Some thoughts on Petraeus

| November 11, 2012 | 61 Comments

So, I’m trying to sort out this whole thing about David Petraeus’ revelation that he had an affair. I’m wondering what the hell he was doing in charge of the CIA and conducting an affair with his official email account. What kind of spy chief would do that? OK, he shouldn’t have been having an affair in the first place, but what grade of moron does it with a government email account? And, then apparently, he gave this woman access to his email account which she then used to harass other people? Was she wearing Depends while she was doing it – because that’s the kind of crazy that drives across country wearing Depends to save time.

According to Fox News, Broadwell admits that she works out with Petraeus when she’s in town, but we noticed back in January that she needed work on her pushups.

“By any measure, he was one of the outstanding General officers of his generation, helping our military adapt to new challenges, and leading our men and women in uniform through a remarkable period of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he helped our nation put those wars on a path to a responsible end,” Obama said. The White House has named Michael Morell, the agency’s deputy director, to serve as acting director.

The decision abruptly ends the public-service career of one of the military’s most vaunted leaders. He led the surge in Iraq, and was later tapped to lead U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan — following two years at the helm of U.S. Central Command. In April 2011, Obama again tapped Petraeus to lead the CIA.

Well, as far as I’m concerned, if this whole thing about an affair turns out to be true, in my memoirs, Petraeus will come off as a moron. It’s really poor judgement to have an affair in the first place, and especially stupid to conduct it on a government email account – what with all of the alternative options available. And being the head of CIA, he must have been aware of all of the ways he coould have been caught. It’s as if he wanted to be caught.

I’m not subscribing to the theory that it was all manufactured to keep him from testifying about the Benghazi fiasco, that would be too easy to circumvent, but then this affair thing is majorly stupid on everyone’s parts.

Category: Dumbass Bullshit

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Veteran’s Day 2012: Saying “Thank You!” and LINKS! | November 11, 2012
  1. Ex-PH2 says:

    “It’s as if he wanted to be caught.”

    No kidding. You should write novels, JL.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I believe it was his Gmail account, not an official account.

  3. Loach says:

    The theory about in being about Bengazi is just dumb. Congress can subpoena him as the former head of the CIA just as much as they could as the current head. But having said that, I don’t really care who he was sleeping with. Eisenhower beat the Nazis while banging his driver. Patton slept with Marlene Dietrich. SFW

  4. LL says:

    Ironic how Stewart starts the interview with bringing up McChyrstal and “how he got fired” after the Rolling Stone article came out.

  5. LostBoys says:

    For a long time, I thought there had to be a name for the kind of loco that happens to politicians, General Officers etc., who attain high position and suddenly think the rules don’t apply. General, judges, congressmen, religious leaders get to a point and seemingly go mental after hitting all of the wickets to get where they are.
    Apparently it’s been around since at least the early 90s, but I hadn’t heard the term “Bethsheba Syndrome” until recently, and think it aptly describes what happens. After a long life of following the rules and putting all the checks in the boxes, being able to violate the rules with impunity is a seen as a well-earned reward.
    Or, they might just have been scumbags all along and no one noticed. Who the hell knows.

  6. NHSparky says:

    Far be it from me to point out the obvious or be less than tactful about it, but pussy (or dick, depending upon preference) can make people do really stupid shit. No exception here.

  7. SJ says:

    Was it Chris Rock or Richard Pryor that said God gave a man a dick and and a brain but only enough blood to operate one of these at a time.

  8. DaveO says:

    Who benefits? Whomever would have faced Petraeus in 2015-6 during Primary Season.

    Beyond that, the CIA still has the CYA philosophy and its intel is of the same quality as one would get from a bunch of drunk frat kids arguing the existence of BigFoot.

  9. NHSparky says:

    SJ–Robin Williams. And yeah unless Petraeus runs as a Dem he’s toast. Even the cover of the NY Post got in a shot at him.

  10. Smaj says:

    Hubris is a bitch. He’s General David Patraeus, hero to millions and so, so smart- he thought he do and get away with anything. He’s a pathetic little loser.

  11. Anonymous says:

    @10: Or, alternatively, he’s General David Petraeus, hero to millions, a pretty smart guy, and also still human and capable of mistakes.

    He served the country well for a long, long time – calling him a pathetic little loser sounds like a bit of a stretch.

  12. David says:

    @10: It never ceases to amaze me how people jump on every opportunity to try and bust down celebrities or famous people. GEN Petraeus, despite whatever mistakes he has made in his life, accomplished far more in his lifetime of service to the U.S. and left far greater of a legacy than most people ever will, and I can readily admit that includes me. But I wonder, is that why you’re so eager to call him a “pathetic little loser”?

  13. streetsweeper says:

    I’m not buying one iota of the story. It stinks to high heaven and its doubtful anything ringing of the truth will come close to surfacing.

  14. hoosierbeagle says:

    Sorry, don’t see what all the stink is about. Eisenhower, Patton ect all had affairs…..this isn’t about the affair..

  15. Hondo says:

    There are no perfect leaders. All have flaws, and all make mistakes.

    Jefferson had a mistress. Washington owned slaves. Andrew Jackson broke treaties and deported thousands of Cherokee unlawfully. Lincoln disregarded much of the Constitution during the Civil War. Grant drank, sometimes to excess. Teddy Roosevelt was conceited. Truman was hotheaded. JFK and LBJ were by reputation serial philanderers. LBJ and Nixon were congenital liars. Eisenhower reputedly carried on an affair with his driver during World War II. The list goes on and on.

    High government officials are human. And with the exception of chaplains, their official positions do not require them to be clergy.

    In short: don’t expect moral perfection from leaders – military or civilian. You will never see it. And trying to get it will eliminate many if not all of the most qualified candidates.

  16. Hondo says:

    hoosierbeagle: Really? Then why is Petraeus’ resignation being discussed at all?

    It’s not uncommon at all for government officials to leave at the end of a presidential term. Without the affair, this would have received one day’s airplay.

    IMO, even with the affair that’s all it deserves.

  17. NTXvet says:

    Curious: the President (Clinton) can have an “affair” and it’s no big deal. The general has an affair and must resign because he becomes a possible blackmail target? Does not compute…

  18. SJ says:

    Will be a bit of an irony if Petraeus ever applied UCMJ to a subordinate for hiding the weenie.

    Awhile back I recall that the TRADOC CG, who was legally separated from his wife, got fired for doing a civilian woman who had zip, zero, nada, connections with the DoD.

  19. Ex-PH2 says:

    SERIOUSLY! Do you guys NOT understand that an affair with a comely (and horny) journalist is a deflection? An excuse?

    You all ran around in camouflage for months, probably even go hunting in it, and you don’t recognize it when you see it?

    That’s why they call it a “blind”.

    I don’t play poker, but if I did, I would certainly invite all of you who think Petraeus isn’t pulling a fast one to my house, so I could clean your clocks.

    He’s bluffing.

  20. DaveO says:

    #15 Hondo, actually, yes we do expect our leaders to be more moral than the common man. We entrust life and death to those leaders. An immoral leader will be dismissive of life, and callous toward death. We learn from World War I exactly what that immorality can entail – deaths in millions, with the response being a shoulder shrug and throwing another million into the breach.

    We trusted Petraeus not only with the intellectual development of the Surge, but also its implementation. We trusted him with the lives of a few hundred thousand people, including families – and we understood the deaths that came during his command as the cost of winning.

    Petraeus lent the CIA what it most needed – a reputation for integrity and professionalism. He gave Obama that same boost by continuing to serve as a civilian.

    Petraeus isn’t Ashton Kutcher or Hugh Hefner. Military officers, commissioned, by warrant, and non-commissioned, must always be held to a higher standard than the citizen.

    Ex-PH2: what are you talking about? Bluffing about? While you’re cleaning my clock, a nice old-fashioned one, would you please reset it to EST?

  21. Ex-PH2 says:

    You’re not real bright, are you, Dave?

  22. valerie says:

    I thought the notion that a US President would be involved in a 3rd rate burglary of Democratic National Headquarters was majorly stupid, too.

    While I agree that this is weird, I’ve seen too much human stupidity to discount it.

  23. Hondo says:

    Nixon wasn’t directly involved in or knowledgeable of any 3rd rate burglary, valerie. Rather, he was involved in the attempted cover-up of a 3rd rate burglary after it had occurred. That’s what got him canned. (smile)

  24. Stu says:

    Real or not, unless proven it was a decoy Petraeus is damaged goods now.

    Putting aside all current politics, he can now retire in peace and quiet to be forgotten not to be bothered by political parties, interviews, speaking engagements, and whatever other things famous people like him would be pestered for.

    Planned or not he can now have a quiet retirement if he chooses. So let’s see if he continues to be in the limelight by his own choosing.

  25. Hondo says:

    DaveO: yes, we indeed seem to expect perfection from our leaders. We are extremely foolish to do that. And because we are foolish, we keep being disappointed by every one of them because they aren’t.

    Even public figures are entitled to private lives, provided those private lives do not unduly affect their public duties. Clinton’s failure wasn’t that he was getting his cigar privately smoked by some young honey; that would have been a matter between him and Hillary. Rather, his failing was that – as head of the Executive Branch, charged with enforcing Federal law – he lied under oath to cover up that petty indiscretion. That additional misconduct tipped the scales from forgivable human error to serious misconduct.

    Neither the intel community nor the military is composed solely of those who’ve taken a vow of chastity, or who will never sin. The primary consideration is (or should be) whether such inevitable errors in judgement cause a demonstrable effect on their performance of duty, or rise to the level of serious misconduct.

    In Petraeus’ case, the alleged misconduct was private; it did not involve a military or civilian subordinate; and it did not demonstrably affect his performance of duty, either while in uniform or afterwards. At best it raised the hypothetical risk of his being targeted for blackmail. And I think his public acknowledgement of the error proves that the risk was completely hypothetical vice real.

    Had Clinton done the same, he’d have been deserving of a pass as well. However, Clinton didn’t; he elected to committed perjury instead, an offense which attacks the very underpinnings of the US justice system that as Chief Executive he was responsible for adminstering. Further, he continued to publicly lie about the matter until confronted with forensic evidence to the contrary. Therein lies the difference: Clinton willfully converted a private, minor matter into a major and public one through additional misconduct.

    The common-sense test I apply is this: had Petraeus not been married, would his conduct still have warranted his removal? If so, then the misconduct was indeed serious and a matter of public concern; if not, it was a private matter that should have been between him, his wife, and the Deity.

    Had Petraeus been single, what he is alleged to have done would hardly have raised an eyebrow – it simply did not significantly impact his performance of duties. Therefore, it is not a matter of public import, and the “great brouhaha” being raised over same is BS.

    We collectively need to remember that we elect/appoint leaders to do a particular job – but that they are also fallible human beings. And the job they are elected/appointed to do is rarely to serve as our Pastor.

  26. COB6 says:

    I agree with Streetsweeper:

    “I’m not buying one iota of the story. It stinks to high heaven and its doubtful anything ringing of the truth will come close to surfacing.”

    The administration says that the POTUS knew nothing until Wednesday night but Eric Cantor knew in October?

    Either we are being lied too (again) or somebody other than the President is running the show.

    Think about it. If one of your primary Cabinet members was totally compromised and someone kept that information from you; you would fire them……..if you could.

  27. DaveO says:

    #26: Hondo – key phrase “had he been single.” But he wasn’t.

    As it is, Petraeus will do us a favor by not getting the ‘Different Spanks for Different Ranks’ treatment. When General Byrnes defied the CSA and continued his affair, he was removed and allowed to retire. When (now) Lieutenent Colonel (US Army, Retired)(drawing $40K in retirement pay) Johnson was found to have married the daughter of his #1 Iraqi contractor, he was removed and permitted to retire.

    #22 Ex-PH2: no. I have requested enlightenment. Care to share or do I have to clean my own clock?

  28. Ex-PH2 says:

    @COB6, my guess is that “someone” else is running the show.

    @DaveO, then I apologize for saying you’re not real bright, but if you can’t tell when someone is pulling a fast one on you, then you need to learn. As General Moff Tarkin said to Princess Leia, you’re far too trusting.

  29. Hondo says:

    Actually, DaveO – IMO you missed the key phrase. The key phrase is “had Petraeus not been married, would his conduct still have warranted his removal?” If yes, then it’s properly a public matter and a firing offense. If not, then it’s a private matter that is irrelevant.

    IMO Byrnes also got a raw deal; as best as I could ever determine, his private conduct did not affect his performance of duty one iota.

    And using Johnson as an example? Gimme a break. Johnson’s misconduct was hardly private nor of the same type. Johnson plead guilty to committing fraud. By definition, fraud is a public matter; for that, Johnson should have been burned. His affair was a peripheral issue.

    Members of the clergy don’t usually make particularly good GOs/FOs/senior government officials. The skills and temperament required for the Clergy are simply not the same as those for high military/political leadership.

  30. RunPatRun says:

    I blame it all on Broadwell…or Bush.

    Want to see the emails, too bad it was personal email, don’t think those can be FOIA’d. /sarc

    I’m sorta with Hondo on this. Petraeus definitely screwed up, and I understand we hold our leaders to a high moral standard. Still, when busted he didn’t try the Weiner account hacked BS, no excuses, just admitted it and resigned. It’s a shame, he is smart and I think we’re losing pretty decent asset with him out of the picture.

    I wish we could get honesty and transparency out of the White House.

  31. Ex-PH2 says:

    @31, keep dreaming.

  32. DaveO says:

    #30 Hondo: Adultery is very well defined in UCMJ. Whether one is separated and living with the next spouse, as in Byrnes’s case, or as with Petraeus not divorced/not separated. There are some hints that Petraeus may have committed the crime (yes, crime) while on active duty.

    It’s black and white, not 50 Shades of Grey.

    As it stands, perhaps we should abandon the Judeo-Christian morality and ethics that defines our martial conduct and use that of the Atheist Church or whatever is popular in Hollywood these days.

    #29 Ex-PH2: thank you. I still don’t know of whom the pronoun “he” refers.

  33. Hondo says:

    DaveO: that is true. It’s also highly questionable as to whether prosecution of anyone for adultery is a good idea in cases that do not involve fraternization, coercion, subordinates, or otherwise have a direct impact the individual’s unit or the performance of official duties.

    In any case, news reports I heard about 2 hours ago also indicate that the UCMJ is virtually certainly irrelevant regarding Petraeus’ case. Per that report his alleged affair with Broadwell seems to have started approximately 2 months after he began his duties as CIA Director. He was not sworn in as CIA Director until a week after his retirement from active duty on 31 August 2011.

  34. DaveO says:

    #34 Hondo: thank you – don’t believe the Army is up for another sex scandal with SinclairFest going on.

  35. BlackSilver says:

    Eisenhower was banging his driver. Kennedy was banging Marilyn Monroe. Clinton got blow jobs in the White House. Who gives a rats ass if Petreaus was getting some strange stuff on the side?

    As a matter of fact, who cares if ANYONE is getting laid away from the tent, so long as they’re good at what we pay them to do?

  36. WigWam says:

    All I see is excuses, excuses, and more excuses from the White House again. Do we not hold up our great military leaders on higher moral standards? Or do we just turn a blind eye because it hurts the integrity of the military?

    Shinseki tells the Congress the hard truth of the real cost of the Iraq War and gets the boot while Petraeus gets praised? The surge in Iraq wasn’t some novel idea exclusively held by Petraeus, it was a plan that should’ve been implemented years ago. Think of all the American lives that could’ve been saved if we had some politicians that didn’t have their heads up their asses and some generals who would’ve followed Shinseki’s brave example and pressed for more troops early on. Then we have McChrystal who gets the boot again for speaking the truth about Afghanistan.

    If you aren’t loyal to your own family, how can we expect you to be loyal to the Country? Adultery is an act of deceit and dishonesty. It shows a Man with no integrity and has little regard for any values. Yet Petraeus gets praised by the Obama administration as if he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. We call him a hero and put him on the same level as all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Madness

  37. Just saw this at GP: Paula Broadwell Leaked Info on Benghazi Prison – Says Petraeus Knew of Benghazi Plea For Help (Video)

    Military expert and author Paula Broadwell spoke to an audience at Denver University in October. She told the audience that the US was holding militia prisoners at the consulate annex in Benghazi. She also said Petraeus knew of the pleas for help coming from Benghazi on 9-11.

    Broadwell’s entire speech is here.

    Israel National News reported:

    Military expert Paula Broadwell, who was allegedly improperly involved with resigned CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, confirmed in October that the CIA annex in Benghazi asked for reinforcements when the consulate came under attack on September 11. She also acknowledged that “there was a failure in the system.”

    Broadwell was speaking at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on October 26. Her lecture, which is on YouTube under the title “Alumni Symposium 2012 Paula Broadwell,” now has added value, because based on the recent disclosures, it can now be assumed that she indeed knew exactly what it was that Petraeus knew about the attack.

    Broadwell confirmed the reports on Fox News that the CIA annex asked for a special unit, the Commander in Chief’s In Extremis Force, to come and assist it. She also said that the force could indeed have reinforced the consulate, and that Petraeus knew all of this, but was not allowed to talk to the press because of his position in the CIA.

    “The challenge has been the fog of war, and the greater challenge is that it’s political hunting season, and so this whole thing has been turned into a very political sort of arena, if you will,” she said. “The fact that came out today is that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements.

    “They were requesting the – it’s called the C-in-C’s In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex. Now, I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this but the CIA annex had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the consulate was an attempt to get these prisoners back. It’s still being vetted.

    “The challenging thing for Gen. Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this – they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in Libya, within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.”

  38. Anonymous says:

    @33..its actually not that black and white from a UCMJ perspective. As Hondo alludes to, commanders are actually given guidance about all of the caveats to the adultery charge and additional circumstances (whether the person is separated, whether it involves someone in the chain, etc) that they must consider when deciding whether to prefer charges or what type of punishment should be recommended. Moreover, you have to have proof that a sexual relationship occured. Its not like a divorce proceeding where all that must be proved is opportunity and inclination. As one JAG once told me, short of a confession, a witness or actual pictures of people involved in an overt sexual act, adultery is a very difficult charge to prove at courts martial and its and almost never worth the time and energy unless there are concurrent charges of fraternization or the like.

    That having been said, I am curious what the disciplinary action will be for LTC Broadwell, USAR. Putting aside the adultery, her harassing emails to this other woman seems to me to be worthy of sanction. When your little daliance and crazy emails help to bring down the CIA director (not excusing his part in this) then it seems like you should, at the very least, be forced out of the uniform rather than just allowed to be sitting pretty, raking in the profits from books whose basis are your “unprecedented access” to the now former CIA director.

    Let this be a lesson gentlemen…if you are going to mess around and want to not get caught, try not to pick a crazy one.

  39. Twist says:

    @39, In 19 years I have only seen one person get nailed for adultry. The only reason he got caught was the dummy videotaped it and the person being cheated on found it and turned it in to the MPs.

  40. Ex-PH2 says:

    You guys are still yakking about this? Well, I still remember the loud and uncouth noises about Christine Keeler, a high-class “party girl” (call girl) with Harold Profumo:

    The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary of State for War. His affair with Christine Keeler, the reputed mistress of an alleged Soviet spy, followed by lying in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it, forced the resignation of Profumo and damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.
    In the early 1960s, Profumo was the Secretary of State for War in Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government and was married to actress Valerie Hobson. In 1961, Profumo met Christine Keeler, a London good-time girl or hetaera or according to the newspapers call girl, at a house party at Cliveden, the Buckinghamshire mansion owned by Lord Astor. Many years later Profumo would claim, in discussion with his son, David, that he had met Keeler previously at a night club in London called Murray’s and “probably had a drink with her.” Also present at the Cliveden party were Profumo’s wife and the fashionable osteopath and party arranger for the aristocracy, Dr Stephen Ward, a long-standing acquaintance of Keeler. The relationship with Keeler lasted only a few weeks before Profumo ended it. However, rumours about the affair became public in 1962, as did the allegation that Keeler had also had a relationship with Yevgeny “Eugene” Ivanov, a senior naval attaché at the Soviet embassy in London. Given Profumo’s position in the government and with the Cold War at its height, the potential ramifications in terms of national security were grave, and this, along with the adulterous nature of Profumo’s relationship with Keeler, quickly elevated the affair into a public scandal.

    In March 1963, Profumo stated to the House of Commons that there was “no impropriety whatsoever” in his relationship with Keeler and that he would issue writs for libel and slander if the allegations were repeated outside the House. (Within the House, such allegations are protected by Parliamentary privilege.) However, in June, Profumo confessed that he had misled the House and lied in his testimony and on 5 June, he resigned his Cabinet position, as well as his Privy Council and Parliamentary membership.

    Peter Wright, in his autobiography Spycatcher, relates that he was working at the British counter-intelligence agency MI5 at the time and was assigned to question Keeler on security matters. He conducted a fairly lengthy interview and found Keeler to be poorly educated and not well informed on current events, very much the “party girl” described in the press at the time. However, in the course of questioning her, the subject of nuclear missiles came up, and Keeler, on her own, used the term “nuclear payload” in relation to the missiles. This alerted Wright’s suspicions. According to Wright, in the very early 1960s in Britain, the term “nuclear payload” was not in general use by the public, and even among those who kept up with such things, the term was not commonly heard. For a young woman with such limited knowledge to casually use the term was more than suspicious. In fact, Wright came away convinced that at the very least there had been an attempt by the Soviet attaché (perhaps through Stephen Ward) to use Keeler to get classified information from Profumo. — source Wiki.

    Note the term “nuclear payload”, something that was not in common use by the publice in the 1960s. The difference between the Profumo affair and this one is, so far, rather wide. There is nothing so far that says that Broadwell was after anything more than info about Petraeus’s history, possibly a more permanent relationship, and the affair between her and Petraeus began AFTER he became the CIA director. If she was, in fact, after classified information for any reason, one would have to wonder why. It’s hardly a subject that can be published without prior approval and anything that she did publish about classified material could reward her with an univited visit from the FBI.

    Now, where do I get that silly notion? When Tom Clancy wrote “The Hunt For Red October”, he based it on a news item about the sinking of a Soviet sub in the Atlantic Ocean. His description of the caterpillar drive (which NHSparky has already said elsewhere is unlikely to work) was so realistic that the FBI paid him a visit and asked him where he got his information. They found it hard to believe that he made it up out of whole cloth, but that is what writers do.

    Furthermore, the Denver Post reports that Broadwell was sending harassing e-mails to a woman in Florida:
    “The military official who identified Mrs. Kelley spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation. He said Kelley had received harassing emails from Broadwell, which led the FBI to examine her email account and eventually discover her relationship with Petraeus. The FBI contacted Petraeus and other intelligence officials, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper asked Petraeus to resign.”

    Here’s the link to that article:
    Read more: Friend: Petraeus began affair after taking CIA job – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/latin/ci_21979595/info-emerges-about-2nd-woman-petraeus-case#ixzz2C1G8ajDp

    Unlike the Profumo affair, which took place during the Cold War and involved a very real possibility of intelligence leaks, this business looks more and more like an overweeningly ambitious woman who also has a jealous streak (hence the harassment of Mrs. Kelley) and may have a control freak streak in her personality. That she put Petraeus in a compromised position is indisputable. And Mrs. P. is quite pissed off, too, in case you wanted to know.

    Do any of you actually know who started this affair? No, you don’t, and neither do I. My suspicions land on Broadwell as the instigator. If Mrs. Kelly had not complained to the FBI about the e-mail harassment, this might never have come to light until much later. I believe there is FAR more to come out of this in the end.

    So all this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over feeling that Petraeus betrayed (some of) you is energy that could be better spent elsewhere, like on your families and getting ready for Thanksgiving.

  41. valerie says:

    If the story in today’s Union-Tribune is true, both Petraeus and his affair partner fessed up when asked. That’s all a security clearance requires. Technically, there was no reason for him to resign.

    Now I’m thinking he must have resigned for other reasons, which could be anything, including input from his wife.

  42. Ex-PH2 says:

    DURN!! It’s not enough caffeine.

    It’s JOHN Profumo, NOT Harold. Harold was PM Wilson’s first name. Sorry!

  43. OWB says:

    @ #42 And that is precisely why some of us opined that there is much more to this than what we see on the surface. The potential for blackmail only exists if someone is trying to hide something. Information which is public knowledge, not really subject to that.

    (Which coincidentally is why some of us wondered what the big deal was with whats her name, the “operative” who everyone in DC already knew was some low level “spy,” but when “outed” became a contrived big deal.)

  44. Ex-PH2 says:

    From NBC News this morning:

    Lawmakers question the timing not just because the news was delivered so soon after the elections, but because Petraeus was scheduled to testify Thursday about the attacks on the Benghazi, Libya consulate that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

    Those lawmakers argue that Petraeus is the key to receiving answers about the attacks.

    A senior law enforcement official tells NBC News that the investigation was “overseen carefully.”

    Here’s the link to the full story:

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15090315-fbi-agents-call-didnt-affect-petraeus-broadwell-probe-official-tells-nbc-news?lite

    As I recall, there was an article on Petraeus’s angry retort to the White House’s comment that there was no request for help. That report appeared around the same time as the news about RADM Gauoette and the AFRICOM CO being recalled early.

    I do not believe in coincidences. Quicksand, anyone? And I do not mean “quicksand” for Petraeus or the others, either.

  45. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    Petraeus was no longer an officer after he retired under the law….as this affair started after his retirement UCMJ is about as meaningful as Obama’s promises.

    It’s certainly not an example of good judgment, but unlike his civilian counterparts he does seem to be paying a price for taking responsibility.

    After all Janet Reno’s folks tried to serve a warrant to one guy and got a little over 80 people killed in the process, she kept her job. Bill Clinton took a little adultery to the white house and then lied to the entire nation about it, he kept his job. Eric Holder’s band of idiots gave weapons to criminals who killed a federal agent with those weapons, no has lost their job in that event….Tim Geitner forgets to pay taxes for a few years, he keeps his job as the guy in charge of the department charged with keeping track of our money…shall I go on? Civilians in government clearly pay a different penalty than military personnel, Petraeus is a civilian now. Petraeus is paying his penalty….it’s more than other civilians have paid. He should resign, but so should all these other 4ssholes and they didn’t or won’t….

  46. Hondo says:

    Plame? “Outed”? That’s a laugh, OWB. She was a head-turning-attractive blonde working openly at CIA HQ in DC at the time that brouhaha became public. And there’s also substantial evidence that she was “outed” by her own husband at DC-area cocktail parties long before the first news story was ever published.

    “Outed” my ass. It’s hard to “out” someone who’s working openly at an IC agency HQ.

  47. UpNorth says:

    Well, if the Pres didn’t find out until a couple of days after the election, it’s just another reason to fire Holder. Does anyone believe that the Feeb’s didn’t kick it up the line when they found out what was going on? The Director knew, and if he didn’t tell Holder immediately, he should be fired. But, more than likely, they both knew, and so did Baracka.

  48. DefendUSA says:

    Again, all this hype is to detract from Obama telling the truth. You’ll remember that the left said what Billy Jeff did in private, in the very public Oval Office Blow Job incident…was no one else’s business. And for those left thinking idiots…he was impeached because he lied and got caught-blow jobs notwithstanding.
    Now, we have to give a rat’s ass about Former General David Petraeus’ tools and where they were? Uh, nope, sorry. Unless Petraeus was THE lone person that was going to save four lives and his pants were down in a porking fest…NO. NO. NO. IT does not fucking matter. Obama is hiding the Buck behind anything that will distract from the truth. David Petraeus is not infallible, and nor does that make him less of a leader. Does it make him a shitty husband, yep. Father? Yep. But I won’t stand for the fucking bullshit of all of this and what it really means. More Obama toilet flushing because only other peoples shit stinks, not his. What goes around is coming around. Just wait.

  49. Anonymous says:

    @47: That may be the case, but our enemies don’t chart every person working openly at Langley and anyone she had worked with (under cover) in overseas posts would still be immediately under suspicion once she was ‘outed’.

    In other words, a LOT more people learned who she was than did before, and that could endanger operations and assets in the field. Is it as bad as a blown (active) UC? No, of course not. But it’s also not ‘nothing’.

  50. Hondo says:

    Anonymous (50): I’m guessing our enemies chart more people working there than you might think. But I could easily be wrong.

    Leaving aside the implausibility of someone working openly at CIA HQ and commuting there daily having a valid claim to “covert” status, I agree with you in theory. So please, by all means go talk to Plame’s husband Joe Wilson.

    Wilson apparently told Armitage (and many others) that Plame worked for the CIA weeks before Novak published his article in July 2003. That’s what blew Plame’s cover – not Novak or Armitage.

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

Leave a Reply

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