vince Foster

  19. Sam says:

    Now the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the FBI agent who started the investigation into the threatening emails Jill Kelley was receiving has been under investigation himself by FBI’s internal affairs. He was a friend of Jill Kelley’s and had become personally involved with the case, to the point of sending her a photo of himself shirtless. The agent was barred from taking part in the investigation sometime last summer.

    The article starts on the front page. I subscribe so I can’t tell if it’s behind a paywall or not.

    • jello333 says:

      Wow, if this is a cover-up for Benghazi, they’re doing it the right way. They clearly know what most Americans care about.

      “Yeah, yeah, I know, I’ve heard all about that Ben Gazarra stuff… what? Ben Gozzi? Yeah, whatever. That’s interesting and all, but let’s get back to the affair! Oh my God, did you see the dress she was wearing? And that General likes HER more than HER? What an idiot! And now another guy is involved? This is getting good… REAL good!”

  20. Sharon says:

    This is a pre-election column written by someone who was puzzling the Russian piece into the Benghazi story….

    There’s some stuff in the comments on Ulsterman referencing the concept, and I couldn’t find the exact column the commenter referred to, but I think this is the same write (Dvorak)…

    Consider the arms to Iran activity, and the not-so-secret liaison between Russian and Iran…and yet Russia’s former ally-relationship with Gadaffi…there’s got to be something somewhere in all this mess that reflects Russia’s long term goals–which are definitely anti-Islam, but if they can use the Islamists’ terrorism as leverage to achieve some of their desires in the meantime….., oh, well.

    And don’t forget the silent-never-spoken-of-visit that Putin paid to Israel mid-summer.

    That still has not been explained anywhere that I’m aware of.

    Anything with Russia involving Iran is not accidental…

    In the linked article,

    Aleksei K. Pushkov, the head of Russia’s parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote via Twitter: “Under Qaddafi they didn’t kill diplomats. Obama and Clinton are in shock? What did they expect – ‘Democracy?’ Even bigger surprises await them in Syria,” a New York Times story read in September.

    It is no secret that Putin disagreed with the West’s view of Syrian ruler Assad. When Putin was Prime Minister, he delivered a scathing criticism of the Libya bombing by NATO and left the impression that under his leadership it would have never happened.

  21. Anyone watching c-span right now? Pee-rz got served.

  22. Rmoney Voter says:

    Jill was first presented at a JSOC – State Dept. liaison.
    She is neither.
    Nor is JSOC at MacDill, AFB, Tampa, or Florida.

  23. Rmoney Voter says:

    FBI needs to raid the Kelley residence asap.

  24. akathesob says:

    Anything and everything to take our eyes off Barry, oops I meant B. H. Obama our pandering closet Muslim-in-thief.

  25. Sharon says:


    Like someone commented the other day–their concern about morals at this point is really rich.

    Is there any possibility that anyone who is constantly accusing conservatives of trying to run people’s lives (re babies and the def. of marriage) sees the irony here? I doubt it, since this one serves their purposes. When a lie becomes the truth and the truth becomes a lie.

  26. Sharon says:

    It’s really too bad there’s not a truth gyroscope of some kind. There will be, eventually, when God asks these liars to ‘splain themselves. In the meantime, we mortals just get dizzy …. everything is fastened at its base by someone…to perform a particular task for the moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s