Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile


OT: Patraeus confusion

Posted by Dubguy 
OT: Patraeus confusion
November 13, 2012 03:11PM
OKay, can someone explain to me what exactly is the "scandal" here? I mean, I get that cheating on your wife is a bad thing (if in fact he was, I'm not exactly sure what an "e-mail affair" means), but why is it costing the director of CIA his job? And now this has spread to Gen John Allen? More inappropriate e-mails? Inappropriate how? No security breaches have been found so far (that we know of), it really sounds like they are making a bunch of assumptions, and the best they can come up with is that POSSIBLY someone had access to Patraeus' "private" schedule. Are you F**ing kidding me? What the hell are they "probing" for in the first place? What crimes have been committed?

How can this be getting reported on all the major news outlets without anyone actually explaining the situation beyond a bunch of keywords (scandal, resignation, affair, information, probe)? It's like all of the sudden the news has turned into "reality television".

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this must have something to do with the Benghazi issue, but seeing as how he can still be subpoenaed I don't see how.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 13, 2012 03:28PM
Not that I think these guys are doing anything worthwhile in the war zone, peacetime activities are another thing.
That being said it is the height of absurdity that men can shoot and kill and maim and murder even women and children and yet what is illegal???
sex with a woman under your desk brings down the command. We are netiher a Christian nor a moral nation so when we pretend to be moral when it comes to sex is a farce and glaring hypocrisy to say the least. But peep what brought it down wasn't the affair, it was the jealousy of the mistress(Paula Broadwell) toward a military family socialite, Jill Kelley, who is way hotter than her.........lets compare

here is Petraeus' wife Holly on the left and Jill Kelley(hot) on the right with her hub in the middle....

and here's the general Gomer Pyle with mistress Paula Broadwell.

not hard to follow the chain of desire in this one...
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 13, 2012 04:21PM
her name is Paula Broadchest.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 13, 2012 05:10PM
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 01:56AM
"OKay, can someone explain to me what exactly is the "scandal" here? "

i think it should only be job losing serious if they find out if there was any pillow talk about classified stuff.
beyond that it's just bad morals, but i think the army has a regulation about it.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 04:21AM
I'm learning new vocab terms the more I read about this case. "Unpaid social liason" is one of them.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 01:12PM
President Bill Clinton kept his job? Hmm...confused smiley
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 02:37PM
Bill Clinton's approval rating increased after his impeachment.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 04:46PM

i think the army has a regulation about it.

YES, the military code has a regulation forbidding alduterous relationships by people on active military duty. But, it appears that this would have no application to Patraeus because the affair did not begin until after he resigned the military in order to become head of the CIA.

As for President Clinton, I don't believe the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to the commander in chief. I also don't believe he "had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 05:07PM
I also don't believe he "had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

C'mon Son
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 05:44PM
this to me is a no brainer on several levels. First you get fired because you are keeping secrects. Yes you deal in secrects and deceipt but you do it for the US. When you do it for yourself, while this makes you a human being, you can no longer be in charge. Eveyone deserves a second chance, just not to run the CIA

Second, this obviously has nothing to do with having an affair with a woman. This has everything to do with the CIA and the FBI going at each other.

PS Patreus is testifying tomorrow.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 07:21PM
I have managed to sift through this mess enough to learn that on Oct 26, Broadwell may have spilled some classified info during a speech/interview: EXCLUSIVE: Petraeus mistress may have revealed classified information at Denver speech on real reason for Libya attack. There is also some concern from Congress that they were lied to when Patraeus gave his testimony regarding the incident (possibly to protect unauthorized CIA activities), and that is what the probe is about.

Sad that it takes so long to print a real explanation, and even worse that it comes from Fauxnews. Journalism has sunk to a new low.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 07:56PM

Please consider these tidbits of information:

1 As has been stated numerous times in the news, there is no evidence that General Petraeus disclosed classified information. If he told her about what is reported, and if that constitutes 'classified information', then I suspect they would be investigating General Petraeus.

2 The 'affair' was ended this summer. I'm no expert in 'pillow talk' but suspect that the issue of whether or not the CIA had an annex in Benghazi that was holding Libyan militia members as prisoner is probably not something that would have come up in their 'pillow talk' prior to the attack on September 11th.

So, I am skeptical regardless of the source of that article. I also recall Obama asking him not to resign when he first met with Petraeus and suspect that, had he 'classified information' been revealed, he would not have asked Petraeus not to resign.....
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 08:22PM
Citing “poor judgment,” Petraeus admitted to the affair -- apparently while he served as head of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The position, like that the CIA, afforded him top secret security clearance.

An extramarital relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 08:28PM
I hear you Daniel, it just amazes me that there can be such a media frenzy over this. It definitely seems as if all of the major news outlets are taking a Perez Hilton/National Enquirer approach to this whole thing, and making a huge mountain out of a mole hill. Is this really something the FBI needs to be investigating? Don't they have real issues to be dealing with?
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 08:42PM

Is this really something the FBI needs to be investigating?

Well, IF the head of the CIA is disclosing 'classified information' to a women he is having an affair with then, YES, I would say it's something that needs to be investigated (and prosecuted). Apparently, their investigation has (to date) come up with no discolsures but they would never know what he told her without such an investigation.....
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 14, 2012 10:34PM
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 15, 2012 05:03AM
Nation Horrified To Learn About War In Afghanistan While Reading Up On Petraeus Sex Scandal

WASHINGTON—As they scoured the Internet for more juicy details about former CIA director David Petraeus’ affair with biographer Paula Broadwell, Americans were reportedly horrified today upon learning that a protracted, bloody war involving U.S. forces is currently raging in the nation of Afghanistan. “Oh my God, this is terrible,” Allie Lipscomb, 29, said after accidentally stumbling on an article about the war while she tried to ascertain details about what specific sexual acts Petraeus and Broadwell might have engaged in. “According to this, 2,000 American troops have died, 18,000 have been wounded, and more than 20,000 civilians have been killed. Jesus Christ. And it’s been happening for, like, 11 years.” Sources confirmed that after reading a few paragraphs about the brutal war, the nation quickly became distracted by a headline about Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash’s alleged sexual abuse of a 16-year-old boy. -the Onion wire-
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 15, 2012 06:08PM
Ouch - the Onion is painfully on mark sometimes - haha.

I just wonder why they were investigating at all? Something must've triggered a probe, and I don't think suspicion of an affair warrants one. Were they just digging for (Benghazi) trouble? At Congress' behest? Some pieces are still missing from the puzzle.

This article is good food for thought: What the Petraeus scandal says about digital spying and your e-mail

The first sentence is a doosie: 'Here's a thought that might make even the most conscientious e-mail user nervous: "When the CIA director cannot hide his activities online, what hope is there for the rest of us?"'
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 15, 2012 06:36PM
the FBI and CIA are literally competitors who work for the same "dude". This is how 9/11 happened in the first place. No one is talking, everyone has a piece of the puzzle and it is "their turf". To me there is NO WAY this happens if not for this distinct difference is the two cultures.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 15, 2012 06:46PM
I guess CNN assumes we are all as foolish as Mr. Petraeus. Who would be more likely to have their emails monitored? I would say the example for the rest of us is that infidelity or lack of control of the libido makes people sloppy. If we expect that the director of the CIA to be able to keep secrets then he failed miserably. Why would he be so stupid to assume he has or deserves privacy? Maybe his Ego made him feel he was above surveillance? And seriously? The joint e-mail trick? Wasn't that on the TV show "Sleeper Cell" 7 years ago? It seems like the people running things are not tech savvy at all. If you are really paranoid about your communications I suggest doing a little research on encryption and TRUE random number generation.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 15, 2012 06:51PM
The FBI was notified by the Socialite (Jill Whatzhername) that she was receiving harassing anonymous e-mails. The FBI investigated and found the were being sent by the Biographer (Paula Whatzhername). During the investigation, the FBI uncovered the e-mail traffic between the Biographer and General Betray-Us. That is how the affair was uncovered.

The reason that this is a problem for the CIA director is that, in the world of espionage, one of the ways to 'turn' a source of classified information is to put the source into a morally compromising position (ie an affair), then blackmail the source with exposure to get the source to do your bidding. This is referred to as a 'honey trap'. That is why this is a scandal.

If Betray-Us was a private citizen, this would be no biggie.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2012 08:01PM by Walter.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 15, 2012 07:12PM
Also, in the post-9/11 era you must assume that that EVERYTHING you type into a computer that goes to the internet flows through the NSA's supercomputers for analysis. Everytime you make a cell phone call, that call is subject to the same sort of analysis. The so-called Patriot Act enables this...
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 15, 2012 08:32PM
Thanks for the breakdown Walter, it helps, however if the FBI opens a case every time a "socialite" receives harassing e-mail, they will never get any real work done. Also, why does information related to an open federal case suddenly appear in the media and lead to at least one high level resignation? Since when are details in an impending federal investigation handed over to the media? I say ulterior motives are at work, there are just too many weird things going on with this.

"While investigating so-and-so over something completely unrelated, we discovered that Mr. well-known-government-official was having an extra-marital affair. While not illegal per se, we thought it best to inform the general public immediately in order to ruin his career, and drag his personal life into the public arena."
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 15, 2012 09:59PM
there is good reason to believe everything happens for a reason. the fall of the worlds so-called most 'powerful' men to 5th grade sexual overtures is fascinating i think to most in the general public. nothing like bringing the playing field level and clearing out the old guard while your at it.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 16, 2012 12:48AM
@ Johnny Law
There is a good reason it's important to not have an affair (outside of the normal reasons) as someone who has access to classified info. If I wanted info, I could send an attractive female to have an affair with "John Smith XYZ official" and then extort you for info by threatening to expose the relationship to your wife.
Re: OT: Patraeus confusion
November 17, 2012 06:19PM
OKay, can someone explain to me what exactly is the "scandal" here?

OK, read the following, this is a classic SCANDAL, this is the pure definition of the word "scandal".

By Mary McNamara, Los Angeles Times Television Critic

November 17, 2012, 8:49 a.m.

It's "Homeland" meets "The Real Housewives" — and it's hands down the best serialized show on TV.

It's "Dallas" in military drag, in which a ridiculously retro social order (who knew that "socialites" and "hostesses" even existed anymore, never mind in Tampa) slams into the high-tech world of cyberstalking — only to reveal a story as old as the written word: The Case of the Compromising Love Letter.

Honestly, when will cheating couples finally learn to keep their declarations of passion out of anything that could conceivably be stolen by a lady's maid, discovered by a suspicious spouse or unearthed by a cyber sleuth? Never, one hopes, or much of the world's great literature, not to mention detective fiction, would collapse.

Stripped to its essentials, the Petraeus affair is a familiar enough narrative: Married man in power falls for a wide-eyed, admiring acolyte to the detriment of career, family and reputation. Happens all the time, or at least every six months or so — Clinton, Edwards, Sanford, Schwarzenegger, just to name a few. But it's the brushwork that makes the masterpiece, and the details of the Petraeus scandal transfix the eye each and every time a new one is revealed.

First there's the man himself, square-jawed, yes, but not terribly handsome, with those protruding ears and that receding hairline, still radiating competence nonetheless and more than that, a Middle American super-dad decency that almost belies his four-star status. Then there's Paula Broadwell, the Harvard-educated biographer whose book was so unapologetically gushing that Jon Stewart, interviewing her before the scandal broke, asked her if David H. Petraeus was "awesome or incredibly awesome."

And, oh, the shivery meta-media pleasure of watching Stewart now review those softball questions knowing what we/he knows now, or finding the whole original extended-version episode in which Broadwell banters with her cuckolded husband as they do his and her sets of push-ups for charity.

Still, if the narrative had been confined to Petraeus and Broadwell, even with his universally beloved status and his resignation mere days after a contentious election, the nation might simply have shared a raised-eyebrow pause and moved on.

But then we met Honorary Counsel Jill Kelley and there was no turning back.

It's one thing for the head of the CIA to have an affair, even with a woman crazy enough to send anonymous emails to someone she perceives to be a rival; it's another to learn that powerful generals regularly hang out with a woman who looks like she could go six rounds with NeNe Leakes. It was Kelley and her strange nexus of irritation and influence that lifted the Petraeus scandal out of the ho-hum arrogance/stupidity of men who think they will never get caught and the women who love them.

Reading descriptions of Kelley's champagne and caviar parties, her Gasparilla Pirate Fest parties and sky diving with the troops, it is difficult not to envision a Lebanese American version of Joan Collins in "Dynasty" or perhaps Madeleine Stowe in "Revenge," the grasping, scheming lovely who everyone instantly sees through, except whichever schmuck she happens to be making a play for at the time.

Who, in this case, appears to have included some of the military's top male brass — trained intelligence officers who supposedly are able to spot a potential terrorist across a crowded room but who, apparently, don't know a nakedly ambitious social climber when they're posin' for pictures with her.

This is why we cannot get enough of the Petraeus story: It has something for everyone. A fallen hero, a troubled smart girl, a cast of characters who seem destined for the Bravo or Lifetime. (What am I bid on the potential for Jill Kelley announcing a reality project in the near future? She has an identical twin for heaven's sake!)

But it's more than the story's multiple narrative touchstones that compel us. There is something heartbreaking about it being Petraeus, who, unlike Clinton or Edwards or our former governor, has not cultivated a noticeable sexual swagger or a million-dollar smile.

So he must have, we imagine, simply fallen in love. And for all our carefully nurtured cynicism, our tales of the sexting and hook-up generation, we remain a nation in love with love, particularly forbidden love.

Our books, our films, our television series steer us again and again to the thundering, fatal majesty of a love that makes all other concerns — jobs, friends, the respect of peers — superfluous.

It's no accident that two of the winter's biggest films are the final "Twilight" and "Anna Karenina," in which, spoiler alert, people actually die for love.

In real life, similar choices often lead to climaxes far less romantic, denouements much bleaker, like the grimy napkin-littered space of a trendy dance club in the unforgiving light of midmorning. Petraeus reminds us, once again, that the choices we make, even when seeking the magic of the moment, have consequences.

And in a country with laws and mores still beholden to our Puritan founders, the only thing we like better than a good, juicy, twisty love story is a good, juicy, twisty love story with a moral at the end.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login