'American Sniper' author Chris Kyle fatally shot

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

usnews

Chris Kyle, 38, a former Navy SEAL sniper and author, was shot and killed at a Texas gun range Saturday, along with another man, Chad Littlefield, and police have arrested a suspect, Eddie Routh, 25. Mark Schnyder of KXAS reports and TODAY's Lester Holt takes a look back at an interview with Kyle from last year.

By Gil Aegerter and Alastair Jamieson, NBC News

A former Navy SEAL who wrote "American Sniper," a best-selling book about his lethal career as a marksman in Iraq, was shot to death with another man at a gun range near Stephenville, Texas, on Saturday. 

Chris Kyle, 38, and the other man were found dead at the shooting range of Rough Creek Lodge on Saturday afternoon, Texas Highway Patrol spokesman Lonny Haschel told KXAS.

The gunman, identified as Eddie Ray Routh of Lancaster, Texas, was arrested after a brief pursuit, Trooper Haschel said. The other victim was named as Chad Littlefield, aged 35.

Kyle, a Texas native who grew up hunting, served four tours in Iraq with Navy SEAL Team 3. His shooting during battles in Ramadi and Fallujah became legendary, and insurgents nicknamed him the "Devil of Ramadi" and put a bounty on his head.

He was credited with 160 confirmed kills, including one in 2008 in which he said he fired from 2,100 yards away -- 1.2 miles.

The Star-Telegram described him as "America's deadliest sniper."

Haschel said Routh is believed to have shot the victims at around 3:30 p.m. local time (4:30 p.m. ET) before leaving the shooting range and returning to his home in Lancaster in a Ford pickup truck.

The link between Routh and the two victims wasn't immediately clear, Haschel said. The Dallas Morning News reported that Routh was 25 years old and had military training.

Routh was arraigned Saturday night on two counts of capital murder, said Haschel.

Rough Creek Lodge is a resort and conference center about 90 miles southwest of Dallas and 24 miles southeast of Stephenville in the Texas Hill Country. Lancaster is just south of Dallas.

NBCDFW.com

Chris Kyle was credited with 160 kills during his time as a Navy SEAL marksman.

In a February 2012 interview with NBC News, Kyle said he didn’t want to put the number of kills in the book but the publisher insisted.

“If I could figure out the number of people I saved, that’s something I would brag about,” he told NBC News' Lester Holt. 

After leaving the Navy, Kyle founded Craft International, which provides training to military, police, corporate and civilian clients, Reuters said.

"It just comes as a shock and it's staggering to think that after all Chris has been through, that this is how he meets his end, because there are so many ways he could have been killed" in Iraq, Scott McEwen, who co-wrote "American Sniper," told Reuters.

Kyle appeared on the NBC reality TV show "Stars Earn Stripes" last year.

Kyle was married with two children.

Soldier's Journal

ThePentagonChannel

Double arm transplant for US soldier

itnnews

Panetta to Troops: Democracy Won't Survive Without You

ThePentagonChannel

US-Afghanistan: First time tragedy, second time farce

foreignpolicy

By Kori Schake

It is striking how closely the Obama administration is following the Iraq withdrawal playbook in Afghanistan. There are numerous and important differences between Iraq and Afghanistan, but President Obama is making the exact same policy choices to "wind down" the war in Afghanistan that he made in Iraq. And in both cases, it amounts to writing off the war.

The Obama administration hasn't had a strategy in either war, it has had a military strategy. In both cases, that military strategy produced military gains; in both cases those military gains were ephemeral because advances were in no way supported by political or economic lines of operations to consolidate and capitalize on our military success. The State Department's grand plans for the transition to civilian activity in Iraq are in ashes. If there was a "civilian surge" in Afghanistan, it was completely ineffectual.

In both cases President Obama had a political strategy grounded in the belief that leaders in those countries would not make the politically difficult choices needed unless faced with the imminent end of our support. Thus the timeline-driven exit in both cases. In Iraq, it resulted in a mad scramble for political control: the stalemate over Parliamentary elections, Prime Minister Maliki using the apparatus of the state to punish political adversaries. That mad scramble has been underway in Afghanistan and the region since President Obama announced in December 2009 our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and most evident in the hedging choices of the government of Pakistan, without whose collaboration our strategy could not succeed.

In both cases President Obama doubted the efficacy of a surge of troops: on Iraq he insisted the surge couldn't work, on Afghanistan he set a time limit and reportedly told military commanders this was all they were getting. If they couldn't produce a victory in that time, he would wind down our involvement.

In both cases, President Obama publicly declaring our withdrawal created a political dynamic in which leaders had strong incentives to make us look pushed out; otherwise they would look abandoned, weakening them domestically. Thus Maliki's resistance to immunity for American soldiers; thus Karzai's cavalcade of anti-American statements and actions. Their resistance feeds into the president's belief that they are undeserving of our sacrifices, and best left to their own fates instead of coached and set up to be successful. President Karzai said after meeting President Obama that "numbers [of American troops] aren't going to make a difference in Afghanistan." Expect President Obama to give that theory a test.

In both cases, our exit bore no connection to achievement of our objectives. In Iraq the timeline was supposed to allow for a stable political transition. Manipulation by Maliki of the outcome of spring 2010 Parliamentary elections seized up politics in Iraq for a year and a half while our drawdown proceeded apace and Generals Odierno and Austin disavowed any connection between our withdrawal and political fracture. In Afghanistan, the Obama administration has trumpeted building security forces that can undertake the crucial work Americans have been doing. The December 2012 Pentagon report on Afghan security forces concluded that only 1 of 23 Afghan brigades can operate without our support. If achieving our objectives mattered to President Obama, that information should prompt a serious review of our timeline -- and extend it. Instead, he has accelerated our disengagement.

In both cases, the military advised more troops, more time, and broader objectives than the president accepted. It is the job of military leaders to provide the president their best military advice -- but warfare is a political undertaking, and the military cannot be expected to decide how much national effort to put toward the wars we are fighting. It is above their pay grade. We elect presidents to do that, and only they truly have the span of authority to make the trade offs between defending our country and other important endeavors. But that means blame for the outcome also belongs with the president and not the military leaders.

In both cases, President Obama instituted an end to military operations more than a year before the withdrawal of our military forces. In Iraq it was the August 2009 "end of combat operations;" on Friday, President Obama announced U.S. forces in Afghanistan would this spring limit themselves to supporting Afghan operations; by 2014 they will be limited to training Afghan forces. This effectively ends the practice of counterinsurgency. We will no longer protect Afghans, be dispersed throughout the country, or operate alongside Afghan military units. We're shrinking back onto a couple of large military bases that will protect us against attack ... and also against having an accurate intelligence picture to fuel those counterterrorist operations.

In both cases, President Obama has carried out the policies in slow motion, allowing months of news coverage about pending changes and options considered, such that when policies are implemented, they don't seem like news. Opponents have a harder time mobilizing support when there isn't an actual policy to counter, and by the time there is a policy, the public feels like they've heard this all before. It's the frog boiling strategy: make it happen slowly enough that we'll hardly notice.

Executing the Iraq playbook in Afghanistan will replicate the squandered Iraq gains in the war President Obama argued needed to be fought because he was "convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan" as it was not in Iraq. Does President Obama genuinely expect a different outcome? Does he no longer believe the dire stakes that prompted his Afghanistan surge are at issue? Does he believe achieving our objectives is not worth the price? Does he believe America can buffer itself against a chaotic and dangerous world? Does he believe the wars he has prosecuted as commander in chief are unwinnable? If so, why has he allowed them to exact the terrible toll of lives lost?

An Army Vet Returns from War to Her Bronx Neighborhood

TimeMagazine

Obama, Karzai discuss US presence in Afghanistan

Obama, Karzai endorse 'Taliban office,' agree to speed military transition

foxnews

Foxnews

President Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Friday endorsed the opening of a "Taliban office" in a third-party country to "facilitate" reconciliation talks -- just one plank of the post-war plan the two leaders discussed during Karzai's visit to Washington. 

The two also agreed to speed up slightly the schedule for moving Afghanistan's security forces into the lead across the country, with U.S. troops shifting fully to a support role by spring rather than summer. 

The capabilities of the Afghan army are "exceeding initial expectations," the two said in a joint statement released after their private White House meeting and working lunch and in advance of a joint news conference. 

"The transition is well underway," Obama said at a joint press conference Friday. He stressed that the U.S. is still on course to bring the war "to a responsible end" by the end of 2014, handing full responsibility for security over to the Afghans by that point. 

Until then, Obama said U.S. troops will still be fighting but will, by spring, put the Afghans in the lead. 

"The nature of our work will be different, we will be in a training, assisting advising role," Obama said, adding U.S. troops will still be in "harm's way." 

While the two sides work out the specifics of the U.S. troop drawdown -- and how many troops, if any, might remain after 2014 -- Obama and Karzai also formally endorsed the opening of a "Taliban office" in Qatar. 

Obama said the purpose would be to facilitate talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. 

Obama nevertheless said that the Taliban have been driven out of their strongholds in most major cities. 

In their statement, the leaders said they discussed the possibility of a continued U.S. troop presence beyond December 2014, when the U.S. and allied combat mission is to end. But they did not settle on any specifics. Obama, asked by a reporter about what that footprint might look like, said he was still gathering recommendations from the Pentagon. 

The U.S. now has 66,000 troops in Afghanistan. 

U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have proposed keeping 6,000 to 15,000 U.S. troops after 2014 to continuing pursuing terrorists and training Afghan security forces. But the White House, which tends to favor lower troop levels than the generals do, says Obama would be open to pulling all U.S. forces out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014. 

"We wouldn't rule out any option," Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, said earlier this week. "We're not guided by the goal of a certain number of U.S. troops in the country. We're guided by the objectives that the president set -- disrupt, dismantle, defeat al-Qaida." 

Friday's meeting was the first between Obama and Karzai since November's U.S. presidential election. Heading into his second term, Obama is shaking up his national security team, including key players who deal with Karzai and the war. 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are both expected to leave their posts within weeks. The president nominated Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., as the nation's top diplomat and former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., to lead the Pentagon. 

Both Kerry and Hagel are likely to favor a more rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces. 

After Karzai met Thursday with Clinton and Panetta, the Pentagon chief offered an upbeat assessment of the war's progress. 

"After a long and difficult path, we finally are, I believe, at the last chapter of establishing an Afghanistan, a sovereign Afghanistan, that can govern and secure itself for the future," Panetta said. 

The U.S.-led NATO coalition is aiming to turn all combat missions over to Afghan forces by the end of this year. The 66,000 U.S. forces still there are already turning over territory or handing off many combat missions to the Afghans. 

Still, the war's endgame is punctuated with uncertainty, beginning with doubts about whether the Afghan government can build legitimacy by credibly serving its population. Also in question is whether Afghan security forces will be capable of holding off the Taliban after international forces leave. 

Panetta told a news conference that he and Karzai had laid the groundwork for the Afghan leader's White House meeting. 

"We made very good progress on, you know, the kind of equipment that we would try to make available to them," to enable the Afghans to not only secure their borders but also prevent a Taliban takeover, Panetta said. 

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the same news conference that U.S. and Afghan officials are developing a common assessment of threats Afghanistan is likely to face in the future. Conclusions from that study will help determine the full range of Afghanistan's military requirements, he said. 

Karzai was greeted at the Pentagon by a ceremonial honor guard, and at a photo-taking session in Panetta's office, the Afghan leader said he could assure the American people that his country "will not ever again be threatened by terrorists from across our borders" -- an allusion to the al-Qaida leaders hiding in Pakistan. It was from Afghanistan that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida operatives plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/11/obama-and-afghan-president-karzai-to-meet-to-discuss-ending-war/?test=latestnews#ixzz2HhHF8Yvn

EE.UU. considera la posibilidad de retirar todas las tropas de Afganistán

General Details Pentagon Tensions With Obama on Afghanistan

Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

General Stanley A. McChrystal arriving for a meeting with high-ranking military personnel near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 2009.

New York Times/ By MICHAEL R. GORDON

WASHINGTON — In a memoir, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former American commander in Afghanistan, writes that tensions between the White House and the Pentagon were evident in the Obama administration from its opening months in office.

The beginning of President Obama’s first term “saw the emergence of an unfortunate deficit of trust between the White House and the Department of Defense, largely arising from the decision-making process on Afghanistan,” General McChrystal writes. “The effects were costly.”

The book by General McChrystal, who was fired from his post in 2010 after an article in Rolling Stone quoted him and his staff making dismissive comments about the White House, is likely to disappoint readers who are looking for a vivid blow-by-blow account of infighting within the administration.

The book, titled “My Share of the Task: A Memoir,” does not provide an account of the White House meeting at which Mr. Obama accepted the general’s resignation. General McChrystal’s tone toward Mr. Obama is respectful, and he notes that his wife, Annie, joined the crowd at Mr. Obama’s inauguration. The book is to be released on Monday.

An advance copy of the book provides revealing glimpses of the friction over military planning and comes as Mr. Obama is weighing, and perhaps preparing to overrule, the troop requests that have been presented by the current American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John R. Allen.

The account is all the more noteworthy since General McChrystal, who retired from the Army, remains a respected voice within the military and teaches a course on leadership at Yale.

According to the book, the tensions began before General McChrystal took command in Kabul, Afghanistan, and were set off by a request from his predecessor, General David D. McKiernan, for 30,000 additional troops at the end of the Bush administration.

Instead of approving the entire request, in February 2009, Mr. Obama decided that 17,000 would be sent, adding that decisions on additional deployments would be based on further analysis.

From the White House perspective, General McChrystal writes, “this partial decision was logical.” After less than a month, the president had increased American forces in Afghanistan by 50 percent. Though Mr. Obama had cast the conflict in Afghanistan as a “war of necessity,” as a candidate he was nonetheless wary about a prolonged American military involvement there.

But the Pentagon pressed for an additional 4,000 troops, fearing that there was little time to reverse the Taliban’s gains before the August elections in Afghanistan.

“The military felt a sense of urgency, seeing little remaining time if any forces approved were to reach Afghanistan in time to improve security in advance of the elections,” he wrote.

The White House later approved the 4,000 troops, but the dispute pointed to a deeper clash of cultures over the use of force that continued after General McChrystal took command.

“Military leaders, many of whom were students of counterinsurgency, recognized the dangers of an incremental escalation, and the historical lesson that ‘trailing’ an insurgency typically condemned counterinsurgents to failure,” he writes.

In May 2009, soon before he assumed command in Kabul, General McChrystal had a “short, but cordial” meeting with Mr. Obama at which the president “offered no specific guidance,” he notes.

The next month, General McChrystal was surprised when James L. Jones, Mr. Obama’s first national security adviser, told him that the Obama administration would not consider sending more forces until the effect of arriving units could be fully evaluated.

That contradicted the guidance that General McChrystal had received from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that he should submit an assessment in August of the additional forces that might be required, he writes.

At an Oct. 8, 2009, video conference with Mr. Obama’s National Security Council, differences again emerged when General McChrystal outlined his goals: “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the population.”

That prompted a challenge by a Washington-based official, whom General McChrystal does not name, that the goal of defeating the Taliban seemed too ambitious and that the command in Kabul should settle instead for an effort to “degrade” the Taliban.

At the next video conference, General McChrystal presented a slide showing that his objectives had been derived from Mr. Obama’s own speeches and a White House strategy review. “But it was clear to me that the mission itself was now on the table for review and adjustment,” he wrote.

After General McChrystal determined that at least 40,000 additional forces were needed to reverse the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama provided 30,000 and said he would ask allied nations to contribute the rest.

General McChrystal acknowledges that he had concerns that Mr. Obama’s decision to announce a date for beginning the withdrawal of the additional “surge” forces might embolden the Taliban. But the general writes that he did not challenge the decision.

“If I felt like the decision to set a withdrawal date would have been fatal to the success of our mission, I’d have said so,” he writes.

General McChrystal has little to say about the episode that led to the article in Rolling Stone. He writes that the comments attributed to his team were “unacceptable” but adds that he was surprised by the tone of the article, which he had expected would show the camaraderie among the American, British, French and Afghan officers.

As the controversy over the article grew, General McChrystal did not seek advice before offering his resignation. The book does not say if he was disappointed when Mr. Obama accepted it at a brief White House meeting.

Returning to his quarters at Fort McNair after that White House meeting, he broke the news to his wife: “I told her that our life in the Army was over.”

‘No Ma’am’: Letter From US Marine To Dianne Feinstein Goes Viral

‘No ma’am’: Letter from U.S. Marine to Dianne Feinstein goes viral

Cpl Joshua Boston (photo source)

The following letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,” was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/dianne-feinstein/2013/01/02/no-ma-am-letter-us-marine-dianne-feinstein-goes-viral?cmpid=NL_FiredUpFoxNation#ixzz2Gw4LguBi

Obama Seizing Control of the US Military – Potential Cataclysm Ahead

TrevorLoudon

Barack Obama has worked with pro-Moscow Marxists including Frank Marshall Davis and Alice Palmer, and pro-Cuban radicals like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, his entire life.

Their number one priority has always been the destruction of the US military, the only significant block remaining, to global revolution.

Now that the Davis/Palmer/Ayers/Dohrn protege has the reins of power, President Obama is working hard to destroy US military superiority, consciously or unconsciously, to the advantage of the Russia/China/Cuba/North Korea/Iranian/Islamic alliance.

From William Bigelow at Breitbart.com:

In an attempt to seize total control over national security and bypass congress, a frightening new step by the Obama Administration is coming into play. As noted in Friday’s Wall Street Journal in an op-ed by John Bolton and John Woo, a State Department advisory group that is run by former Secretary of Defense William Perry is advising that the U.S. and Russia both reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, as a treaty would require ratification by Congress. This would allow Obama and his executive branch to unilaterally cut our nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution.
As Bolton and Woo point out, the US has a greater global responsibility than Russia; Iran and North Korea, neither of which is far from Russian interests, can only be countered by U.S. military strength. In addition, they note that Russia is not a trustworthy partner in weapons reduction; it has violated many arms-control agreements, such as the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives.
Some of the inherent problems in the seizure by this executive branch of decision-making power is Barack Obama’s desire to deeply cut our nuclear forces. A joint decision with Russia would place long-term limits on our cache of arms, thus placing constraints on us catching up if Russia decides to go ahead and build and the blurring of the lines deliberately drawn by the Constitution’s Framers separating the executive and legislative branches power.
Obama has made no secret of his desire to dismantle our nuclear capacity; the New Start Treaty he championed in 2011 forced the U.S. to observe a ceiling of 700 strategic delivery vehicles and 1,550 strategic warheads, and this past March he stated his desire to cut our arsenal further:
“ … a step we have never taken before – reducing not only our strategic nuclear warheads but also tactical weapons and warheads in reserve.”
It is naïve to assume that Obama is simply blind to the results of his actions and trusts the world around him to act with generosity. There has been too much evidence of Russia’s support of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and Russia has cunningly avoided supporting sanctions on North Korea for its rocket launches; in December, Georgy Toloraya, Director of Korean Research at the Institute of Economics, simply said:
“In Russia we believe that resolutions must be observed and UN decisions must be implemented. We think that North Korea has the right for space explorations but only after all the issues linked with the UN sanctions banning rocket launches with the use of ballistic technologies are settled. It is necessary to divide two aspects – we support the discussion of the rocket launch issue by the UN Security Council but we don’t think that this must automatically mean tougher sanctions against Pyongyang.”
Obama knows all this. His step-by-step evisceration of the United States is not confined to its economic system but its national defense as well.

I go a little further. I say that Obama is happy to wreck the US economy, because this will enable him to completely destroy US military defensive capability. This is the REAL agenda of the left. The people Obama has worked with his entire life.

Four more years of Obama may well bring America to the point of no return.

If Obama is allowed to realize the Davis/Palmer/Ayers/Dohrn vision of a militarily impotent America, Americans will be faced with two very harsh choices.

Lay down your arms and give up your sovereignty to a United Nations world superstate.

Or face the combined military might of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, possibly Pakistan, Indonesia and Brazil, and several other countries… with hardly a friend in the world to come to your aid.

This won’t be a one or two front conflict. This will be a multi-polar, all out attack on the US homeland.

Americans need to wake up. And fast.

INTENSE VIDEO: U.S. Troops Caught In Taliban Ambush

theblaze

Carrying my father's service

Trevor Loudon: The Real Obama Agenda–Destroying the US Military

Trevor

I recorded this video a month ago. It is my message to America. In it, I attempt to explain the global implications of a second Obama presidential terms
This election was the most crucial in modern American history. It was not primarily about jobs and economics, it is about national security and, to be blunt, national survival.
America, and indeed the entire Western World, faces possible destruction now communist sympathizer Barack Obama is returned to office.
This video is being distributed all over the United States. Please watch it, and if you agree with the basic ideas expressed, send it out through your networks, to as many people as you can.
Sometimes it takes an outside view to clarify important matters. I hope this message will serve that purpose.
From a very grateful New Zealander.

Marcus Luttrell: Lessons Learned from Being a Navy SEAL

ForaTv

Vanessa Dobos – The REAL Miss America

I'm41

Reaganite Republican – Vanessa Dobos is a gunner on board a USAF AC-130 gunship.

The blue-eyed blonde has seen action in Iraq and Afganistan, and enjoys long walks on the beach, men who aren’t afraid to cry, and puppies.

Vanessa’s dislikes include feed-tray stoppages, tracer flareout of her NVGs and premature fixed-wing strikes scattering her
high-value targets…

The 19 year old former Ohio high school cheerleader is in-fact the Air Force’s first female aerial gunner ever… More >>

Petraeus Breaks His Silence To HLN

The Blaze

Former CIA Director David Petraeus told an HLN journalist he never passed classified information to Paula Broadwell and insisted his resignation last week had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

Petraeus has been speaking with HLN’s Kyra Phillips since last week. Phillips relayed some of their conversations on the air on Thursday.

“He has insisted to me that he has never passed classified information to Paula Broadwell,” the woman he was having an extramarital affair with, Phillips said. “As long as I have known him, he has never wavered on classified information, ever. And to the best of my knowledge, you know, that has always been sacrosanct. I have also never known him to tell me something that is not true.”

Phillips said Petraeus told her he wants to testify about Benghazi — something he will do behind closed doors on Friday.

“He has said this has nothing to do with Benghazi and he wants to testify. He will testify,” Phillips said. “He has maintained to me all along this was a personal failing, Robin, which, as I said, to me was quite stunning and to many other people. He’s not the type of person that I’ve ever known to fail at anything, knowing [him] as long as I have over the years. And so he has made it very clear that this was about an extramarital affair and not over classified information or Benghazi.”

Silencing General Petraeus

Andrew Napolitano 

takimag.com

The evidence that Gen. David Petraeus, formerly the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the author of the current Army field manual, Princeton Ph.D. and, until last week, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was forced to resign from the CIA to silence him is far stronger than is the version of events that the Obama administration has given us.

The government would have us believe that because the FBI confronted Petraeus with his emails showing a pattern of inappropriate personal private behavior, he voluntarily departed his job as the country's chief spy to avoid embarrassment. The government would also have us believe that the existence of the general's relationship with Paula Broadwell, an unknown military scholar who wrote a book about him last year, was recently and inadvertently discovered by the FBI while it was conducting an investigation into an alleged threat made by Broadwell to another woman. And the government would as well have us believe that the president learned of all this at 5 p.m. on Election Day.

We now know that the existence of a personal relationship between Broadwell and Petraeus had been suspected and whispered about by his senior-level colleagues and by his personal staff in the military, who worried that it might become publicly known, since before the time that he came to run the CIA.

We also know that when he was nominated to run the CIA, that nomination was preceded by a two-month FBI-conducted background check that likely would have revealed the existence of his relationship with Broadwell. The FBI agents conducting that background check surely would have seen his visitor logs while he commanded our troops and would have interviewed his military colleagues and regular visitors and those colleagues who knew him well and worked with him every day, and thus learned about his personal life. That's their job.

And that information would have been reported immediately to President Obama and to the Senate Intelligence Committee, prior to Petraeus' formal nomination and prior to his Senate confirmation hearing.

In the modern era, office-holders with forgiving spouses simply do not resign from powerful jobs because of a temporary, non-criminal, consensual adult sexual liaison, as the history of the FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton presidencies attest. So, why is Petraeus different? Someone wants to silence him.

Petraeus told the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on September 14, 2012, that the mob attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, three days earlier, was a spontaneous reaction of Libyans angered over a YouTube clip some believed insulted the prophet Muhammad. He even referred to that assault—which resulted in the murders of four Americans, now all thought to have been CIA agents—as a "flash mob." His scheduled secret testimony this week before the same congressional committees will produce a chastened, diminished Petraeus who will be confronted with a mountain of evidence contradicting his September testimony, perhaps exposing him to charges of perjury or lying to Congress and causing substantial embarrassment to the president.

It's obvious that someone was out to silence Petraeus. Who could believe the government version of all this? The same government that wants us to believe that FBI agents innocently and accidentally discovered the Petraeus/Broadwell affair a few months ago and confronted Petraeus with his emails a few weeks ago is a cauldron of petty jealousies. From the time of its creation in 1947, the CIA has been a bitter rival of the FBI. The two agencies are both equipped with lethal force, they both often operate outside the law, and they are each seriously potent entities. Their rivalry was tempered by federal laws that until 2001 kept the CIA from operating in the U.S. and the FBI from operating outside the U.S.

In one of his many overreactions to the events of 9/11, however, President George W. Bush changed all that with an ill-conceived executive order that unlawfully unleashed the CIA inside the U.S. and the FBI into foreign countries. Rather than facilitating a cooperative spirit in defense of individual freedom and national security, this reignited their rivalry. FBI agents, for example, publicly exposed CIA agents whom they caught torturing detainees at Gitmo, and Bush was forced to restrain the CIA.

Isn't it odd that FBI agents would be reading the emails of the CIA director to his mistress and that the director of the FBI, who briefs the president weekly, did not make the president aware of this? The FBI could only lawfully spy on Petraeus by the use of a search warrant, and it could only get a search warrant if its agents persuaded a federal judge that Petraeus himself—not his mistress—was involved in criminal behavior under federal law.

The agents also could have bypassed the federal courts and written their own search warrant under the Patriot Act, but only if they could satisfy themselves (a curious and unconstitutional standard) that the general was involved in terror-related activity. Both preconditions for a search warrant are irrelevant and would be absurd in this case.

All this—the FBI spying on the CIA—constitutes the government attacking itself. Anyone who did this when neither federal criminal law nor national security has been implicated and kept the president in the dark has violated about four federal statutes and should be fired and indicted. The general may be a cad and a bad husband, but he has the same constitutional rights as the rest of us.

No keen observer could believe the government's Pollyanna version of these events. When did the CIA become a paragon of honesty? When did the FBI become a paragon of transparency? When did the government become a paragon of telling the truth?

The tricky nature of investigating Gen. Allen's emails

Security Clearance/ By Barbara Starr

A U.S. official familiar with the content of the e-mails Gen. John Allen sent to Jill Kelley described them as "embarrassing" and warranting the investigation that has been launched.

"They are embarrassing. If they got out, John Allen would be very embarrassed by them," according to the official, who emphasized that there is no evidence of "physical contact between the two."

The official noted that the e-mails that are under investigation - which have been called "potentially inappropriate" - are from Allen. It is Allen's e-mails that are under investigation, and the official did not know the content of any of Kelley's e-mails to Allen.

"The e-mails are concerning enough to warrant an investigation," the official said.

A second U.S. official, who has had the e-mails described to him, characterized the content as "sexy," but emphasized he could not say whether they "crossed the line."

They "are not the type of e-mails you would want your wife to read," the second official explained.

But a senior official close to Allen told CNN's Nick Paton Walsh Tuesday that there was nothing pointing or referring to sex or an affair or anything of a romantic nature. Allen may have said, informally, "thanks sweetheart" in an e-mail, the official close to Allen insisted.

"Anyone who knows him knows his style - he has a habit of replying to every single e-mail (he is sent). Kelley would e-mail his business and personal accounts," that official said.

It will be up to the Defense Department’s inspector general to decide specifically if the content of the e-mails is so inappropriate that they would be considered conduct unbecoming an officer, according to a third source, a senior U.S. official. This official pointed out this may be a very difficult matter to decide because everyone has a personal definition of what is "affectionate, admiration, all the way to what some might define as sexting."