Monday, November 12, 2012

For the Record on the Other "Other Woman"

This may mean nothing, or it may mean a lot.

The other, other woman, who received harassing emails from Paula Broadwell, is being identified as Jill Kelley, but her maiden name is Khawam. She is the daughter of Middle Eastern immigrants to the US.


Her father, John Khawam, was a renowned organist in Lebanon.

Again, this may mean nothing, but it does put a nice direct Middle East link to the story.

Here's Justin Raimondo tying Broadwell to the Middle East:

On the surface, at least, Broadwell is not the sort of person whose name would come up in a counterintelligence investigation: a West Point graduate, where she earned degrees in political geography and systems engineering, she seems like the veritable embodiment of All-American red-white-and-blue super-patriotism. This biographical account on her high school website says 
Paula pursued a military intelligence career abroad, serving in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During her service, especially after 9-11, Paula’s intensity was directed toward the war against terror; her contributions and efforts to thwart terrorism have been commended by the U.S. Army and by Europe’s Special Operations Forces Commanding General. In this arena, she has planned counter-terrorism initiatives presented to NATO and worked on transnational counter-terrorism issues with foreign and domestic agencies, U.S. Special Forces, and the FBI.” 
Graduate studies at the University of Denver in Middle East studies enabled her to travel to “Jordan and Israel,” and make a swing through the Persian Gulf and Europe where she spoke at various conferences. This triumphal tour was capped by a Harvard fellowship “for study in Syria and Iran.” 
While Broadwell’s current academic affiliation is with Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, her previous post was deputy director of the Jebsen Center for Counter-Terrorism Studies at Tufts University’s Fletcher School. The Center, according to itsself-description, “distinguishes itself by a philosophy that maintains counter-terrorism should be predictive, preventive and preemptive, with the latter being a last resort.” Founded in 2005, the Jebsen Center was made possible by the generous donation of one Jan Henrik Jebsen, heir to the Norwegian shipping fortune, who gave $1.3 million to set it up. Jebsen, a former investment banker with Lazard Freres, is the principal of Gamma Applied Visions Group, an international octopus with tentacles all over the place: part arms dealer and weapons developer, part “green” energycompany. As one might expect from someone who has so much of his multi-billion dollar fortune invested in making and selling armaments, Jebsen is on the board of directors of the distinctly warlike Hudson Institute, where Scooter LibbyDouglas FeithMichael Ledeen, and practically every neocon you’ve ever heard of have found refuge.While, in true neocon fashion, Hudson scholars conjure a wide diversity of imminent “threats” to the US, including China and Russia, their main focus is the threat of Islamist radicalism, especially as it impacts Israel. Indeed, Hudson operates inside Israel, where it pushes the far-rightist views of the most extreme elements in Israeli society: the settler movement, and the faction of Likud angling for war with Iran. It has also focused its attention on purging universities of academics who don’t toe the right-wing ultra-nationalist Likudnik line. 
More recently, former Hudson president and “trustee emeritus” Max Singer — who has since moved to Israel, where, as a “public policy consultant” at Bar Ilan University, he spends his time inciting violence against Palestinians — is on a mission to protect Israel from the alleged threat posed by the President of the United States.The Jebsen Center has been equally useful to the neocons. Richard H. Schultz, head of Tufts’ International Studies program (of which the Center is a part) was a signatory to the Project for a New American Century’s “open letter” to President Bush urging war with Iraq and a number of other Middle Eastern actors in the wake of 9/11. Here he isrecommending the importation of Israeli “anti-terrorist” techniques to pacify the restless natives of Iraq. Here is another Jebsen Center scholar describing alleged terrorist actions engaged in by Iran worldwide. And then there’s the testimony of this guy: 
The idea of overthrowing the Iranian government through covert but peaceful means is not original. The project was first brought to my attention in August 2006 when I worked as an intern research assistant at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Diplomacy’s Jebsen Center for Counter-terrorism. I worked for the then director of the center Brigadier General Russell Howard (Ret.) on a project titled Bringing Down Iran Without Firing A Shot. I wasn’t very experienced in the world of covert operations in the field or in the academic realm but I was very interested in becoming involved in it. General Howard, on the other hand, was not only a counter-terrorism strategist but a veteran Special Forces officer, an academic, and a tutor. It was General Howard who introduced me to the idea of targeting factors specific to Iran in order to adapt to the country’s specific needs. He had six factors which he believed were important: The military use of ongoing insurgencies within Iran, political strife, economic strife, declining oil revenues, demographics, and deteriorating infrastructure.”
Interestingly, in November of 2006, during her tenure at the Jebsen Center, Broadwell led a group of Fletcher School students on a trip to New York City to meet with then Iranian UN representative Javad Zarif. Both are alumni of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. 
All this establishes a context that goes far beyond the titillating details of the alleged affair between Petraeus and Broadwell — and this is no doubt what set alarm bells ringing in the intelligence community when it was revealed. Is there really any need to point out the uses of the “honeypot” in intelligence-gathering and other covert activities regularly engaged in by spooks of all nations? From Mata Hari to the Mossad agent who lured Israeli nuclear scientist Mordecahi Vanunu, sex is a time-honored weapon in the war of spy-vs-spy. A secret affair with the CIA Director is the equivalent of the Honeypot Olympics, and we have to ask: was the remarkably fit Ms. Broadwell a lure? If so, she’s won a Gold Medal.
Broadwell’s actions — sending emails that were bound to be traced back to her — appear to make little sense on the surface. But if the goal of luring a 60-year-old geezer into an affair with a much younger woman was to expose him, and get him fired, then surely her antics succeeded in accomplishing that goal. 
So who would have an interest in getting rid of Petraeus? Here’s where the Cantor connection comes in. The tip by an anonymous “FBI employee” that wound up in Cantor’s office two weeks ago came through Rep. David Reichert, Republican of Washington state, who has a friend who knows the whistleblower. Cantor then spoke to the whistleblower directly, who put him in touch with FBI Director Mueller.Cantor is a great friend of Israel, and Petraeus — not so much. The General wasattacked, as you’ll recall, by partisans of the Lobby, including Abe Foxman, when he delivered testimony before Congress citing Israel as a strategic liability in the Middle East. As the executor of the new Obamaite policy of sidling up to Islamists, not only inLibya but also in Syria and Egypt, Petraeus was no doubt seen by the Israelis as an enemy to be neutralized. 
Broadwell’s affiliation with the Jebsen Center, and the Center’s connection to the neoconservative network, sets the scene: a young, attractive woman with impeccable national security credentials throws herself at Petraeus, and he takes the bait. Whether she’s been recruited by a foreign intelligence agency at this point or not is irrelevant: he’s already put himself in a vulnerable position, and there are any number of actors on the international stage more than willing to press their advantage.

9 comments:

  1. really good stuff

    ReplyDelete
  2. You sure you aren't reading from a story about 17th century European court politics, or maybe the script for a soon to be made for TV drama?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Am I the only one who is troubled by the fact that a super-duper-spymaster-head-of-the-CIA can have his email read by anyone other than himself? Did he not even use encryption? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Would appear the fame and adulation Petraeus received went to his head. The aging, average looking (said charitably) wife that stood by her man over the years was no match for a couple of younger 'comely' women making themselves available; even a super General is easily drawn in.

    Still more reason than ever to devolve money and power from government, which has been proven to become ever more corrupt the more it has of these two ingredients.


    ReplyDelete
  5. Back to Watergate, what did the President know and when? Otherwise, European soaps are more interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. But what was in it for Broadwell herself? Why would she sacrifice everything she'd worked for to bring down Petraeus? Is she Jewish? Do we know anything about her views toward Israel?

    There are so many players involved here that a number of scenarios are plausible. One thing I do know is that a man as powerful as the CIA director doesn't lose his job over an affair unless someone more powerful wants him out. The CIA director doesn't have his email read by FBI agents.

    Also, the "Justice" Department is every bit as corrupt, lawless and vicious as the CIA. Listen to Jesse Trentadue if you doubt this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Broadwell's maiden name is Franz, which may or may not be Jewish. The actor Dennis Franz is Jewish.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Petraeus has three major strikes against him in the eyes of the powers that be:
    1) He's a General with a positive reputation
    2) Though he's no Ghandi - he's a pretty straight arrow as Generals go, not a guy who would condone some of the things the agency likes to do, but one who may choose to turn a blind eye in order to pick his battles.
    3) He didn't leave gov't service after retirement - despite his statement that he would refuse elected office.

    The powers that be are NOT COMFORTABLE that Veterans and/or active service members will go along with their plans (whatever they may be). They are particularly uncomfortable with those who voice support to the constitution as manifest in the 2009 DHS report.

    I forecast you'll see military people moved out of all key power centers in the alphabet soup agencies over the next 90-180 days.

    For confirmation watch LTG Flynn at DIA. I expect him to be replaced - or defanged - shortly. He and Petraeus have a long history. And the agency doesn't like Flynn much these days. A replacement in the short term will confirm my assessment. A replacement with an SGS or political appointee will also confirm, whether or not it happens in the immediate future.

    Clearly the major muscle movements are moving Federal force of Arms from the traditional military toward nontraditional DHS-related units...or who would be firing all that ammo? (Enough ammo to have kept the Army supplied for 10 years in Iraq).

    I fear the Petraeus ouster will be eventually tied to the policy that led to thse SS Admin and DHS ammo purchases.

    Also, it is significant that after the heavy investment in FEMA they have nothing to offer Sandy victims other than tent cities. The security structure for the camps is also a signal as to the FEMA bureacracy's mindset. FEMA infrastructure has been publicly built out - with some even claiming the FEMA refugee camps were built for illicit purposes.

    What is clear is that FEMA for some reason believes those camps - built to house thousands at each camp - are unsuitable for Sandy victims.

    These muscle movements in the federal bureaucracy may be overcome by events before fruition - however, they clearly do not portend good things for our country.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paula's true intent and background should certainly be discussed more, and I am not seeing it brought up anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete