Fox News chief’s failed attempt to enlist Petraeus as presidential candidate
Source: Washington Post
So in spring 2011, Ailes asked a Fox News analyst headed to Afghanistan to pass on his thoughts to Petraeus, who was then the commander of U.S. and coalition forces there. Petraeus, Ailes advised, should turn down an expected offer from President Obama to become CIA director and accept nothing less than the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military post. If Obama did not offer the Joint Chiefs post, Petraeus should resign from the military and run for president, Ailes suggested.
The Fox News chairman’s message was delivered to Petraeus by Kathleen T. McFarland, a Fox News national security analyst and former national security and Pentagon aide in three Republican administrations. She did so at the end of a 90-minute, unfiltered conversation with Petraeus that touched on the general’s future, his relationship with the media and his political aspirations — or lack thereof. The Washington Post has obtained a digital recording from the meeting, which took place in Petraeus’s office in Kabul.
McFarland also said that Ailes — who had a decades-long career as a Republican political consultant, advising Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — might resign as head of Fox to run a Petraeus presidential campaign. At one point, McFarland and Petraeus spoke about the possibility that Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp., which owns Fox News, would “bankroll” the campaign.
“Rupert’s after me as well,” Petraeus told McFarland.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fox-news-chiefs-failed-attempt-to-enlist-petraeus-as-presidential-candidate/2012/12/03/15fdcea8-3d77-11e2-a2d9-822f58ac9fd5_story.html
Fox News' chief and owner both working directly for the GOP?
What a shock!
= new reply since forum marked as read
I agree it was a takedown. But my guess is that Leon Panetta did it. For one thing, Panetta is a close associate of Bush Sr. --member of Bush Sr.'s "Iraq Study Group" ("old CIA"
which I believe ousted Rumsfeld in 2006, mostly over Cheney/Rumsfeld's intention to nuke Iran (Bush Sr. disagreed with that) but also because of the war between the Pentagon and the CIA that Cheney/Rumsfeld had started, which was dividing the war machine and endangering Jr. (CIA retribution--Fitzgerald investigation, etc.). Panetta was at the CIA for a year, now at the Pentagon, to heal the wounds (and cover up the breach). Some well-connected analysts tout Panetta as the most powerful man in the world. His connections to Bush Sr. provides a motive to take down Betray-Us: Jeb, 2016.
But I don't think Panetta would have done it (taken down Betray-Us) without further reason. The most immediate problem may have been a Romney/Betray-Us/Rove plot to steal the 2012 election from Panetta protege Obama. This attempted coup d'etat (if that's what it was) involved Benghazi in some way (LIHOP, MIHOP or mere opportunism), Betray-Us leaks to Romney (including what his mistress said, CIA torture dungeon down the street from the embassy), Romney gets his "talking points" ready (which struck me as treasonous all by itself--candidate jumping into a highly sensitive national security crisis, in the midst of the crisis, with U.S. personnel at risk around the globe), and Rove tries to steal Ohio (and his failure to do so causes Rove's meltdown on Faux News election night). (One of the fun parts of this theory is that Anonymous may be Leon Panetta.)
Betray-Us may have been appointed CIA Director (following Panetta, who had been welcomed there with open arms and champagne corks popping, according to reports) with the understanding that he would help consolidate the "peace" between the CIA and the Pentagon that Panetta was negotiating. But Betray-Us got ambitious and used his position to try to overthrow his nominal boss, Obama, and his real boss, Panetta, allying with the uber-fascists who want to use the war machine in the bluntest of fashions (nuke Iran, oil war in Latin America, God knows what-all, and "big boots" repression at home). There are for sure uber-fascist (Cheney-Rumsfeld) moles embedded at CIA, Pentagon and elsewhere. (For one thing, it's probable that they did the Honduran coup, which happened only six months into Obama's first term and left Obama flat-footed in LatAm--discredited from the start, with Brazil's president, Lula da Silva, stating in a speech that "The U.S. has not changed."
In short, Betray-Us betrayed his mentors, perhaps angling for Joint Chiefs chair under Romney (or future VP or Prez) or creating his own "mastermind" position (a la Panetta). His email correspondence with his mistress certainly points to hubris. (One of the most hilarious parts of the official, corporate-news narrative is about the FBI agent "stumbling upon" the CIA Director's mistress. Oh, Leon! Such a priceless humorist!)
Anyway, that's my work-in-progress theory. It's less likely, to my mind, that Faux News would take down Betray-Us just because he didn't want to be presidential puppet of Faux-Murdoch. He was too useful a figure to throw away like that.
Thinking out loud: Something caused the Romney Benghazi "talking point" to come to a dead halt just before the election. That part of the coup attempt (if that's what it was) was failing as well (or being foiled). And then, bang, the election, Obama wins and Betray-Us is out (like the next day, wasn't it?). So, it may be that, say, McCain (or some such uber-fascist operative) clued Faux News in, that the coup had failed and they better get out ahead of the Betray-Us story ("he's toast," in other words).
It's quite interesting that Faux News-Murdoch wanted to run him as president (the gist of this OP). Looks like there may be a corporate news "war" going on, something akin to the Pentagon-CIA "war," this one about who controls the war machine's propaganda. Washington Post is CIA. How did they get this recording? is one question. Why are they piling on, is another? I mean, Betray-Us is history--why go on about it? Maybe they smell the coup attempt. (Could they be actually intending to practice journalism again? Naw. And I've recently begun wondering if Watergate was journalism or something else--a takedown of Nixon for some hidden reason.) It's looking more like a battle move against Faux-Murdoch.
--
The Fox News chairman’s message was delivered to Petraeus by Kathleen T. McFarland, a Fox News national security analyst and former national security and Pentagon aide in three Republican administrations. She did so at the end of a 90-minute, unfiltered conversation with Petraeus that touched on the general’s future, his relationship with the media and his political aspirations — or lack thereof. The Washington Post has obtained a digital recording from the meeting, which took place in Petraeus’s office in Kabul. --from the Psst OP (my emphasis)
--
WHAT is an "unfiltered" conversation? (Just wondering.)
Somebody's TAPING the Big War Chief in his war office in Kabul?!
This raises a lot of questions, first and foremost, did he know he was being taped? Was somebody (McFarland?) taping the Big War Chief without his knowledge? That would be...well, interesting (I was going to say mind-boggling.) And, if it was with his knowledge, how did he let this tape get out of his control? And, if it was McFarland, how did the Washington Psst get hold of a Faux News tape? And, if it wasn't McFarland, who was it?
If so brand them as traitors, shut 'em down and revoke their license. Arrest the high levels of the network. 