Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
And now another General.........

Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 13, 12 at 7:43

Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

The FBI has uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 documents - most of them e-mails - of "potentially inappropriate" communications between Allen and Jill Kelley, a 37-year-old Tampa woman whose close relationship with Petraeus ultimately led to his downfall.

Here is a link that might be useful: Allen


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: And now another General.........

What a flippin' mess....what is it with some smart, powerful men? I really believe it's a power thing not in the sense of control but in the sense of seeing themselves as indestructible.

Or is it just the being so far from home, lonely, vulnerable thing...like Hotlips and the Major ;)


 o
RE: And now another General.........

It's the power. They see themselves as indestuctible and untouchable. Same with elite athletes (Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant,...).


 o
RE: And now another General.........

This is the fifth general, too. The head of Africa command is under investigation, and Afghanistan just eats them up.

I keep telling my SIL, the major, that there's an opening for good people at the general level!! And he's good people.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

It's a two way street. The General has power, the woman seeks to be a partner in it, especially when the men are great leaders.

I haven't forgotten what Elly confessed. If she were in Monica's shoes, she and her other women friends would have done the same thing with Bill Clinton.

It's very easy for a woman close to a man with power to succumb to sexual desires, and men will do the same exact thing. It's happening somewhere, right now.

It's a two way street.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Brush I absolutely agree that it is a two way street although I think that oft times the women are not "equals" in terms of "power". Especially with athletes and especially when powerful /influential men turn to prostitutes.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

I'm not sure about that, jill and chase.

The most powerful men in the world right down to the part time fast food worker cheat on their wives. This is just a human failing, the biological desire to find multiple mates overrides their sense of decency and fairness to their wives.

And yes, they turn from smart men into drooling idiots when the little brain takes over and the big brain shuts off. Even so far as to leave incriminating evidence or spill state secrets.

It's just that when the fast food worker cheats, it doesn't make headlines around the world.

If people are shocked that a couple of generals have cheated on their wives... they'd probably keel over if we knew exactly how many military men have have ever slept around on their wives/girlfriends.

I'm not a fan of delving into the bedroom activities of other people... even if they are rich or powerful. If there is a worry about blackmail, then the wife and family should be fully briefed to remove the threat of blackmail... not broadcast for all the public to see. It's a family matter.

And if the man is capable of doing the job, there is no reason for him to have to resign once the whole world knows about his affair and the potential for blackmail is gone.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

HG, Although I didn't express it explicitly my thoughts were specifically about smart, powerful men..... not men in general.

Yes men and women cheat all the time...nothing new in that. What amazes me is when some with much to loose take careless risks with their careers and their marriages. The consequences to someone like Tiger and Clinton are much greater than the fast food guy...and they know it yet they take those risks.

Anyhow it amazes me....


 o
RE: And now another General.........

The risk for the powerful is not as great as you make it sound.

They are only risking judgement and reputation, not their wealth and past accomplishments.

Bill Clinton was Obama's Soldier during the campaign. Nobody cared about his "weakness" during the campaign. Did you? Be honest.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Bill Clinton was a good example of how everyone is so interested in his sex life.

What happened with Clinton was a private matter to be dealt with by Bill and Hillary, within their family and marriage...and should NOT have been dragged through the public eye.

That said, most people desperately want to know what happens in the bedrooms of other people... even feel it's their RIGHT to know.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

"The consequences to someone like Tiger and Clinton are much greater than the fast food guy...and they know it yet they take those risks."

two assumptions seem to be made here:

1. Power is higher on some desirable list than other traits.
2. One knows what is and isn't important to the fast food guy's partner.

I take exception to both because you are applying your standards to a pretty vast group.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Did Bill Clinton's fling with Monica compromise any sensitive information? I don't recall anyone talking about that.

This scandal involves sharing of sensitive information which is a great deal more serious ... and worthy of resignation if true.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

This scandal involves sharing of sensitive information which is a great deal more serious ... and worthy of resignation if true.

Esh, I was talking in general (sorry about the pun)

When someone in the military... or even politicians etc... has an affair, many times they are expected to resign. If they do not, there are calls from the general public that they should resign.

But if the guy can do the job, then I don't see why he should be expected to resign because of what should be a family matter, not a public one.

Bill Clinton's affair is a good example of that.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

I agree with you, HG. It is a private matter and it really does not have anything to do with how they do their job. Unless classified information was jeapordized, then that's a different story.

I did not care that Bill cheated on Hillary. Hillary's problem not mine. I don't care that Petraeus cheated on his wife and do not understand why he had to resign because of it (unless there is more to the story than we know).

And, you're right that it's more than just the rich and powerful that do it. I just think they have a different attitude about how they can't be hurt...that they are invincible.

Bill Clinton was Obama's Soldier during the campaign. Nobody cared about his "weakness" during the campaign. Did you? Be honest.

I did not care during the campaign and I did not care when he was President.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Is the investigation complete? Was security compromised?

Where is Private Manning? I bet he won't be sharing his jail cell with a General.

Esh, I think we're talking about overall weakness, not whether Bill got a bj in the oval office or at the post office.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

First of all, these men are military and/or intel. They are a potential security threat.

Equating them to the "fast food guy" now that's funny.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Is it wrong to want our leaders, our public servants to be of high moral character? If they'll cheat on their wives they will certainly lie to us. And of course they do. But is this what we want or just what we've come to expect, so we give them a pass? Personally, I don't like it at all. It diminishes us all in one way or another.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Well Mrs...adultery doesn't matter if it's done privately, and without risk. *smirk


 o
RE: And now another General.........

What a man/woman does in his/her private life is his/her concern. Unless the person broke the law or compromised their ability to do the job, it is not my concern.

Everybody lies. There are just different degrees of severity of the lies. I am not so naive to think differently.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

I am another that did not care about Bill Clinton's sexual life. That was Hilary's problem. The country was safe, profitable and Bin Laden did not attack on his watch.

All I expect from our leader is safety, and economics. If he does not break those two issues I am find with his leadership. I am not doing a potential husband test.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

This will end with the cook a nurse & Kevin Bacon I promises you this continued episode of the Washington Soprano's promises to be full of unexpected distractions!


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Jmc, I am sorry if that's how my post came across. That's not what I mean. However I do believe the consequences of irresponsible behavior can be much greater when the person or persons involved hold positions of public trust or national security


 o
RE: And now another General.........

The entire Clinton debacle was a gigantic farce based upon outdated ideologies. Who cares if he made a mistake in his personal life? His public job was well done. Unfortunately, I had still been a devotee of the Catholic church at the time, wrestling with a lot of inner thought and turmoil regarding religion, so I found his behavior as abhorrent as I was expected to, and in one small corner of my mind I still think he cheapened the office of President and presented a terrible role model. But still... impeachment?

I don't think private family affairs should be a basis for resignation, impeachment, or firing of decent working men and women... though, it still does say a little something about their character.

I don't expect anyone to resign over an extramarital affair.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Actually, when the "boss" is cheating on his wife and it is known to his employees/underlings/subordinates, it is very awkward for everyone around them who are usually forced to "collaborate" in the lie --pretend they don't know anything when the spouse or the public or the higher authorities are around. In that sense, it is more than simply a "private matter"--everyone around the "boss" has to participate in the "cover up" for the good of the company/institution/military unit.

I worked a couple times in situations where the boss/superior was playing around--awkward and embarassing for us employees, and I resented having to pretend nothing was going on in order to deceive their wives and superiors.

Kate


 o
RE: And now another General.........

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 13, 12 at 9:50

Did anyone stop and consider that this actually has nothing to do with sex ... that sex is just another "shiny object" dangled before the public while the real story goes unreported?

Sleight of hand...


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Very good point, Kate.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

20,000 to 30,000 emails?

Isn't that considered spam?


 o
RE: And now another General.........

If the head of the CIA can't keep a secret affair a secret, he's not very good at his job. Is he?

What's with the other General (link in another thread) having over 20,000 communications with Jill Kelley? ...and the shirtless FBI guy? Something smells.

ML


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Interesting contrast of accountability for generals between these scandals and Thomas Rick's editorial in yesterday's NYT: Questioning the Brass.

OVER the last 11 years, as we fought an unnecessary war in Iraq and an unnecessarily long one in Afghanistan, the civilian American leadership has been thoroughly -- and justly -- criticized for showing poor judgment and lacking strategies for victory. But even as those conflicts dragged on, our uniformed leaders have escaped almost any scrutiny from the public.

Our generals actually bear much of the blame for the mistakes in the wars. They especially failed to understand the conflicts they were fighting -- and then failed to adjust their strategies to the situations they faced so that they might fight more effectively.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

I'm another who thinks all of this pruient bedroom peeping is ridiculous. An affair by itself is not cause of taking someone down like Ceaser. As far as Bill's affair and the great "moral compass" emoting: When I buy stock in Coca-cola, I care how the CEO is managing the company, not if he is boffing his secretary on the side. There is a reason the President is called the Chief Executive, not the Chief Moral Arbitrator.

I was a lot angrier about 1) the waste of millions of dollars on a stupid, poltically motivated impreachment 2) thinking Bill should have had better taste in women and 3) the hypocrisy of Henry Hyde as prosecutor in the impeachment when he lied with almost exactly the same words during his divorce hearing.

In fact if given the ability to choose between them, I'd rather have Bill as president right now than Obama.

Yes I think both Bill Clinton and David Petraeus were stupid to have these affairs. But Petraeus has not been shown to have compromised security. The FBI acted appropriately as the only crime here is by Paula Broadwell for sending threatening emails to a third party.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 13, 12 at 10:18

There's a simple solution to this problem. Make all marriage against he law ;)


 o
RE: And now another General..........

Kimka wrote: "But Petraeus has not been shown to have compromised security."

Except, maybe Petraeus did compromise security. Broadwell's speech in Denver last month when she mentioned prisoners being held, is causing concern.

ML

Here is a link that might be useful: Bradwell's speech in Denver


 o
RE: And now another General.........

It seems that in a speech, Paula said some things about Benghazi that everyone is clamoring to call a lie. But was it? Did she know something that none of "us" was supposed to know? She claimed the US had prisoners in Benghazi and that was the impetus for the attack. Do you really think she made that up out of whole cloth? The powers that be want us to think so.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: And now another General.........

I get what HG is saying. Cheating happens WAY more often than people think it does. Comments like Mrsk's make it seem like it's something that only bad people do, or something that happens only in the movies. No one is out of it's ugly reach, not even the most powerful. Unfortunately, people usually don't realize this until it hits too close to home. I remember standing in line at the supermarket once, looking around me at all the stay-at-home moms and wondering how many were cheating on their husbands or being cheated in on. If it can happen to so-and-so, it can happen to anyone.

I always feel so bad for the wives. For one thing, it's such a devestating thing to go through in private, nevermind with all the attention the high profile affairs get. Secondly, the wives (whether the media intends to do this or not), seem to be portrayed as incredibly dumb for not realizing what was going on. It's like their shouting at the top of their lungs "The writing was on the wall! How could you NOT know?!".


 o
RE: And now another General.........

stephf, yes cheating happens, and any way you look at it, it is bad. It destroys families, often friendships. I thought Bill Clinton was a piece of garbage to subject his wife to that humiliation just because he couldn't keep his pants zipped. On what level is cheating ok for a married man or woman? If you want someone else, divorce is easy. You don't put your partner or your children through that kind of betrayal for a little good time. And if you are in any way in the public eye, keep it zipped. Someone is going to out you.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Yeah, having Ms. Biographer giving a speech in Denver about how the CIA had a buncha contractors "interrogating" suspects in their little sub-station outside of Benghazi. Is she nuts? Does she have a security clearance? Did General P tell her this stuff - pillow talk?

"That was great, darlin'. Now I have to go video-chat with the contractors at our interrogation center in Benghazi - email me, huh?"

Well, what this situation needs is to have our Congressmen and Congresswomen hold hours and hours of hearings, bringing in the babes-in-question, the generals, and with any luck at all, we can see the wives stoically standing beside their men.

Best of all, they can read into the congressional record all 30,000 emails from General Allen.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

It's interesting the notion that he advised all others that they are always under scrutiny & that someone is always watching. I hear this often in recovering sex addicts (if you don't like that word addict don't make an issue of it substitute something else)
A pathology that lacks a sufficient impulse control government is full of them!

Anyway Susan Rice went before the UN with talking points prepared by the CIA....(this looks like payback)
Oh geezey wheeezy now I sound like FOX except Fox's scenario leaves out Eric Cantor who knew before many other ohhhhhh!
Tune in tonight when the producers of WHAMOLAMO the energy drink for paranoids will bring you the next revelation in OMG "they know I'm sing the low price spread!"


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Cheating is a moral issue. I am not imposing my morals on someone else.

If they are breaking the law or affecting their job performance or someone else's job performance (and they are paid by taxpayers), then I have something to say.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Actually, Broadwell does have a security clearance. In addition to doing the biography of Petraeus, she said in the U of Denver interview, she is a "military reservist with a top secret/SCI clearance and then some."

And her source for three people being held in Lybia was a Fox News report. Fox said Monday that it's "original" Oct. 26 report did mention three Libyan militia members being turned over by the CIA to Libyan authorities. That detail does not appear in the version of the story now posted online, but Fox reporter Jennifer Griffin did include it in at least one report.

maddielee, there is no actual evidence so far that Petraeus committed a breach of security. And Broadwell wasn't the only one who has said that suspects were being kept there. I'm not willing to convict Petraeus of a serious crime--actually in his position it could even be considered treason--until some factual evidence is brought forward. The FBI has said they didn't find any emails indicating Pretraeus breached security.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

On what level is cheating ok for a married man or woman? If you want someone else, divorce is easy. You don't put your partner or your children through that kind of betrayal for a little good time.

Mrs, I don't think anyone is arguing that point. We are not advocating cheating.

I think what most are saying is that it is a family matter, not for public gawkers who believe they have a right to be informed and make judgements regarding infidelity in someone ELSE'S marriage. Not our business what happens in someone else's bedroom, not the government's business, and certainly not the media's business. Marital cheating, marital swinging, homosexual relationships, big orgies, even if they have been completely faithful their entire lives, whatever. Their business, not the public's. Good or bad.

That goes for military men, politicians, celebrities, right down to yes, the fast food guy at McDonalds. Don't care about his sex life either.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Exactly, HG.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Are only Americans so like little children -- amazed and unsettled to discover that their heroes have feet of clay?


 o
RE: And now another General.........

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 13, 12 at 12:00

It is a two way street, but as my SIL says, men are so easy, it just doesn't take much. And there are women drawn to powerful men, like ants to honey.

Adultery is a breach of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so all of these men can be prosecuted, demoted, etc. And so can any women involved who are in the military - like Ms. Broadwell. Her career is toast, too.

Chisue - only some Americans.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Petraeus was not in the military when the affair took place. He had retired and taken over at the CIA, which is not under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Broadwell is only in the reserves. I'm not sure how much of her conduct when not on active call up comes under Uniform Code of Military Justice either. This is why the FBI was investigating her email threats, not the Pentagon.

The affairs: Moral failings sure; between a husband and wife sure, stupid sure. But affairs as criminal behavior....not guilty yet.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

In the military, at least in the Marine Corps, for an officer to be unfaithful is an offence that results in discharge. DD's DH was in the Corps for 20 years before he retired. One time, while I was visiting her, a friend of hers, who was married to a Lt. Col. came over for something. Friend was very upset. When she left, I learned that her husband had had an affair and was being discharged. So, not only did she suffer for being cheated on, she suffered, financially, because her husband lost his job of many years. I thought it was terribly unfair as she was the innocent party. DD said that it was "conduct unbecoming an officer."

Is Patreus active military? If so, that could be the reason but I don't see how having an active military person running a civilian operation could be possible. I have never liked him and thought Obama made a big mistake in appointing him to the CIA. Looks like I was right.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 13, 12 at 12:16

Actually, there were serious questions, while he was commander in Afghanistan, about their relationship. Many felt it was inappropriate and believed they were having an affair. If so, he can be reactivated and prosecuted. Affairs are criminal behavior in the military.

She does come under the code if any of this took place while she was on orders, any time any where. And her career is toast, anyway. She's toxic.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 13, 12 at 12:17

Centcom Reality Show ... this whole thing reads like a daytime soap opera but it has accomplished one thing, we are not talking about 98 to 2.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

USIANS are sex obsessed usually with other people lives but this is a security issue & certain jobs require you be held to more extreme or just higher standards than others.
Some jobs are simple enough but require you be bonded for insurance purposes if your a previous felon you cannot be bonded.
Weaknesses/flaws are sometimes overlooked in hiring but are useful tools for firing. The general is right someone usually is watching & most can not so be clever 24/7/365 year after year!


 o
RE: And now another General.........

There is a more scandalous aspect of Petraeus' move to the CIA: the militarization of the CIA with its obscure oversight by a small number of congresscritters and largely answerable to the President, not to the people. A substantial, but unsubstantiated part of the drone war is controlled in secret by the CIA, especially in Afghanistan where the General served before being selected for the CIA leadership.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Real David Petraeus Scandal


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Mother Jones has excerpts from the "threatening e-mails" which are really more harassing than threatening. The Microscope Moves From David Petraeus to the FBI

If you connect the dots, it seems as if this whole thing [investigation] got started by a smitten [with Jill Kelley] FBI agent; would have been closed without charges; but then got reenergized by some Benghazi-fueled (?) concerns that Petraeus was covering up for Obama. Or something. In the end, Petraeus was undone by the wingnuts.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Petraeus was not undone by wingnuts, he was undone by his own.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

There is a more scandalous aspect of Petraeus' move to the CIA: the militarization of the CIA

Now THAT might is an aspect worthy of public attention and scrutiny.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Don't hold your breath, ham. This government is not interested in the public aware of the true level of bipartisanship: expanding the police state wherever the Federal government deems our national security lies.

Perpetual war, involving reduced casualties on our side, more technology applied, and much more profits to be distributed.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

If a general has time to send 20,000+ emails to a personal friend---regardless of who it is--- he is NOT doing his job. As a taxpayer, I want my money back that was paid as his salary for that time period, plus his housing allowance, his retirement contribution, and the value of health care provided at no cost.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

It's gotta be a power thing with these women. Take away their medals, and Petraeus and Allen wouldn't garner a single glance from most women.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Some women just fall for guys in uniforms, even bellhops.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Or firemen.

*drool*


 o
RE: And now another General.........

See!

Uniforms suggest levels of authoritarians attractive to the weaker sex, I suppose. [funning, running and ducking]


 o
RE: And now another General.........

My problem is not with his sex life....it's that if he was so stupid as to fool around so openly with a woman like Paula, does he have the smarts to run an agency like the CIA?

Maybe.... maybe not.

We were wondering, while she was spending all that time with him while writing the book, who paid for her expenses, food, travel, etc? Out of her own pocket or the taxpayers? And who arranged it?


 o
RE: And now another General.........

*throws keyboard at marshall*

I'm going back to imagining those firemen. This time with no shirts on, just the suspenders...


 o
RE: And now another General.........

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 13, 12 at 14:16

"This time with no shirts on, just the suspenders.."

Oh yeah (^_^)


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Oh yeah (^_^)

The good news is, it's November. Almost time to buy a new calendar.

I think I know which one I want this year...


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Uniforms suggest levels of authoritarians attractive to the weaker sex

Doesn't work for us knee-jerk anti-authoritarian females. Neither do the Wall-Street suited types.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Maybe that explains my "fascination" with the Village People...... ;)


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Doesn't work for us knee-jerk anti-authoritarian females. Neither do the Wall-Street suited types.

But they make excellent eye candy.

Disclaimer: Before anyone starts crying how I'm just viewing these poor men as a piece of meat... yes, yes, you are correct. Just pieces of ripped, toned, glistening, tanned,rock hard muscley armed meat.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Just pieces of ripped, toned, glistening, tanned,rock hard muscle armed meat.
(Not anyone I saw on TV fit that description)


 o
RE: And now another General.........

The calendar, labrea, the firemen calendar.

And I swear I only buy it every year because it's to raise money for worthy causes.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Lol, sorry to interrupt...whatever this thread has turned into, but I have a question.

Someone said further up that in the U.S. military, cheating is considered criminal and they can be discharged for it. I'm curious, what aspect of the cheating are they punishing? Is it the sex? Is it considered a distraction? Or is it the disrespect to the marriage? If there is someone in the military who is single and sleeps around like crazy and makes no secret about it, is that allowed? I'm just trying to understand the justification...


 o
RE: And now another General.........

There has been a lot of mention about power. But is it power or ego - the idea that rules of conduct are put in place for others. Most of us follow rules of good moral conduct but those with huge egos follow the rules when it suits them, bend the rules when it suits them and don't think about who gets caught in the cross fire or the ramifications of their actions. They are only thinking about themselves and their needs. Most people in high positions whether it be government, business (the Donald) or sport (Tiger), I believe are born with huge egos that give them the idea that they are better than the rest of us. Yes, they work hard but to feed what need. A sense of self-importance.

Look who Petraeus married - someone who probably gave him credibility for his rise in the military. Was Holly true love or a stepping stone.

And while feeling sorry for the spouses let's spare a thought for the husbands of Paula Broadwell and Jill Kelley and their children. They're all victims of this scandal as well.

Oh and firemen - I'm convinced that being good looking is a job requirement. (How's that for a politically incorrect statement.)


 o
RE: And now another General.........

bl, I agree with everything you said (especially the firemen comment) except one thing:

those with huge egos follow the rules when it suits them, bend the rules when it suits them and don't think about who gets caught in the cross fire or the ramifications of their actions.

While it is true to an extent, I don't believe a "cheater" is necessarily a person with a big ego. Far from it. I think more people cheat because they have the opposite problem. They feel insignificant, powerless, unconfident. The affair gives them a temporary boost of feeling good about themselves.

So again, I am back to the idea that it is not just the smart, powerful men who cheat, cheating happens to both sexes from all backgrounds, all walks of life, all religions, and all socio-economic groups.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Here's a link about the UCMJ. While adultery is not specifically spelled out, it is prosecuted under Article 134.

Article 134 simply prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline. My SIL assures me it is prosecuted, harshly, as are other behaviors, that may not be specifically illegal, do impact order and discipline.

Adultery, in the service, especially if it is committed with another service member, of equal or lesser rank, or spouse of a service member, is sexual harassment, and puts the command in jeopardy. It's like any job. If the President of the company has an affair with an employee, that's harassment and creates a hostile work environment, like this. And in the military, you are at work 24/7.

And Petraeus knew this, but he did it anyway.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: And now another General.........

It has a lot to do with impulse control & lack of boundaries. Some people are very open for sex and see so many situations in a sexual light where others wouldn't or couldn't.
They see flirting where other see a conversation they see opportunity for sexual dalliances that most others would miss. Consequently they also find themselves in deep doo doo like this every now & then!
I've seen some of the most ordinary if not homely guys walk into parties pick up someone & leave withing 15 or 20 minutes of getting there They have no inhibitions or filters & spot available partners almost instinctively. They may buckle down & try to repress this behavior but it's part of their make up & they are often surrounded with an available pool of co-respondents (sometimes it's hard to tell the knife from the wound).
A friend who used to be an executive on Wall Street told me she was never at a loss for partners & it was rarely if ever about companionship, fidelity or an of the other reasons people sometimes bond. With her it was about strength, conquest, matching wits or just plain old compulsive sexual acting out which doesn't always include the physical act of sex but often involve intrigue, fear, excitement, betrayal, shame, guilt & warped self images & self esteem issues.
People were outraged by Bill Clinton's answer of why he was with Monica. "I did it because I could" curiously enough that had a great ring of truth to me I know a minister who continually struggles with women who are as he puts it "just there" they were just there & available. No big thinking's process in fact very little thought or feeling at all.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Andrew Sullivan/The Dish of the DailyBeast.com quotes an email received from the US Naval War College prof warning of the dangerous myths generated in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"In an age in which military officers are practically above public reproach �" glorified and exalted by politicians and the media �" the repeated failures of our military leaders consistently escape analysis and inquiry. This can have serious national security implications. As Joshua Rovner, associate professor of strategy and policy, US Naval War College, said to me in an email conversation, this lack of scrutiny has had grave consequences:

'[W]e have misunderstood our recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan; we have created new myths about strategy that will persist for many years despite their manifest flaws; and we may make bad decisions about intervening in other civil wars based on these myths.'

[another knowledgeable commentator writes:]

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were more than just bad strategy; they reflected poor military tactics and generalship. Self-interested and incomplete interpretations of what happened in Iraq led to predictably disastrous results in Afghanistan. Perhaps we should spend a bit more time looking at that issue, rather who was sleeping with whom," - Michael Cohen, The Guardian.

Here is a link that might be useful: General David Petraeus's fatal flaw: not the affair, but his Afghanistan surge


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Glenn Greenwald, the very intelligent and dogged digger among the debris left by the growing police/surveillance state, has this to say in a long article:

"So not only did the FBI - again, all without any real evidence of a crime - trace the locations and identity of Broadwell and Petreaus, and read through Broadwell's emails (and possibly Petraeus'), but they also got their hands on and read through 20,000-30,000 pages of emails between Gen. Allen and Kelley.

This is a surveillance state run amok. It also highlights how any remnants of internet anonymity have been all but obliterated by the union between the state and technology companies.

But, as unwarranted and invasive as this all is, there is some sweet justice in having the stars of America's national security state destroyed by the very surveillance system which they implemented and over which they preside. As Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation put it this morning: "Who knew the key to stopping the Surveillance State was to just wait until it got so big that it ate itself?"

It is usually the case that abuses of state power become a source for concern and opposition only when they begin to subsume the elites who are responsible for those abuses. Recall how former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman - one of the most outspoken defenders of the illegal Bush National Security Agency (NSA) warrantless eavesdropping program - suddenly began sounding like an irate, life-long ACLU privacy activist when it was revealed that the NSA had eavesdropped on her private communications with a suspected Israeli agent over alleged attempts to intervene on behalf of AIPAC officials accused of espionage. Overnight, one of the Surveillance State's chief assets, the former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, transformed into a vocal privacy proponent because now it was her activities, rather than those of powerless citizens, which were invaded.

With the private, intimate activities of America's most revered military and intelligence officials being smeared all over newspapers and televisions for no good reason, perhaps similar conversions are possible. Put another way, having the career of the beloved CIA Director and the commanding general in Afghanistan instantly destroyed due to highly invasive and unwarranted electronic surveillance is almost enough to make one believe not only that there is a god, but that he is an ardent civil libertarian.

The US operates a sprawling, unaccountable Surveillance State that - in violent breach of the core guarantees of the Fourth Amendment - monitors and records virtually everything even the most law-abiding citizens do. Just to get a flavor for how pervasive it is, recall that the Washington Post, in its 2010 three-part "Top Secret America" series, reported: "Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications."

Here is a link that might be useful: FBI's abuse of the surveillance state is the real scandal needing investigation


 o
RE: And now another General.........

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 13, 12 at 18:17

But, as unwarranted and invasive as this all is, there is some sweet justice in having the stars of America's national security state destroyed by the very surveillance system which they implemented and over which they preside.

....impaled with their own sword so to speak ? I am always amazed at the people who think that they can get online and basically say things that they would never think of saying in public or in a crowded room because they think they are "anonymous". You would think the head of the CIA (the head spook) would be aware that "gmail" is not a secure server.

I agree with Maddie, the spy is not too good at his job :)


 o
RE: And now another General.........

This just gets better - apparently now CNN is reporting that the FBI agent that took the report from Jill Kelley about the e-mails from Broadwell sent her pics of himself shirtless? He might be a friend?

Real Housewives of ... and Jersey Shores have nothing on this in terms of reality TV.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Recall how former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman - one of the most outspoken defenders of the illegal Bush National Security Agency (NSA) warrantless eavesdropping program - suddenly began sounding like an irate, life-long ACLU privacy activist when it was revealed that the NSA had eavesdropped on her private communications

I do recall - and there was also speculation that Jane Harman was more cooperative with the Bush Administration's agenda once she was caught on tape. Much was made of her intervention on behalf of the agent by a Democratic challenger to her seat -- only to see Ms. Harman reelected.

...having the career of the beloved CIA Director and the commanding general in Afghanistan instantly destroyed due to highly invasive and unwarranted electronic surveillance is almost enough to make one believe not only that there is a god, but that he is an ardent civil libertarian.

Amen!


 o
RE: And now another General.........

No, it is getting worse: v--------very misdirecting from the more important issues. Well, this is after all similar to Peoples Magazine in tone part of the time.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Radio was reporting that the 20,000 emails was more like 200, but the number expanded due to all the copy to and fwd fwd fwd.

And General Allen sez that nope, he did nothing wrong, go ahead and read all the emails you want.

Do you think FBI agents should do a beef cake calendar, like the firemen-suspenders only? Maybe they could be holding sheaves of copies of your email in strategic poses.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

FiBeeI calendar? Only if they wear cheesehead gear, so as not to confuse them with firemen or real police.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

I'm still wondering why Cantor isn't being investigated?


 o
RE: And now another General.........

I read that the FBI agent infatuated with Ms. Kelley, and who took his concerns to the Washington Republican who then contact Cantor - phew! - is now being investigated by his employer.

If only Kurt Vonnegut were alive to write the screenplay!


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Posted by marshallz10 z9-10 CA (My Page) on Tue, Nov 13, 12 at 20:34

"Only if they wear cheesehead gear, so as not to confuse them with firemen or real police."

Hey! What do you mean, "cheesehead gear"?


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Go Packers! I lived in southern Wisconsin for 6 years.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Long Island's Peter King (R) is burning hot as to why Cantor never reported this to those who should have been notified.
"Rep. King wants to know why the FBI didn't alert him, or the president, or the National Security Council -- somebody, anybody. But somebody did know. King's own party leader in the House. Why didn't Cantor raise the alarm?
The majority leader needs to step up to the mic."


Here's a Ducky number at the Kentucky Derby!


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Cantor definitely needs to be investigated. In fact the whole lot of them. Now they are saying they removed classified documents from Paula Broadwells house last night. Which means this investigation is about national security. Why wasn't Feinstein informed. Did the president know, and if not, why not? We know that Eric Holder knew, and did he inform the president? If he didn't, he needs to go. Is this a ploy to take the spotlight off of four dead Americans. Petraus floated the video originally though we now know that he knew all along it was a terrorist attack. Is he being tossed to the wolves because there was a coverup before the election? So many questions, and so few answers. This is a scandal that will go on and on and on, and we may never know the truth.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Mrskjun, you just asked the same questions I have, but apparently no one else here has had.

Remember, we were chastised for even mentioning "Benghazi."

That was a no no word in the glee of the Obama reelection, don't rain on the jubilation with facts and concerns.

I started a thread.

Those that actually care what this administration is lying about and WHY those Americans were left to be slaughtered when the administration KNEW they were likely to be slaughtered, and left them to be slaughtered when they were begging for help for hours, can discuss this matter.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

You have few or no facts for most of those assumptions. Many Americans would like some answers (when they are available) about these matters. The difference is that most concerned Americans are not obsessed with hanging it all as a nefarious plot of some kind around the necks of Obama and top Obama officials. There just may be nothing nefarious about it at all. The Fox News assumptions (shared by certain posters) that this is the great "gotcha" moment that will bring Obama down or at least destroy one or more of his top advisors (chip, chip away to slowly but surely get at Obama) alienates other posters who, yes, would like some answers and believe they will get some but don't want to be associated with the "gotcha" crowd.

Kate


 o
RE: And now another General.........

The CIA and other spook agencies are running amok in that part of the world. I wouldn't be surprised that goof ups would be misreported or otherwise misrepresented to civil authorities. As tragic as the death of four Americans in Libya might be, the larger tragedy is being played out in the homeland where the Surveillance State is gaining ascendency over the Republic.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Is it your contention then that Issa is withholding the truth from the American people? He is the chair of the investigating committee and is aware to the actual facts.

Will you believe the report if it exonerates the President from that which you accuse him of? No doubt that he is accountable, that's goes with the job, but based on what we know, which is next to nothing, to suggest he had a personal role is nothing but speculation.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Back to sex in the City...

David Simon, reporter and blogger, writes this:

"Observe the process by which we remove some of the most essential American figures of the last century for having failed to corral their sexual organs in the marital bedroom: Roosevelt, gone. Eisenhower, gone. Kennedy, gone. Lyndon Johnson, gone. Clinton, gone. Martin Luther King, Jr., gone. Edward Murrow, gone. Follow the gamboling penis to an arid expanse of sociopolitical wasteland, where many of the greatest visionaries and actors can never tred, a desert in which only the Calvin Coolidges and Richard Nixons remain standing. Anyone who looks at the history of mankind and argues that private sexual fidelity exists in direct proportion to political greatness or moral leadership is either a chump or a liar.

And now comes General Petraeus."

Then Simon goes on later to add:

"But for those who love throwing stones, is it too much to ask that their aim be true? That they limit the target to Darwinian compulsion, to ordinary, and yes, at times, unthinking human desire. That they not equip themselves to judge the totality of a public servant’s entire career and works solely with the details of whatever sexual misadventure we happen to discover. Roosevelt was a smart guy. So was Eisenhower. Clinton might be the smartest president of my generation. And David Petraeus saw and spoke to the folly of Iraq before the rest of America was cheering the fall of Saddam’s statue. And he stayed long after that folly was evident to work at a remedy for and an extrication from that tragic intervention."

Here is a link that might be useful: Stray p....s and politicos


 o
RE: And now another General.........

Another view from wife of another general being investigated:

Here is a link that might be useful: When the strains of war....


 o
RE: And now another General.........

That was a no no word in the glee of the Obama reelection, don't rain on the jubilation with facts and concerns.

It's the "facts" part that is sorely missing.

When the facts are in, we'll be happy to discuss the facts. Until then your attempts to make Obama look bad do nothing but make you look ignorant.


 o
RE: And now another General.........

  • Posted by bboy USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 16:00

And that's the first time that's happened, too.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here