The Petraeus resignation, the Israel lobby, Benghazi and John Brennan

Ian 56 – by Ian Shilling

The Petraeus resignation had nothing whatsoever to do with his extra marital affair and everything to do with the pro Israel lobby and Benghazi being used by the CIA as a staging post to supply arms and fighters to the rebels in Syria.

Petraeus had angered the pro Israel lobby in 2010. The pro Israel lobby wanted to replace Petraeus with a more hard line pro Israel and neocon appointment as Director of the CIA.

The Benghazi incident provided the smokescreen and opportunity for them to do exactly that.

John Brennan has now been nominated for the Director of the CIA.

Petraeus’s statement and views about Israel in March 2010

In 2010, General Petraeus pointed the finger at the Israeli-Palestine conflict and America’s unwavering support for Israel,  as the principle cause of the anger in the Islamic world against America.
He broke the Israel lobby’s sacred taboo against making any such linkage.

In March 2010, when Petraeus was still head of the US Central Command, he gave testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee which included this observation about one of the “challenges to security and stability” faced by the United States:

“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.”

From this moment on Petraeus became a target for the pro Israel lobby who started actively seeking ways to remove him from government influence and public life.

The Petraeus Affair

Petraeus’s extremely close relationship with Paula Rodwell  would have been investigated during the FBI’s mandatory 2 month background check in the latter half of 2011, upon his nomination as CIA Director.

We do not know whether the actual affair started in November 2011 as stated by associates of Petraeus or earlier.

In any event this relationship would have been monitored from this time on by agents of the pro Israel lobby as a potential way to oust Petraeus.

Mossad would certainly know about it.

Pro Israel elements in the FBI would continue to monitor the relationship.

If everything was above board, Petraeus would of been warned to cool his relationship with Rodwell around November 2011, as she was a potential security risk.

If everything was not above board, what the FBI knew of the relationship and their continued monitoring would be kept secret until the appropriate time when it could be used.

The Petraeus affair timeline.

In any event the FBI and the DoJ knew that an actual affair was going on many months before the story actually broke.

At least during the summer of 2012; and as above perhaps much earlier than that.

FBI, DoJ knew about the affair for months.

It would seem that Petraeus was not told to cool his relationship with Rodwell in November 2011 and the ongoing monitoring of their relationship was kept secret in order to oust him at some later date.

Petraeus thought that the relationship was still secret until sometime in the latter half of 2012.


The Benghazi incident and the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens on September 11th 2012 was used by members of the Republican Party as a means to try and discredit Obama and win the election.

What these people probably did not know was that Benghazi was being used as a clandestine CIA staging post to smuggle Islamic Extremist fighters and ex-Gaddafi weapons to the rebels in Syria.

These weapons included shoulder held ground to air missile launchers and heavy weaponry.

A fact that both Obama and the upper inner circle of the Republican Party leadership wanted to keep secret.

There is a reason why all the reports out of Benghazi are so confusing – November 3rd 2012

“At this point it’s clear that the U.S. had something to hide at Benghazi, and that’s why reports coming out of the Libyan city have been so confusing.

Two key details about the the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans cannot be underestimated.

“The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation,” officials briefed on intelligence told the Wall Street Journal, and there’s evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to Syrian rebels.”

“What’s odd is that a Libyan ship—which reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7s—docked in southern Turkey on Sept. 6 and its cargo ended up in the hands of Syrian rebels. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.”

Read more:

Benghazi’s Islamic Extremists

Benghazi has long been a hotbed for Islamic radicals, a number of whom fought against the Americans in Iraq. The US has been arming the Syrian rebels for a long time.

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya.  Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion.  But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.

CNN, the Telegraph,  the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.

Mainstream sources also confirm that the Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.  See thisthisthisthisthisthisthisthisthis and this.

The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006. The post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.


Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship’s captain was ”a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

The ousting of General Petraeus

The news about Petraeus’s affair with Paula Rodwell was held back until after the election.

Petraeus resigned immediately thereafter.

The facts about the CIA using Benghazi as a staging post to smuggle Islamic fighters and heavy weaponry to the rebels in Syria never made it into the public consciousness.

Petraeus made a personal visit to Libya in late October 2012.

Petraeus testified before Congress on November 16th.

There was much to hide.

John Brennan

John Brennan has now been nominated as the next CIA director.

He is far more accommodating to the pro Israel lobby and the neocon cause.

John Brennan is the chief architect of Obama’s drone warfare program.

The CIA has it’s own fleet of drones which is being dramatically expanded.

Expect an increased rate of drone strikes if John Brennan is appointed.

The rate of drone strikes in Pakistan has already started ramping up to further the neocon cause of perpetual war.

6 new drone strikes have been launched in the first 8 days of 2013, killing 35 people. The great majority of the casualties are civilians.

The drone warfare program is specifically designed to recruit more Islamic Extremists and more enemies of America. It recruits far more than one new terrorist for every terrorist or Islamic militant that it kills, due to the extremely high rate of civilian casualties – including women and children.

It also replaces tired old leaders with multiple years of fighting, with even more radical, even angrier and younger and more energetic new leaders. There is no shortage of volunteers.

More Evidence That Drones Are Targeting Civilian Rescuers In Afghanistan

New research from the NYU School of Law and Stanford Law School details how U.S. drones employ a tactic, known as the “double tap,” that is considered to be a terrorist act by the U.S. government.

The double tap is when a targeted strike site is hit multiple times by hellfire missiles in relatively quick succession, meaning that the second missile often strikes first responders.

2007 report by the Homeland Security Institute called the double tap a “favorite tactic of Hamas” and the FBI considers it a tactic employed by terrorists.

The new report, Living Under Drones, provides first-hand accounts of its devastating effect on rescuers and humanitarian workers.

Read more:

The drone warfare program is state sponsored terrorism by the United States government with the specific intention of angering and radicalizing the Islamic world to recruit more Islamic militants and Jihadists.

The double strike policy was specifically designated as a terrorist tactic by the United States government. It is now using it itself.

More Islamic Extremists and more conflicts and wars mean that public opinion will be more favorable to even more military spending and more conflicts and wars.


Obama recently announced that he is moving troops into 35 African countries in 2013 with exactly the same reason that America first sent a military presence to Vietnam.

“The mission for these troops is loosely noncombat, and primarily to train organic security forces to quell Islamic insurgent activity, which somewhat parallels operations during the Banana Wars of about a century ago.

During those “small-wars” conflicts in the late 1800s and early 1900s, American Marines deployed to several South American countries in limited numbers. Their mission was first to interdict fractious groups of ‘insurgents,’ not unlike those which operate in Africa, and second to leave in place a trained body of security forces and a competent governance — both compliant with American interests and capable of pacifying the populace.

Analysts could look at burgeoning Africa the strategy as countering growing Chinese development influence — though it could also serve to protect Chinese development interest as the U.S. has done in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, the deployments, under the newly formed AFRICOM, fit nicely inside the frame of Obama’s two recent nominations — that of drone warfare king John Brennan, and foreign policy conservative Chuck Hagel.”

Read more:

Expect more conflicts in Africa in the future.

The CIA is already stirring up trouble there.
Expect more troops to be deployed to Africa above those Obama has recently announced.
Expect more US military spending in Africa.
Expect a drone strike program to start in earnest in these countries.
Expect an escalation of the existing conflicts and the recruitment of more Islamic Extremists in Africa.

N.B. Obama’s cluster bombing and drone strikes in Yemen were initially conducted in secret and covered up by the Yemeni government. This is also likely to happen in Africa. The African countries will claim it is their planes and bombs, but they will be US drones and mini cruise missiles – like Yemen.

Appendices and References

Did the pro Israel lobby stage a coup against General Petraeus?

The Petraeus affair and the CIA’s long history of foreign intervention


One thought on “The Petraeus resignation, the Israel lobby, Benghazi and John Brennan

  1. Very interesting. Interesting the same as being in the backseat of a careening car driven by a blind mad man.

    The administration is clearly hiding something in Libya, but it isn’t what the GOP has been fishing for. I believe you’ve got it right. Especially as the ‘rebellion’ in Syria became so violent so quickly. But then right after the incident in Benghazi, official policy to the Syrian ‘rebels’ cooled quickly. Why?

    It seems possible that policy was being run out of State on the quiet. And this would be consistent with former CIA analysts who have said State is the most corrupt department. State and CIA seem to have their own government and their own army.

    I can’t make heads or tails of Petraeus’s departure or replacement. I still wonder about the two sisters in the story and their operations in Florida. Whatever is going on, there is no clear sign yet of any push back against letting the above-mentioned government run things. But hope never goes out of style.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *