View Full Version : The Petraeus situation
Being the distrustful person I am, I am wondering.........is it possible that he's resigning so he doesn't have to testify about the U.S. Consulate thing? It sounds like his behavior (extramarital affair) was so unlike him. Just makes me wonder if he and his wife together (along with the state dept), decided this was the best way to go??? (to make up some reason so he could resign).?
catherine
11-10-12, 9:03am
Cathy, I started two threads on this and then deleted them because I didn't know how to formulate my thoughts.
The whole thing is kind of weird to me. If it were related to the Consulate, wouldn't he have to testify anyway?
I know it was an ethical and moral breach, but doesn't this type of moral breach belong on the personal side of the equation, not the public? This isn't a Sandusky case--and it's not even a Clinton case, where the dalliance was with a young staffer.
Isn't it just a garden variety affair? And if so, geez, if everyone who had an affair had to resign, who would be left to man the ship? We wouldn't have had FDR or John Kennedy or Thomas Jefferson as presidents, to name just a few. Prince Charles would have passed along his crown to William.
I don't think the personal disgrace has any bearing whatsoever on this achievements as a general or as head of CIA. I don't get it.
I think the explanation was that it's considered a "security risk." I do agree that many in Washington D.C. and many state legislators would be out of a job if having an affair was a career-ender.
One comment I did hear on the news is that you worry about blackmail against a person in such a high position who has an affair. But still.........it just doesn't seem to make sense.
Maybe he did have an affair and had so much self-loathingguilt over it, that he's punishing himself by resigning? Just doesn't make sense. I think there has to be more to the story.
Catherine.........I've been hearing that he isn't required to testify now.
catherine
11-10-12, 9:23am
I see, based on what you guys said, and the little I've just been reading, it does look suspiciously like a cover-up.
I think the explanation was that it's considered a "security risk." I do agree that many in Washington D.C. and many state legislators would be out of a job if having an affair was a career-ender.
This is kind of an odd excuse, also. It was much more of a security risk when it was a secret - how much of a security risk could it be now that it's common knowledge? Although one could make an argument that someone willing to keep private secrets this big could be a security risk and that keeping an affair secret as opposed to the affair itself is justification for a resignation?
Maybe it's just that he does not want to continue in a public job with this out there on his record.
Miss Cellane
11-10-12, 9:35am
If they really want to have Petraeus testify, instead of his replacement, he'll testify.
The affair was a security breach. Remaining as head of the CIA with a serious security breach on your record simply isn't possible. It sends a very bad message to everyone in the organization--that you can break the rules and get away with it. If he'd been in the military, he'd be court-martialed.
From what I've read, Petraeus decided to resign. Obama had to take time to consider accepting his resignation.
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 9:46am
His supposed girlfriend is being investigated by the FBI for suspicious internet activity. That leads me to believe sensitive information was compromised.
This is not about sex.
When you consider the abrupt resignation of General Ham, Commander of US Africa Command (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/), a few weeks ago and now this, it seems like a Robert Ludlum novel come to life as the major players in a suspect event are removed from the equation.
AmeliaJane
11-10-12, 9:54am
It's possible that he knew somehow the story was about to come out, and he decided to take control of the situation by announcing on his own terms. I was taken aback at first that he felt he had to resign since it seems like a private matter between him and his wife, but I can see the issue of a security risk (and being an example to staff). I also wonder if perhaps that very nasty situation unfolding with the other army general who is on trial for sexual assault had anything to do with his decision, since it appears the affair started while he was still in the army. Perhaps on some level he felt the army couldn't take two scandals over senior officer misbehavior so it was best to be honest right away. It's a shame for the country--it sounds like he and Obama worked really well together.
I'm a little confused.........they've also been talking about a woman correspondent (I think that's what she was), who wrote a book. Is this the woman he had the affair with?
goldensmom
11-10-12, 11:16am
My husband and I just gave each other a puzzled look when we heard this on the news. Extramarital affairs are (sadly) so commonplace now that we both thought “what’s the big deal”. There’s got to be more to the story.
I just heard that they may have been emails with this woman (the correspondent?) that may have had national security info. Hard to believe that Patraeus would have been so naive as to send that kind of info in an email. Then again, maybe he shared it with his 'mistress' in person, and she included it in her emails to others?? Time will tell.
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 11:58am
If it were related to the Consulate, wouldn't he have to testify anyway?
Yes. The subpoena does not go away just because he is now a private citizen. In fact, it makes it more likely he will testify, as the White House can't claim executive privilege.
If this was a way to remove him from the equation, as Alan put it, it would be an odd (and not very effective) way to do it.
ToomuchStuff
11-10-12, 12:10pm
As a private citizen, if/when he gets called to testify, he may not have access to the materials he had before. No telling about the security clauses in the resignation, restrictions, that he may have to refer congress to CIA lawyers.
CathyA, my understanding is this woman is his biographer. That said, I would fully expect she would have been pre vetted, by the agency before being allowed to talk to him and EVERYTHING would have gone through lawyers.
Yes. The subpoena does not go away just because he is now a private citizen. In fact, it makes it more likely he will testify, as the White House can't claim executive privilege.
If this was a way to remove him from the equation, as Alan put it, it would be an odd (and not very effective) way to do it.His initial request to testify was not the result of a subpoena, although one would be required to force him to do so now. CBS News’ Mark Knoller reported on Twitter yesterday that Petraeus will not testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee (chaired by Dianne Feinstein) and that acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify in his place.
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 12:16pm
Yeah, I don't see him dodging a House investigation, though, and they are the ones looking for a controversy.
Yeah, I don't see him dodging a House investigation, though, and they are the ones looking for a controversy.
I think the controversy is already there since it would appear that someone made a calculated decision not to defend our Ambassador and then mislead the public about the cause. Getting to the bottom of it shouldn't be political although it seems to be too late for that.
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 12:22pm
CathyA, my understanding is this woman is his biographer. That said, I would fully expect she would have been pre vetted, by the agency before being allowed to talk to him and EVERYTHING would have gone through lawyers.
Yeah, well, I doubt the lawyers did much vetting in the bedroom.
My suspicion is she was working on another book when the FBI caught wind. I doubt she was spying for the bad guys. Maybe using (slightly) sensitive material at the most. I don't think he would give anything truly sensitive even to his mistress.
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 12:43pm
I think the controversy is already there since it would appear that someone made a calculated decision not to defend our Ambassador and then mislead the public about the cause.
Oh, pish. A tempest in a teapot. A made up controversy to equate Benghazi with Tehran 1979 to give Romney something to focus on to cover up what a lightweight he was in the foreign policy arena.
As Rachel Maddow put things the night after the election...
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1049&d=1352565722
LOL, extra points for the mis-direct. :+1:
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 1:38pm
Your surrender is accepted. ;)
Birchwood
11-10-12, 1:42pm
I read from a source that the FBI investigated that the woman Paula Broadwell, was trying to get into the General's e-mail account and thus,
can compromise some official info. which should remain classified. The woman was a westpoint graduate and a research policy person at Harvard
school ofpublic policy. She knew what she was doing, and was trying to get info, wrote a book and got caught with her hands in the secret cookie jar. Her book was entitled "All In". Apparently, she tried to take more than she can handle. If the relationship was completely lasciviuous sexual in nature, there is no reason to resign.
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 1:44pm
Her book was entitled "All In".
Which will make for wonderful late night comedy fodder. It's almost too easy.
No surrender, just appreciating the distraction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAIGLkSMls
try2bfrugal
11-10-12, 3:26pm
Which will make for wonderful late night comedy fodder. It's almost too easy.
Good point! I am sure there will be many jokes about that. There have been clips of her on the Internet doing talk shows to support her book where as a married woman with kids she seemed so smitten it was creepy even before anything came out about the affair or FBI investigation.
So our Head Spy thought it was safe to use his Yahoo account to email his girlfriend...
Too bad he can't simply say "yes, I did have sex with that woman. So what?"
More secrets are whispered in the bedchamber than in the torture chamber.
Throughout history, this has been a favored way of learning secrets without all that blood shed and nasty war business. I'm not saying this woman is a spy, just that the head of the CIA fell for the oldest trick in the book. (if it were a trick, which I doubt it was) And he knows it.
It is a shame, really. But I can see why he resigned. It actually speaks to his honor and loyalty to his country and office. No conspiracy here, I'm sure. Just an honorable man trying to regain his honor. I realize most of you don't understand the military mentality. I do. It was right that he would resign. I know these people. I lived with them for 30 years. Trust me, he is doing a completely predictable thing.
My Dad, who spent some time in ONI, was laughing when he gleefully pointed out that it was the FBI, investigating another "unrelated issue", that managed to bring down the head of the CIA, traditionally a rival organization.
My wife was involved in an interesting case some decades ago involving ONI dropping a dime to the FBI so they could embarass an about-to-fail-bigtime CIA boondoggle.
I suspect there's a lot of interagency coup-counting still going on.
Miss Cellane
11-11-12, 7:18am
More secrets are whispered in the bedchamber than in the torture chamber.
Throughout history, this has been a favored way of learning secrets without all that blood shed and nasty war business. I'm not saying this woman is a spy, just that the head of the CIA fell for the oldest trick in the book. (if it were a trick, which I doubt it was) And he knows it.
It is a shame, really. But I can see why he resigned. It actually speaks to his honor and loyalty to his country and office. No conspiracy here, I'm sure. Just an honorable man trying to regain his honor. I realize most of you don't understand the military mentality. I do. It was right that he would resign. I know these people. I lived with them for 30 years. Trust me, he is doing a completely predictable thing.
Let us not forget the woman involved. She'd been in the military for, what, 15 years? And is a West Point graduate. She knew the consequences for him, as well. Now that she's a civilian, I don't think there will be significant public consequences for her, unless she has been spreading information she got from him--that could have consequences. What's going to happen to her marriage is anybody's guess. But she had to have known that the affair could have very serious consequences for Petraeus.
I think the controversy is already there since it would appear that someone made a calculated decision not to defend our Ambassador and then mislead the public about the cause.
What is the data to support this belief?
What is the data to support this belief?
The recently revealed fact that our intelligence agencies, military commands and administration officials watched the events in Benghazi real time, for over 7 hours, with resources from several different locations well within the conflict window and no one gave the OK to respond. By some accounts, even ordering resources not to respond. Then, for the following two weeks, those same intelligence and administration officials misled the public regarding the motivation for the attack.
Anyone intellectually curious would probably conclude that there were political reasons not to defend our citizens against this attack. Perhaps because of the on-going meme that the terrorists were on the run and represented an increasingly diminishing threat, coupled with the possibility that the administration had armed and supported those same terrorists as part of it's support for the 'Arab Spring', military intervention and support which bypassed Congress by-the-way.
And all this at the end of a particularly grueling election season where facts may not be useful.
The recently revealed fact that our intelligence agencies, military commands and administration officials watched the events in Benghazi real time, for over 7 hours, with resources from several different locations well within the conflict window and no one gave the OK to respond. By some accounts, even ordering resources not to respond. Then, for the following two weeks, those same intelligence and administration officials misled the public regarding the motivation for the attack.
Anyone intellectually curious would probably conclude that there were political reasons not to defend our citizens against this attack. Perhaps because of the on-going meme that the terrorists were on the run and represented an increasingly diminishing threat, coupled with the possibility that the administration had armed and supported those same terrorists as part of it's support for the 'Arab Spring', military intervention and support which bypassed Congress by-the-way.
And all this at the end of a particularly grueling election season where facts may not be useful.
Citations for said reports, etc.? Thanks... Sources make all the difference for me.
Citations for said reports, etc.? Thanks... Sources make all the difference for me.
LOL, if you want me to provide a few of the thousands of available links in order to determine if the sources meet your standards, we'll never get anywhere.
Let Google be your friend.
It seems there was a complaint from a second woman who was purportedly being harassed by the biographer. It was during the investigation of her complaint that the incrimination e-mails came to light. (Off the top of my head)
JaneV2.0
11-11-12, 10:04pm
LOL, if you want me to provide a few of the thousands of available links in order to determine if the sources meet your standards, we'll never get anywhere.
Let Google be your friend.
Are there any that aren't first- or second-hand FOX reports? I found this from Raw Story:
After weeks of hyperventilating spin-coverage of the tragic events in Libya nearly two months ago, Geraldo Rivera on Friday finally had his fill and lashed out at his coworkers’ “misleading” claims, calling the network’s narrative about the attack “misinformation” designed to support an outright “lie.”
“You are misleading the American people because you want to make a political point,” Rivera told fellow Fox News host Eric Bolling. “We have never in the history of the United States of America mounted a raid on the circumstance described here. We have never done it. The Israelis rescued their people in Tevi — seven days to mount that operation. This was seven hours.”
Detailed new reporting on the attack based on a newly released CIA timeline showed Friday that no order was ever given for support to stand down, and the CIA actually did dispatch a security team to the embassy during the 90-minute assault. However, The Wall Street Journal reported that they were delayed by Libyan officials. ABC News added that the security operatives also came under enemy fire outside the embassy.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/02/geraldo-demolishes-fox-news-misinformation-on-benghazi-that-is-a-lie/
Google is my friend. Here you go.
http://crooksandliars.com/mugsy/cia-says-they-responded-benghazi-attack-just
Help was on the way within 25 minutes. Within an hour another group was sent to help.
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/3214-cia-no-one-told-to-stand-down-during-benghazi-attack
No one was told to 'stand down'. This is the most ridiculous assertion. Only in republican-world can people believe that hundreds of people can be involved in a 'conspiracy' without anyone spilling the beans! And no, Fox News (GOP TV) doesn't count as credible 'sources'.
Republicans keep trying to spin this into some huge evil conspiracy between Obama and ? (terrorist?)
And, oh by the way, if we are taking count of diplomatic personnel killed on a President's watch, here you go.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130950/-If-diplomatic-attacks-are-a-sign-of-weakness-Bush-was-the-weakest-of-all
12 attacks on US diplomatic facilities under Bush. The most under any President in history, actually.
Not a single one of these, by the way, was used for political gain by the democrats like this Benghazi attack has been used by the republicans. Shameful shameful shameful!
Have they taken the Youtube filmmaker to Gitmo yet?
JaneV2.0
11-11-12, 10:30pm
That was my first thought, Peggy--that this kind of thing happens with sickening regularity. Trust FOX to blow it up into some kind of scandal. I have the greatest respect for President Obama and his steadfastness in the face of these unprecedented personal attacks.
Google is my friend. Here you go.
http://crooksandliars.com/mugsy/cia-says-they-responded-benghazi-attack-just
Help was on the way within 25 minutes. Within an hour another group was sent to help.
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/3214-cia-no-one-told-to-stand-down-during-benghazi-attack
No one was told to 'stand down'. This is the most ridiculous assertion. Only in republican-world can people believe that hundreds of people can be involved in a 'conspiracy' without anyone spilling the beans! And no, Fox News (GOP TV) doesn't count as credible 'sources'.
Republicans keep trying to spin this into some huge evil conspiracy between Obama and ? (terrorist?)
And, oh by the way, if we are taking count of diplomatic personnel killed on a President's watch, here you go.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130950/-If-diplomatic-attacks-are-a-sign-of-weakness-Bush-was-the-weakest-of-all
12 attacks on US diplomatic facilities under Bush. The most under any President in history, actually.
Not a single one of these, by the way, was used for political gain by the democrats like this Benghazi attack has been used by the republicans. Shameful shameful shameful!
The frustrating thing about situations like this is just how completely people go into politically motivated CYA mode.
Consider this from CBS News: (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/)
CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).
"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."
Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.
The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.
Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.....
And despite a multitude of emails and other correspondence within the first 24 hours after the attack, the official spin, regurgitated throughout all media for several weeks, blamed an unknown film-maker in California rather than admit that this was a coordinated terrorist attack.
JaneV2.0
11-11-12, 10:46pm
President Obama referred to it as an act of terror in his Rose Garden speech shortly after the attack (September 12).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
I've watched the speech. I'm sure it's on YouTube. There is nothing in it on inflammatory amateur videos, though I'm sure they didn't help matters in the region.
I've watched the speech. I'm sure it's on YouTube. There is nothing in it on inflammatory amateur videos, though I'm sure they didn't help matters in the region.
Yes, it is on YouTube. Here's a short compilation of the President's remarks you mentioned, followed by his Press Secretary several days later denying what you say he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Qx7Fmn4uE
Believe it or not, YouTube also has video's of UN Ambassador Rice on 5 different Sunday talk shows, well after the President's single mention of terrorism, again denying what you say he said. I'll put up links if you like.
The Storyteller
11-11-12, 11:45pm
Anyone intellectually curious would probably conclude that there were political reasons not to defend our citizens against this attack. Perhaps because of the on-going meme that the terrorists were on the run and represented an increasingly diminishing threat, coupled with the possibility that the administration had armed and supported those same terrorists as part of it's support for the 'Arab Spring', military intervention and support which bypassed Congress by-the-way..
Well, now that's just silly. Wouldn't it be better political theater for the pres to foil another terrorist attack and take out another bunch of America's enemies?
Today on Meet The Press, my senator Tom Coburn basically parroted the president, when he said we just need to find out what went wrong so we can keep it from happening again. And that takes me back to my earlier post, that this "controversy" has been cooked up for electoral purposes by your buds on the right. Now that the election is over, it is losing its steam and its reson for living... which you admit to in your last line.
And all this at the end of a particularly grueling election season where facts may not be useful.
What good is it if you can't use it against Obama's reelection?
Much ado about nothing.
freein05
11-12-12, 12:07am
Please let us be real. The military was looking at moving forces in but the time line was in hours not min. The people at the consulate had no chance. The ambassador must have known the risks. It was a tragic event but nothing could have been done by the military after it started. Life is not a computer game. You can not just snap your fingers and have our military move in. Without proper planning more people would be killed. As big as our military is it can not cover every inch of the earth.
This tragedy has been turned into a political football game pure and simple.
The people at the consulate had no chance. The ambassador must have known the risks. It was a tragic event but nothing could have been done by the military after it started.
Perhaps proper planning, and proper rules of engagement *before* the event might have provided a modicum of security.
I have friends in the military who have spent time protecting embassies. Oh, the things they say about how The Powers That Be tie their hands....
I'm about to go spend two days training with a couple of them. They are Israelis though, and have a bit of a different attitude.
freein05
11-12-12, 12:55am
This was not an Embassy. The military and defenders of Embassies probably disagree a lot on how best to defend them with all administrations. The defense of an embassy is a political decision. The country were the Embassies are located also have say. They probably would not want a division of marines defending an embassy in their country.
Having served in the army when something happened we always wanted to throw everything at including the kitchen sink. That is the natural military mind. We even called it that. The Military Mind. Remember General Westmorland was always saying I just need a few more troops to win in Vietnam. His few was in the 100s of thousands.
So the military is not always right, that's the Military Mind.
LOL, if you want me to provide a few of the thousands of available links in order to determine if the sources meet your standards, we'll never get anywhere.
Let Google be your friend.
I wanted to know the sources you turned to to reach your conclusions. When the kids were little, we played an epistemology game with them. When they stated something as definitive, we asked them how they knew what they knew.
That's what I am asking you; the source material for your conclusions & beliefs.
dado potato
11-12-12, 3:59am
I will not miss Petraeus in office in the CIA. The new CIA guy has nice beard, and he presumably has no history of journalists embedded with him.
This was not an Embassy. The military and defenders of Embassies probably disagree a lot on how best to defend them with all administrations. The defense of an embassy is a political decision. The country were the Embassies are located also have say. They probably would not want a division of marines defending an embassy in their country.
Consulates are part of the U.S. diplomatic mission and also frequently have marine guards stationed on the grounds. At least this is the case in China. More information on the situation in each country is most likely available at the Embassy website in that country, as in this case:
http://beijing.usembassy-china.org.cn/marine_security_guards.html
Re: Benghazi. A sad situation in every way, but I have to agree with those who say the ambassador and staff knew the risks. You would hope they knew them better than anyone else since that assessment is part of their duties. On the larger scale I'm wondering why we feel the need to have an embassy in nearly every country and consulates scattered throughout the most volatile and dangerous regions on earth. I'm not (yet) an isolationist and so I do believe in the value of diplomatic ties, but the way things are currently set up the only really surprising element to me is that we don't have a Benghazi a week.
JaneV2.0
11-12-12, 10:00am
Re: Benghazi. A sad situation in every way, but I have to agree with those who say the ambassador and staff knew the risks. You would hope they knew them better than anyone else since that assessment is part of their duties. On the larger scale I'm wondering why we feel the need to have an embassy in nearly every country and consulates scattered throughout the most volatile and dangerous regions on earth. I'm not (yet) an isolationist and so I do believe in the value of diplomatic ties, but the way things are currently set up the only really surprising element to me is that we don't have a Benghazi a week.
I agree completely.
JaneV2.0
11-12-12, 10:01am
I will not miss Petraeus in office in the CIA. The new CIA guy has nice beard, and he presumably has no history of journalists embedded with him.
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_CheckIt.gif
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 12:21pm
Well, with all of the new information coming out, it looks like the resignation really was just about sex, after all.
Wrong again. Dang, I hate that!
My sympathy to Mrs. Petraeus and her children and to the husband of Paula Broadwell and their children. So much pain for so many people.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 2:16pm
And so public. Now the various committees want to drag the whole affair out into public hearings.
I feel sorry for everyone involved, quite frankly.
And so public. Now the various committees want to drag the whole affair out into public hearings.
Of course - otherwise they'd have to talk about the fiscal cliff.
A touch of humor about it all...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/11/how-to-tell-if-youre-involved-in-the-petraeus-scandal.html#ixzz2C7NyUkln
The Storyteller
11-13-12, 6:08pm
Okay, now there is another general involved in the story. This is just getting stupid. Married service men having a little hanky panky. Gee, there's some news. When I was overseas, I don't think I knew a single married Marine that did not have sex with women not their wives. Not a single, solitary one, from the CO on down. So this is news?
Geeze, if we fire every serviceman who ever committed adultery, we wouldn't have enough to patrol our borders, let alone fight a war.
There's plenty of interesting stuff, unrelated to sex, coming out though. Mrs Broadwell has recently mentioned in a speech that the Benghazi site was being used as a secret CIA prison and that the militants involved in the attack were trying to free prisoners. If she was correct, I'm guessing that Petraeus must have been her information source.
Also, witnesses on the ground have reported that 3 prisoners were transferred from the site during the ruckus. Of course, this couldn't be true because President Obama signed, with great ceremony, an executive order in 2009 banning secret prisons.
If they were actually doing that, I'm sure it would have come out during the campaign.
Okay, now there is another general involved in the story. This is just getting stupid. Married service men having a little hanky panky. Gee, there's some news. When I was overseas, I don't think I knew a single married Marine that did not have sex with women not their wives. Not a single, solitary one, from the CO on down. So this is news?
Geeze, if we fire every serviceman who ever committed adultery, we wouldn't have enough to patrol our borders, let alone fight a war.
I don't doubt that's true. It's a sad statement about human frailty and how difficult it is to be away from those you love. It is also, IMO, a very strong point in favor of keeping overseas duties to the absolute minimum necessary to maintain diplomatic ties and aid with national security.
There's plenty of interesting stuff, unrelated to sex, coming out though. Mrs Broadwell has recently mentioned in a speech that the Benghazi site was being used as a secret CIA prison and that the militants involved in the attack were trying to free prisoners. If she was correct, I'm guessing that Petraeus must have been her information source.
Also, witnesses on the ground have reported that 3 prisoners were transferred from the site during the ruckus. Of course, this couldn't be true because President Obama signed, with great ceremony, an executive order in 2009 banning secret prisons.
If they were actually doing that, I'm sure it would have come out during the campaign.
"witnesses ' on the the ground...a jilted ex-lover...yeah, real credible sources.
If prisoners were transferred, just because YOU didn't know they were there doesn't mean they were a secret. And really, if they had the time and ability to 'transfer' secret prisoners, then they could have transferred the not-so-secret personnel, right? Or, oh, is this part of the conspiracy? They protected and transferred the prisoners and left the personnel to die? Gee, maybe President Obama personally transferred the location of each and every embassy personnel to the terrorist, cause, as a Kenyan socialist, he hates America and wants Hugo Chavez to over take Pittsburgh so he can stage a coup of republican military leaders by 'forcing' a little zipper problem on these staunchly republican leaders. Whew! Who knew! The evil that Kenyan socialist atheist Muslim President has been up to! Thank goodness we have Fox News to keep you informed, and you to bring this earth shattering news to us! ;)
Enquiring minds want to know!
I think I'll apply for a job at Fox.
The Storyteller
11-13-12, 8:56pm
Gregg, this entire story is about human frailty and personal failings. It is reaching the point of absurdity that these people are being placed under the microscope like this.
And then there is this...
In the meantime, however, there has been a cascade of unintended consequences. What began as a private, and far from momentous, conflict between two women, Ms. Kelley and Paula Broadwell, Mr. Petraeus’s biographer and the reported author of the harassing e-mails, has had incalculable public costs.
The C.I.A. is suddenly without a permanent director at a time of urgent intelligence challenges in Syria, Iran, Libya and beyond. The leader of the American-led effort to prevent a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan is distracted, at the least, by an inquiry into his e-mail exchanges with Ms. Kelley by the Defense Department’s inspector general.
For privacy advocates, the case sets off alarms.
“There should be an investigation not of the personal behavior of General Petraeus and General Allen but of what surveillance powers the F.B.I. used to look into their private lives,” Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an interview. “This is a textbook example of the blurring of lines between the private and the public.” ...
...some commentators have renewed an argument that a puritanical American culture overreacts to sexual transgressions that have little relevance to job performance. “Most Americans were dismayed that General Petraeus resigned,” said Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U.
That old debate now takes place in a new age of electronic information. The public shaming that labeled the adulterer in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Scarlet Letter” might now be accomplished by an F.B.I. search warrant or an N.S.A. satellite dish.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/david-petraeus-case-raises-concerns-about-americans-privacy.html
Okay, now there is another general involved in the story. This is just getting stupid. Married service men having a little hanky panky. Gee, there's some news. When I was overseas, I don't think I knew a single married Marine that did not have sex with women not their wives. Not a single, solitary one, from the CO on down. So this is news?
Geeze, if we fire every serviceman who ever committed adultery, we wouldn't have enough to patrol our borders, let alone fight a war.
Yeah, it's starting to look kind of like a Salem witch Hunt. Unfortunately, in the military, adultery is an actual crime. A crime that you can be tried for and jailed, and kicked out of the military for. It's more likely he resigned because of this, and not because of some conspiracy theory that some feel the need to spin. The scarlet letter is alive and well in the military.
They need to stop, now, or they won't have anyone left. Suffice to say that men in power positions are attractive to some women, and these men will always have temptation. It really doesn't have anything to do with being away from their families, or the pressures of war, or whatever excuse some will come up with. It really has more to do with biology and the fact that men think about sex every 20 seconds or so, or whatever the studies show. It's pretty frequent. I don't think that changes as you age. When it comes to sex, men are pretty weak. And too often, like Gen. Petraeus, they think with their d--ks.
The Storyteller
11-13-12, 9:31pm
Yeah, it's starting to look kind of like a Salem witch Hunt. Unfortunately, in the military, adultery is an actual crime. A crime that you can be tried for and jailed, and kicked out of the military for.
Which is a silly law, and hardly ever enforced unless it is a superior who is having sex with a subordinate's spouse.
And it really is mostly about biology. There is a drive to pair-bond among humans, and there is a competing drive to spread our genetic material. Much of our societal rules about sex have to do with encouraging the former and suppressing the latter. Most of us do pretty well. Sometimes we fail.
I would add that there is an additional factor in that in the military, sex is endemic to the culture. There is a reason strip clubs and red light districts are often located just off base, and all those sailor jokes ain't for nothin'.
It is the culture of the Alpha Male, especially if they want to move up in ranks.
"witnesses ' on the the ground...a jilted ex-lover...yeah, real credible sources.
If prisoners were transferred, just because YOU didn't know they were there doesn't mean they were a secret. And really, if they had the time and ability to 'transfer' secret prisoners, then they could have transferred the not-so-secret personnel, right? Or, oh, is this part of the conspiracy? They protected and transferred the prisoners and left the personnel to die? Gee, maybe President Obama personally transferred the location of each and every embassy personnel to the terrorist, cause, as a Kenyan socialist, he hates America and wants Hugo Chavez to over take Pittsburgh so he can stage a coup of republican military leaders by 'forcing' a little zipper problem on these staunchly republican leaders. Whew! Who knew! The evil that Kenyan socialist atheist Muslim President has been up to! Thank goodness we have Fox News to keep you informed, and you to bring this earth shattering news to us! ;)
Enquiring minds want to know!
I think I'll apply for a job at Fox.
Predictability, thy name is Peggy. :treadmill:
The Storyteller
11-13-12, 9:54pm
Predictability, thy name isAlan.
Alan.Actually, that would be 'reliability', but let's not quibble.
ApatheticNoMore
11-13-12, 10:15pm
If prisoners were transferred, just because YOU didn't know they were there doesn't mean they were a secret. And really, if they had the time and ability to 'transfer' secret prisoners, then they could have transferred the not-so-secret personnel, right? Or, oh, is this part of the conspiracy? They protected and transferred the prisoners and left the personnel to die? Gee, maybe President Obama personally transferred the location of each and every embassy personnel to the terrorist, cause, as a Kenyan socialist, he hates America and wants Hugo Chavez to over take Pittsburgh so he can stage a coup of republican military leaders by 'forcing' a little zipper problem on these staunchly republican leaders. Whew! Who knew! The evil that Kenyan socialist atheist Muslim President has been up to! Thank goodness we have Fox News to keep you informed, and you to bring this earth shattering news to us!
Enquiring minds want to know!
I think I'll apply for a job at Fox.
I think he's just saying there are CIA black sites. Um geez, that was part of my ordinary understanding of the world, that and extrodinary rendition, but it seems Obama did claim to have closed the black sites. But hmm, do you really think that's how beauracracies like the CIA work, just change their entire policy with administrations?
Yeah, it's starting to look kind of like a Salem witch Hunt. Unfortunately, in the military, adultery is an actual crime.
seems to me it's only a crime with very broad interpretations of language.
A crime that you can be tried for and jailed, and kicked out of the military for. It's more likely he resigned because of this, and not because of some conspiracy theory that some feel the need to spin.
Suggesting the possibility that CIA blacksites which we know for a fact existed in the past might still exists is not much of a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorist really need to do better if that's all they can come up with, really you don't have an original novel in their folks! Whether that has anything to do with Benghazi or Patreus I don't know, I can't know, perhaps the news will come out next week, perhaps 2 decades from now. Like I said about Benghazi itself, we can't know right away (and I was right, original stories there were false and I was just playing my instincts on this stuff, nothing more). But I'm pretty doubtful it's just about adultery.
It is the culture of the Alpha Male, especially if they want to move up in ranks.
If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make an Alpha Male your husband, so for my personal point of view, get a beta Male to marry you! Really stay away from those in positions of power and authority, they are drunk on it, and seem to cheat at rates exceeding the general population. But I still don't think that's *all* this is about.
The Storyteller
11-13-12, 10:51pm
Actually, that would be 'reliability', but let's not quibble.
You are certainly that. :)
JaneV2.0
11-14-12, 10:53am
This is quickly assuming the nature of a French farce. All we need now is a call girl ring, a dominatrix, and a gaggle of furries. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_3-Bears.gif
Of course - otherwise they'd have to talk about the fiscal cliff.
+1
Being the distrustful person I am, I am wondering.........is it possible that he's resigning so he doesn't have to testify about the U.S. Consulate thing? It sounds like his behavior (extramarital affair) was so unlike him. Just makes me wonder if he and his wife together (along with the state dept), decided this was the best way to go??? (to make up some reason so he could resign).?
I haven't read all the responses yet so am probably repeating but ...No, I don't think his resigning has anything to do with him not wanting to testify. He can be made to testify irregardless.
I think his decision to step down has more to do with the fact that he created what could have been a huge security breach (assuming he discussed classified info with his mistress - and it seems he had) and thus he became not only a security risk, but a person who could be compromised, and thus untrustworthy in an intelligence position.
He isn't like your dry cleaner who's bedroom talk or helping hand may mean you get a few clothes cleaned for free, he is one of the most powerful men on the planet who's knowledge and access to information can have dire consequences for thousands of people worldwide. Covert operations, troop movements, weapons technology, etc... Info that, if he should intentionally or even inadventantly pass along to someone would be considered a criminal act, which could mean prison time for both of them, and maybe even considered treasonous on his part - an act that carries the death penalty. So all that makes him highly blackmailable (her as well). So even if she weren't some Mata Hari sent by a showdowy underworld government to seduce him to reveal state secrets, she was a married woman with children and a career who could have been threatened by some showdowy underworld governement to reveal any state secrets she learned from him. So while all that sounds like a bad spook novel, it can be potentially real and therefore makes him a security risk and unfit to be in the postion he is in. He knows that and I believe that is why he stepped down.
So (taking off my paranoid whacko rant hat) even if it was as simple as 2 folks with the hots for each other, he has shown that he is capable of betraying those he has sworn to love and protect (his wife and kids) and may be willing to betray his country with the right incentive (another hot chick? Money? Power?). Intentionally or by accident. Loose lips sink ships, and all that.
These 2 women..............Paula Broadwell and Jill Kelley are acting like silly teenagers. And Jill Kelley is a bit delusional. She has a license plate that says something about being an honorary Consul General, and when there were media people in her yard, she called the police and said she had something like diplomatic status and they should essentially protect her under those laws. How delusional!
This is very embarrassing to our country. Someone referred to these women as "groupies", and that's just what they sound like.
The Storyteller
11-14-12, 5:57pm
Someone referred to these women as "groupies", and that's just what they sound like.
Just patriotic Americans, serving the service men who serve us.
I would probably be impressed with them too, and enjoy feeling more important because they liked me. But the license plate was a bit much.
I imagine there's a bunch of adoration going on there.
Married service men having a little hanky panky. Gee, there's some news. When I was overseas, I don't think I knew a single married Marine that did not have sex with women not their wives. Not a single, solitary one, from the CO on down. So this is news?
.
My experience in the service was very different. When we would pull into a port - sometimes after 6 months or more at sea - the younger, single guys all ran amok with wine, women and song but for the most part the married guys (usually older) wouldn't even go to the off-base bars. And if they did, they would call it a night pretty early (while the rest of us young-uns were just getting started) and head back to the ship. On our long southern Pacific Ocean patrols we'd stop in some very infamous ports (Subic Bay probably the most infamous) and even there the married guys were pretty low key.
I'm not saying that affairs and flings don't happen - and maybe during war time they happen more often then in peacetime - but I didn't see it that often and fratinization between ship mates was totally against the rules and heavily reprimanded. Not that we didn't have lust in our hearts ala Jimmy Carter :-)!
Now for the single guys (and girls like me)...well, that's a whole different thing :-)! They partied pretty hard where ever they were. Of course the military tried to disuade that and, like probably everyone in the service had to, we were all forced to watch that 1950's black and white grainy film about the evils lurking in foreign ports. Where diseased and pestilenced ridden women of ill repute waited in smoky bars to corrupt our tender flesh. Of course us women were given the same warning - it was just to stay away from those diseased and pestilence ridden navy guys waiting in smokey off base bars to corrupt our tender flesh :-)!
On The Daily Show they said the video game "Call of Duty" was being renamed to "Call of Booty."
oh yes, the puns are starting ..
This is quickly assuming the nature of a French farce. All we need now is a call girl ring, a dominatrix, and a gaggle of furries. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_3-Bears.gif
Hmmm. Think I'll wait for the movie.
The Storyteller
11-15-12, 2:51pm
My experience in the service was very different.
Apparently. Keep in mind, though, men act and talk differently around other men than they do with a woman present. We know things about how guys think and what they do that women will never know.
I'm sure the reverse is true.
The Storyteller
11-15-12, 2:52pm
Hmmm. Think I'll wait for the movie.
Turn on CSPAN.
Apparently. Keep in mind, though, men act and talk differently around other men than they do with a woman present. We know things about how guys think and what they do that women will never know.
I'm sure the reverse is true.
True - men are dogs ;-)! Just teasing! I was just talking about actions and not thoughts anyways. Hard to hide all your actions, and even your thoughts, when you are with people 27/4 in close quarters for months, even years, at a time. I think those guys were older short-timers who had been there, done that - and had the diseases to prove it :-)- many times before.
But I do belive that there is a big difference between a one-night fling when you are in port, compared to a long term affair. One where things are hidden and kept secret long term from alot of people. The lying and deceit is that much greater. So an affair naturally will have a higher level of intimaticy and emotions. Where sharing thoughts, ideas, and state secrets you deal with for your job may be the outcome.
Where as a one-night fling in some foreign port means you'll never see that person again and the worst that can happens you wake up one morning in a seedy motel room with a bad hangover next to some Navy fly-boy named "Rat". Not that I would know anything about THAT kind of thing :devil:!
...
Where as a one-night fling in some foreign port means you'll never see that person again and the worst that can happens you wake up one morning in a seedy motel room with a bad hangover next to some Navy fly-boy named "Rat". Not that I would know anything about THAT kind of thing :devil:!
Wait. You know Rat?:doh:
The Storyteller
11-16-12, 11:38am
Just patriotic Americans, serving the service men who serve us.
I would probably be impressed with them too, and enjoy feeling more important because they liked me.
Cathy, you are such an innocent.
Wait. You know Rat?:doh:
he He - ALL the girls know Rat. He is...wait for it...legendary :-)!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.