From Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo, Why Paula Broadwell Sent Those Emails
Which leads us to the question: why did Broadwell send the harassing emails, warning Allen off of Kelley and telling the latter to back off from Petraeus? The sex-obsessed American media is naturally focusing on the salacious aspects of L’affaire Petraeus, but the reality is that neither Petraeus nor Allen was likely romantically involved with the Lebanese spitfire. I would suggest it wasn’t jealousy that motivated Broadwell, it was a desire to protect her lover – and Gen. Allen — from falling into a trap: instead, she set if off by her actions. This wasn’t a love triangle – it was a failed counterintelligence operation, and the end of a tragic love story in which the beloved was unknowingly betrayed by her lover.
We are now being treated to the spectacle of the whole “anti-terrorist” wingnut media machine pumping out the narrative of a craven and traitorous White House supposedly covering up the “real” story of what happened in Benghazi. In typical neocon style, this narrative – summed up by Krauthammer’s “blackmail” thesis – is not only a lie, it is the exact opposite of the truth. Far from being blackmailed by the administration, Petraeus was set up and hung out to dry by a murky cabal on the other end of the political spectrum.
I would note that at both ends of the twin scandals roiling official Washington – Benghazi and the Petraeus affair – we find similar catalytic elements of a definitely neoconnish complexion. At the Benghazi end, we have the Blue Mountain/Eclipse Group/Duane Clarridge connection, and on the Petreaus side we have the Humphries/Kelley/Cantor cabal, with hints of involvement by a certain “Middle Eastern government” thrown in for good measure.
Is that a coincidence, or what?