# CIA director David Petraeus resigns citing extramarital affair.



## Edward Campbell

The _Globe and Mail_ is reporting that "CIA director David Petraeus resigns citing extramarital affair."


----------



## Maxadia

All over the news now. Didn't see that one coming.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Neither did Mrs. Petraeus, I'll wager.


----------



## Old Sweat

Get ready for the wild and the really wild theories to start to fly.


----------



## Infanteer

Funny, 50 years ago this was considered a sound trait of leadership.

I think that, aside from the United States, it still is....


----------



## Strike

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Get ready for the wild and the really wild theories to start to fly.



My initial thoughts on the subject.


----------



## OldSolduer

Sacrificial lamb.


----------



## Haletown

Just announced . .  he will NOT be participating in the Benghazi Inquiry and will NOT testify under oath.


----------



## cupper

Two questions for those that may know:

First, is adultery still an offense under the UCMJ?

Second, if the affair took place while he was still in the army, could he be tried for said offenses after being retired?


----------



## Spanky

Haletown said:
			
		

> Just announced . .  he will NOT be participating in the Benghazi Inquiry and will NOT testify under oath.


Affair happened while he was in the army, and he's announcing and resigning now?  The things that make you go "mmmmmm". :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Haletown said:
			
		

> Just announced . .  he will NOT be participating in the Benghazi Inquiry and will NOT testify under oath.



For the greater good  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

I believe he can be issued with a court order to appear and testify.


----------



## Remius

Spanky said:
			
		

> Affair happened while he was in the army, and he's announcing and resigning now?  The things that make you go "mmmmmm". :Tin-Foil-Hat:




My take.  After a lifetime of supporting him through deployments, missions, late nights etc etc his wife likely gave him an ultimatum after finding out or being told.  The compromise was to wait until after the election to resign.  Nothing nefarious or conspiracy like.  Just a hurt wife and husband choosing to try and fix the mess he created.


----------



## Spanky

Crantor said:
			
		

> My take.  After a lifetime of supporting him through deployments, missions, late nights etc etc his wife likely gave him an ultimatum after finding out or being told.  The compromise was to wait until after the election to resign.  Nothing nefarious or conspiracy like.  Just a hurt wife and husband choosing to try and fix the mess he created.


Probably, but nefarious is so much more interesting.


----------



## JorgSlice

The other thing that gets me is, why do things you do in the privacy of your own home (or the home of someone else   ) behind closed doors, dictate whether you keep your job or not?

When people say "I'm resigning because I got caught cheating on my spouse" it stinks of other controversial wrong-doing, other than something like an affair that holds no penalty to one's employment.


----------



## Remius

Spanky said:
			
		

> Probably, but nefarious is so much more interesting.



Well, we could try and link it somehow to range control. I wouldn't be surprised if those guys had a hand in all of this.  >


----------



## Jarnhamar

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> The other thing that gets me is, why do things you do in the privacy of your own home (or the home of someone else   ) behind closed doors, dictate whether you keep your job or not?


Ethics
Integrity
Honour.


----------



## medicineman

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> For the greater good  ;D



Not watching "Hot Fuzz" again are you OZ?

MM


----------



## JorgSlice

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Ethics
> Integrity
> Honour.



I understand that part, but if it's not hurting anyone except for your other relationship, and isn't affecting how you perform your duties; who is to say that because you have (had) an affair that you can't work anymore?


----------



## Jarnhamar

For a private I'm sure it's not a big deal. For someone responsible for thousands of lives and national interests lying denotes a character flaw.
If he lied to his wife about their marriage what's to stop him from telling a little white lie about something else? Or a little cover up?

He gets the big bucks
He gets the nice parking spot
He gets to live under a microscope


----------



## medicineman

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I understand that part, but if it's not hurting anyone except for your other relationship, and isn't affecting how you perform your duties; who is to say that because you have (had) an affair that you can't work anymore?



Hard to trust someone in a position of high trust when the person that's supposed to trust them with everything can't do that anymore...Director of the CIA is a position of high trust, having an affair could put him at risk for blackmail, comprmising operations and such.  If his wife can't trust him anymore, would you as his boss?

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar

medicineman said:
			
		

> Not watching "Hot Fuzz" again are you OZ?
> 
> MM



 :bowing:


----------



## mariomike

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> If he lied to his wife about their marriage what's to stop him from telling a little white lie about something else?



President Truman was quoted as saying, "If a man lies to his wife, he will lie to me."


----------



## JorgSlice

medicineman said:
			
		

> Hard to trust someone in a position of high trust when the person that's supposed to trust them with everything can't do that anymore...Director of the CIA is a position of high trust, having an affair could put him at risk for blackmail, comprmising operations and such.  If his wife can't trust him anymore, would you as his boss?
> 
> MM





			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> For a private I'm sure it's not a big deal. For someone responsible for thousands of lives and national interests lying denotes a character flaw.
> If he lied to his wife about their marriage what's to stop him from telling a little white lie about something else? Or a little cover up?
> 
> He gets the big bucks
> He gets the nice parking spot
> He gets to live under a microscope



Good point.

However, have you ever had a phenomenal NCO at some point that everyone looked at and said: "I wish I could be as great of a leader as him/her." ? Only later to find out after they've retired/released that they were having an affair or were into other things not so "kosher". Would you then take it all back and completely dismiss them and everything they told you? Would you then question their leadership abilities and the performance of their duties? Some people can do mighty fine at their jobs/careers, but once they're back home and the uniform is off... they don't know how to handle themselves.

I understand that trust is lost, but it doesn't necessarily mean that their duties and abilities are also affected. As Director of the CIA, okay I can understand that an affair can be seen as highly poisonous and resignation is justifiable.

I'm not trying to say that what he did, if in fact is true, was right; just exploring the thoughts of others.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Why are you playing devils advocate?

You can't differentiate the difference between good'ol Sergeant Smith from recruit training and the director of the Centeral Intelligence Agency?

 :


----------



## Maxadia

Try this on for size, and then tell me it doesn't matter:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/09/paula-broadwell-david-petraeus-affair-2012/

Poor judgement on his part, and very cunning of her.


----------



## Infanteer

Well, Broadwell is a looker.  At least he didn't pull an Arnie....


----------



## JorgSlice

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Why are you playing devils advocate?
> 
> You can't differentiate the difference between good'ol Sergeant Smith from recruit training and the director of the Centeral Intelligence Agency?
> 
> :



It's the same in principle. It has nothing to do with being able to tell the difference (which I can tell, thank you very much), all I am saying is why force someone into resignation over an affair, if he kept true to his duties and responsibilities of his position?

If read my previous post, I said I'm not defending him or saying that his affair is okay/right thing to do; and in such a high position of authority it can be highly poisonous.

Just exploring thoughts, so don't think this is anything that actually believe. I'm not that dense.


----------



## FJAG

Resigning was absolutely the right thing to do.

With everything going on neither the CIA nor the Presidency have the time to deal with the distraction this would cause.

There's always someone else available that can do the job.


----------



## Remius

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> It's the same in principle. It has nothing to do with being able to tell the difference (which I can tell, thank you very much), all I am saying is why force someone into resignation over an affair, if he kept true to his duties and responsibilities of his position?
> 
> If read my previous post, I said I'm not defending him or saying that his affair is okay/right thing to do; and in such a high position of authority it can be highly poisonous.
> 
> Just exploring thoughts, so don't think this is anything that actually believe. I'm not that dense.



Did you actually read RDJP's link to the National Post story.  He didn't stay true to his duties and position and compromised it actually.  His actions became a security risk in a job where security is everything.


----------



## JorgSlice

Crantor said:
			
		

> Did you actually read RDJP's link to the National Post story.  He didn't stay true to his duties and position and compromised it actually.  His actions became a security risk in a job where security is everything.



I noticed it well after I published the post.


----------



## Jarnhamar

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> all I am saying is why force someone into resignation over an affair, if he kept true to his duties and responsibilities of his position?





			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> in such a high position of authority it can be highly poisonous.


----------



## cupper

Just watched an interview with Richard Engle, and he alluded to the fact that Petraeus was not well liked in the old boys club of the CIA insiders. And the fact that the FBI was asked by the CIA to do an investigation that would normally have fallen to the CIA's own security apparatus seems to point to something with deeper implications coming down the pipe.

I'm pretty sure that the overriding drive for the General was integrity and honour. One comment I heard today was that with the CIA's policy of terminating employment for actions which could make one susceptible to blackmail or coercion, how could he stay and judge people for actions which he himself was guilty of. There was no way he could stay and still have whatever respect and  loyalty of the "troops" he was in charge of.

Which makes what Richard Engle alluded to all the more interesting.


----------



## a_majoor

Haletown said:
			
		

> Just announced . .  he will NOT be participating in the Benghazi Inquiry and will NOT testify under oath.



Based on the timing of the announcement, I suspect this is the desired outcome (for a great many people), and any attempts to make General Petraeus testify will be blocked.


----------



## Ostrozac

Oh yeah, based on that National Post article, he totally had to resign. It looks like not only that he had a mistress, but that his mistress was possibly using her access to him to steal classified documents.

Having a mistress can be a security risk. When your mistress gains access to classified material, that's a security violation.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Based on the timing of the announcement, I suspect this is the desired outcome (for a great many people), and any attempts to make General Petraeus testify will be blocked.



Makes for a great praetorian.


----------



## GAP

Then there is nothing to distract from the "Hillary taking the bullet for the President" , letting it quietly die in the background and not raise it's ugly head come 2015/16.....


----------



## observor 69

New York Times

November 9, 2012

Woman Linked to Petraeus Is a West Point Graduate and Lifelong High Achiever

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR


WASHINGTON — Paula Broadwell, whose affair with the nation’s C.I.A. director led to his resignation on Friday, was the valedictorian of her high school class and homecoming queen, a fitness champion at West Point with a graduate degree from Harvard, and a model for a machine gun manufacturer. 

It may have been those qualities — and a string of achievements that began in her native North Dakota, where she was state student council president, an all-state basketball player and orchestra concertmistress — that drew the attention of David H. Petraeus, the nation’s top spy and a four-star general, as the two spent hours together for a biography of Mr. Petraeus that Ms. Broadwell co-wrote. 

Ms. Broadwell’s name burst into public view on Friday evening after Mr. Petraeus resigned abruptly amid an F.B.I. investigation that uncovered evidence of their relationship. 

But Ms. Broadwell was hardly shy about her interactions with Mr. Petraeus as she promoted her book, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” in media appearances earlier this year. She had unusual access, she noted in promotional appearances, taping many of her interviews for her book while running six-minute miles with Mr. Petraeus in the thin mountain air of the Afghan capital. 

Ms. Broadwell said in an interview in February that Mr. Petraeus was enjoying his new civilian life at the C.I.A., where he became director in September 2011. “It was a huge growth period for him, because he realized he didn’t have to hide behind the shield of all those medals and stripes on his arm,” she said. Ms. Broadwell was 39 at the time. 

Her biography on the Penguin Speakers Bureau Web site says that she is a research associate at Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership and a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. She received a master’s in public administration from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. 

A self-described “soccer mom” and an ironman triathlete, Ms. Broadwell became a fixture on the Washington media scene after the publication of her book about Mr. Petraeus, who is 60. In a Twitter message this summer, she bragged about appearing on a panel at the Aspen Institute, a policy group for deep thinkers. 

“Heading 2 @AspenInstitute 4 the Security Forum tomorrow! Panel (media & terrorism) followed by a 1v1 run with Lance Armstrong,” she wrote. “Fired up!” 

On her Twitter account, she often commented on the qualities of leadership. “Reason and calm judgment, the qualities specially belonging to a leader. Tacitus,” she wrote. In another message, she said: “A leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don’t want to do and like it. Truman.” 

She also used her Twitter account to denounce speculation in the Drudge Report that Mr. Petraeus would be picked as a running mate by Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president. 

Married with two children, she was described in a biography on the Web site of Inspired Women Magazine as a high achiever since high school. 

The biography says that Ms. Broadwell received a degree in political geography and systems engineering from West Point, where she was ranked No. 1 over all in fitness in her class. She benefited from a different ranking scale for women, she told a reporter this year. But “I was still in the top 5 percent if I’d been ranked as a male,” she said. 

The official Web site for Ms. Broadwell’s book was taken down Friday, but comments from her echoed across the Internet. 

“I was driven when I was younger,” she was quoted as saying on the Web site, noting her induction into her high school’s hall of fame. “Driven at West Point where it was much more competitive in that women were competing with men on many levels, and I was driven in the military and at Harvard, both competitive environments.” 

“But now,” she is quoted as saying, “as a working mother of two, I realize it is more difficult to compete in certain areas. I think it is important for working moms to recognize that family is the most important.” 

On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart summed up Ms. Broadwell’s book by saying: “I would say the real controversy here is, is he awesome or incredibly awesome?”A short time later, Ms. Broadwell challenged Mr. Stewart to a push-up contest, which she won handily. Mr. Stewart had to pay $1,000 to a veterans’ support group for each push-up she did beyond his total. Ms. Broadwell said that he wrote a check for $20,000 on the spot. 

On Friday evening, her house in the Dilworth neighborhood of Charlotte, N.C., was dark when a reporter rang the doorbell. Two cars were in the home’s carport and an American flag was flying out front. 


Viv Bernstein contributed reporting from Charlotte, N.C.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/linked-to-petraeus-paula-broadwell-is-lifelong-high-achiever.html?hp


----------



## Fishbone Jones

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> The other thing that gets me is, why do things you do in the privacy of your own home (or the home of someone else   ) behind closed doors, dictate whether you keep your job or not?
> 
> When people say "I'm resigning because I got caught cheating on my spouse" it stinks of other controversial wrong-doing, other than something like an affair that holds no penalty to one's employment.



Because he is the Director of the CIA, the US spy agency. Not a good position to be in. The `honey trap`is likely one of the first things thay tell you to avoid at spy school.

Not saying this is the case, but a lesser being may have decided to trade secrets for being blackmailed by the other side and them staying quiet about the relationship.


----------



## Journeyman

> On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart summed up Ms. Broadwell’s book by saying: “I would say the real controversy here is, is he awesome or incredibly awesome?”A short time later, Ms. Broadwell challenged Mr. Stewart to a push-up contest, which she won handily. Mr. Stewart had to pay $1,000 to a veterans’ support group for each push-up she did beyond his total. Ms. Broadwell said that he wrote a check for $20,000 on the spot.


  I like her.   ;D

That, and comparing pics of her and the General's wife.....well, good on 'im.


And that folks is the extent of the intellectual depth I figure this earth-shattering topic warrants.


----------



## observor 69

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I like her.   ;D
> 
> That, and comparing pics of her and the General's wife.....well, good on 'im.
> 
> 
> And that folks is the extent of the intellectual depth I figure this earth-shattering topic warrants.


----------



## Maxadia

Except that she dumped him a while back.

So now imagine his wife's picture again, and this time think about the mood she is in.


----------



## Old Sweat

I saw a picture of Mrs Patreaus taken with him when he was Captain of Cadets at West Point and she was the Superintendant's daughter. She was a very attractive young lady with long blonde hair.

Unfortunately the tendency of the c.ck-brain switch to get stuck in the c.ck position has been the ruin of many a good man, and the making of many a lawyer's  fortune.


----------



## OldSolduer

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I saw a picture of Mrs Patreaus taken with him when he was Captain of Cadets at West Point and she was the Superintendant's daughter. She was a very attractive young lady with long blonde hair.
> 
> Unfortunately the tendency of the c.ck-brain switch to get stuck in the c.ck position has been the ruin of many a good man, and the making of many a lawyer's  fortune.



Biology will trump everything. A few years of training doesn't undo basic human nature.


----------



## exspy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I saw a picture of Mrs Patreaus taken with him when he was Captain of Cadets at West Point and she was the Superintendant's daughter. She was a very attractive young lady with long blonde hair.



Always a good move to marry the boss' daughter.  Holly Knowlton's father, at the time David married her, was a three-star.​


----------



## cupper

Latest from the post, apparently Petraeus didn't take heed of the tale from Fatal Attraction.

Also, it seems that there was no security breach, just a man with his d**k caught in his zipper.

*FBI probe of Petraeus triggered by e-mail threats from biographer, officials say*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-probe-of-petraeus-triggered-by-e-mail-threats-from-biographer-officials-say/2012/11/10/d2fc52de-2b68-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html?hpid=z1



> The collapse of the dazzling career of CIA Director David H. Petraeus was triggered when a woman whom he was having an affair with sent threatening e-mails to another woman close to him, according to three senior law enforcement officials with knowledge of the episode.
> 
> The recipient of the e-mails was so frightened that she went to the FBI for protection and help tracking down the sender, according to the officials. The FBI investigation traced the threats to Paula Broadwell, a former military officer and a Petraeus biographer, and uncovered explicit e-mails between Broadwell and Petraeus, the officials said.
> 
> When Petraeus’s name first surfaced, FBI investigators were concerned that the CIA director’s personal e-mail account had been hacked and security had been breached. But the sexual nature of the e-mails led them to conclude that Petraeus and Broadwell were engaged in an affair, the officials said.
> 
> The identity of the woman who received the e-mails was not disclosed, and the nature of her relationship with Petraeus is unknown. The law enforcement officials said the e-mails indicated that Broadwell perceived the other woman as a threat to her relationship with Petraeus.
> 
> ...
> 
> The law enforcement officials did not provide an exact timeline for the investigation, but they said that the inquiry started at least several weeks ago. They said investigators thought they were dealing with a routine harassment case until they discovered the e-mails were traced to a private e-mail account belonging to Petraeus.
> 
> The initial concern was that someone had broken into the CIA director’s e-mail account, leading to concerns about potential security breaches, according to the officials. As the investigation proceeded and more e-mails emerged, along with Broadwell’s role, FBI investigators realized they had uncovered an affair between Petraeus and Broadwell, the officials said.
> 
> The investigators first interviewed Petraeus about two weeks ago, the officials said. Petraeus was told at the time that no criminal charges would be forthcoming and the idea of him resigning was not raised, the officials said.
> 
> One of the law enforcement officials said Justice Department officials were unclear on what steps to take next because they had determined that there had been no crime and no breach of security.
> 
> It was not until Tuesday that the Justice Department notified James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, that compromising material about Petraeus had been uncovered as part of an investigation, according to a senior intelligence official. Clapper then spoke with Petraeus and told him to resign.
> 
> “Director Clapper learned of the situation from the FBI on Tuesday evening around 5 p.m.,” the intelligence official said. “In subsequent conversations with Director Petraeus, Director Clapper advised Director Petraeus to resign.”
> 
> The official declined to say whether Petraeus had considered resigning at that point, but he said it was quickly clear to Clapper that stepping down was “the right thing to do” for Petraeus.
> 
> The official said that Clapper has been fully briefed on all aspects of the FBI investigation and has not called for the DNI or CIA to conduct a follow-on probe or damage assessment — indicating that Clapper does not see the case as a security threat.
> 
> “There are no investigations beyond” that initiated by the FBI, the intelligence official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
> 
> The official also would not address why the DNI and others weren’t notified of the FBI investigation — and its link to Petraeus — earlier.
> 
> “This is a very personal matter, not a matter of intelligence,” the official said. “There are protocols for this. I would imagine things have to cross a certain threshold before they are reportable.”
> 
> Clapper told the White House late Wednesday and no action was taken until Thursday morning, when Obama was informed. Petraeus came to the White House later on Thursday and offered his resignation. The president accepted it Friday.


----------



## tomahawk6

Patreaus was a smart guy and his rise through the ranks was due to ability. Gen Knowlton retired in 1980.


----------



## a_majoor

Some more about the timing of the resignation. This is quite interesting, since the FBI was apparently on the case as far back as 2011. The way the resignation was handled seems to have been done to inflict as much damage on the General's reputation as possible (no quiet resignation due to "family reasons"), which would seem to feed the idea that he will not be able to testify and any revelations that come out in a book or interview in the future will simply be overwhelmed by the Legacy Media pulling out the "affair" narrative. While this isn't to say that he was in any way correct in having an affair, the fact of the matter is this will be what he is remembered for.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/more-on-the-timing-of-petraeuss-resignation.php



> *MORE ON THE TIMING OF PETRAEUS’S RESIGNATION*
> Ronald Kessler of Newsmax has more details on the Petraeus affair. They are rather sordid, and raise more questions about the timing of his resignation:
> 
> [A]n FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011.
> 
> The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan. …
> 
> Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.
> 
> 
> Perhaps this one?
> 
> At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.
> 
> “Thousands of emails” over “several months”? If “thousands” means two thousand, and “several” means three, we’d be talking about more than 20 emails per day. Ouch.
> 
> FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11.
> 
> Right, emailing her was turning into a full-time job.
> 
> Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.
> 
> FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.
> 
> “The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”
> 
> Seems like a fair assessment. One wonders what other shoes will drop, now that the election is over.


----------



## exspy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This is quite interesting, since the FBI was apparently on the case as far back as 2011.



I read the quote differently.  The investigation started last Spring (of 2012).  During the investigation the FBI began to look at Petraeus' emails from 2011.  This is not the same as saying that the Bureau has been on the case since 2011.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... which would seem to feed the idea that he will not be able to testify...



I don't think that this will be an issue.  If he's subpoenaed by Congress to testify, he will have to.  Even so, there will be plenty of CIA senior managers in the know about the Benghazi attack to testify in David's place.  The Benghazi issue isn't going to disappear off of the President's desk simply because of Petraeus' removal.

My view is, this resignation has nothing to do with Benghazi.  If, as alleged, Petraeus was carrying on following the break-up of his affair like a 13-year old high school boy, then retaining him as the Director of Central Intelligence would have been just too embarrassing when it got out.  And it always gets out.  Langley is no different than any other bureaucracy.  Gossips everywhere.

I also believe that his affair was known about by those in power for as long as it was going on.  A four-star and a reporter being kept secret for years?  I don't see it.  Maybe, if he'd handled the break-up in a more mature way, he'd still be DCI.  We'll never know.

No, the only person responsible for Petraeus' downfall is David himself.  Well, him and Little David.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## FJAG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Some more about the timing of the resignation. This is quite interesting, since the FBI was apparently on the case as far back as 2011.
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/more-on-the-timing-of-petraeuss-resignation.php



This info is quite different from the timing laid out in the Washington Post article which states Patreus was only interviewed a few weeks ago and that it didn't hit senior level until after the election.

I note your article sources back to NewsMax which is described as follows:

"A March 2009 profile of Ruddy and Newsmax on Forbes.com described his media company as the "great right hope" of the Republican Party and said after just a decade of operations it had become a "media powerhouse." Political analyst Dick Morris told Forbes that Newsmax had become the "most influential Republican-leaning media outlet" in the nation"

At this point in time I take their articles with a grain of salt.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> The other thing that gets me is, why do things you do in the privacy of your own home (or the home of someone else   ) behind closed doors, dictate whether you keep your job or not?
> 
> When people say "I'm resigning because I got caught cheating on my spouse" it stinks of other controversial wrong-doing, other than something like an affair that holds no penalty to one's employment.



Its pretty standard practice within orgs' that require elevated security clearances.  Think about it from a different angle.  How hard is it to pressure someone to do things when someone has something they can use against them?  Blackmail, etc is still done and you take a high-profile figure, find out they've been messin' around; threaten to expose them unless they "do this. that.  or the other thing".


----------



## a_majoor

I see I misread the dates WRT when the FBI investigation started.

As for the source, would you rather get news from the paper that initially reported the Benghazi attack and the death of a US ambassador on page A4? And basically ignored the story as much as possible thereafter? Frankly, the Legacy Media no longer is a trustworthy source of information, so I take multiple sources and try to distill something out of all that.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

A tragedy worthy of the classic Greek playwrights. A great man brought down by a very human failing.


----------



## Haletown

Doesn't say much about the vetting process for the head of the CIA.

You would think think the vetters would ask him about any closet hiding skeletons, odd things that could come back to haunt him and the Administration.  

What Did he tell the vetters?   You would think the vetters would check phone and email accounts for unusual activities such as thousands of emails sent to one person.

This story isn't told yet.


----------



## exspy

Haletown said:
			
		

> Doesn't say much about the vetting process for the head of the CIA.
> 
> You would think think the vetters would ask him about any closet hiding skeletons, odd things that could come back to haunt him and the Administration.
> 
> What Did he tell the vetters?   You would think the vetters would check phone and email accounts for unusual activities such as thousands of emails sent to one person.
> 
> This story isn't told yet.



Two things.  And they are both complete speculation on my part.  First, I'll bet he did tell the vetting investigators about his affair.  Admission of marital strains and a second relationship are not grounds for denying a security clearance, and as I have mentioned earlier, if he hadn't admitted to it, I bet there were more than enough gossips at Langley and the Pentagon who would have let the VI's know.  As long as the affair is admitted to at the beginning then there is no security concern.  A person cannot be blackmailed for something of which his chain of command is aware.

Second, I agree that this story isn't told yet.  Wait until the nature of the e-mails is made public.  Then the reason for the dismissal will be known.  I still think it was Petraeus' immaturity in handling this that did him in.

We will all know it's over when the mistress is standing beside Gloria Allred in front of a media scrum who are asking if she has a stained dress as proof.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## Haletown

"They" might have known but everyone else is denying they knew.  No disclosure to Congressional oversight folks, big surprise to the FBI, etc.

The story is he resigned because of the affair, but if it was disclosed during vetting, it seems odd to resign now Seems even more odd that nobody in the White House would be told their new D/CIA was an adulterer who could be exposed at anytime.  

Only surface srarching on this story so far,  thin surface scratching.


----------



## jeffb

This goes beyond blackmail and he was not part of the chain of command. He was the HEAD of the chain of command for the CIA. Remember that extramarital affairs are a chargeable offense under the United States Code of Military Justice. Yes, I know that the CIA is not subject to the USCMJ but the logic of it being a chargeable offense does not change. If someone can not be trusted to maintain their wedding vows, how can they be trusted to safeguard their nations greatest secrets? Admitting it is good but I can not see how he could maintain credibility running an organization such as this with this in his recent past.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Dan M said:
			
		

> Two things.  And they are both complete speculation on my part.  First, I'll bet he did tell the vetting investigators about his affair.  Admission of marital strains and a second relationship are not grounds for denying a security clearance, and as I have mentioned earlier, if he hadn't admitted to it, I bet there were more than enough gossips at Langley and the Pentagon who would have let the VI's know.  As long as the affair is admitted to at the beginning then there is no security concern.  A person cannot be blackmailed for something of which his chain of command is aware.



As my British friends would say, "Bollocks." Having worked with both U.S. military and intelligence personnel I can say that the Americans are death-on-wheels when it comes to any indiscretion/ improprieties. If Petraeus had admitted during the vetting process that he was having an affair, he would never have been appointed head of the CIA.

Second comment. Since CIA personnel have to take a polygraph on a regular basis, I wonder, if during the vetting process Petraeus took one.


----------



## exspy

jeffb said:
			
		

> This goes beyond blackmail and he was not part of the chain of command. He was the HEAD of the chain of command for the CIA.



Even the DCI has a chain of command.  There are positions in the US government to which he reports and persons who have the power to fire him.  It was the President's National Security Advisor who told Petraeus to offer his resignation, which the President accepted.



			
				jeffb said:
			
		

> Remember that extramarital affairs are a chargeable offense under the United States Code of Military Justice. Yes, I know that the CIA is not subject to the USCMJ but the logic of it being a chargeable offense does not change.



True.  So the USCMJ really isn't an issue in this case.



			
				jeffb said:
			
		

> If someone can not be trusted to maintain their wedding vows, how can they be trusted to safeguard their nations greatest secrets?



By this argument, no divorced person can ever be awarded a TS clearance.  The Public Service is rife with divorced persons carrying a TS, or higher, clearance.  So to, I would imagine, is NDHQ.  I'm old enough to remember this same argument being made when Pierre Trudeau was divorced from Margaret.  "If he can't be trusted to keep his marriage vows how can he be trusted to run the country" or some such thing.



			
				jeffb said:
			
		

> Admitting it is good but I can not see how he could maintain credibility running an organization such as this with this in his recent past.



It's still my belief that it's not the fact he had a mistress that did him in, but how sloppy he was in conducting the affair and ending it.  It's what will come out from his e-mails with her that will show them to have been the deciding factor.  Details of which, when the President and his NSA were made aware, made Petraeus' dismissal inevitable.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## exspy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> If Petraeus had admitted during the vetting process that he was having an affair, he would never have been appointed head of the CIA.



Maybe, maybe not.  I have my view and you have yours.  Sometimes the candidate's ability and the desire of the President to get the person he wants over rides other factors.  Remember that it's not the persons doing the vetting who decide which person will or will not get a clearance.  That decision is made by the person doing the hiring, who then assumes the responsibility for the appointment.



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Second comment. Since CIA personnel have to take a polygraph on a regular basis, I wonder, if during the vetting process Petraeus took one.



Well, if it's like the Canadian public service, the answer would be yes and no.  These days, new entrants to certain organizations are required to be polygraphed.  It's a condition of their employment.  Senior public servants, however, do not necessarily have to.  The theory being that they have proven their loyalty by their years of service.  They have to be vetted as their security clearance is upgraded, but the do not always need to be polygraphed.  They can volunteer for one, but who would do that?

I don't know what the requirements for polygraphs are for the CIA, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if, because of his background, he was not.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dan M.

Stop.  You are making this thread painful with your "pin the tail on the donkey" thought process.   :facepalm:


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Dan M said:
			
		

> Maybe, maybe not.  I have my view and you have yours.  Sometimes the candidate's ability and the desire of the President to get the person he wants over rides other factors.  Remember that it's not the persons doing the vetting who decide which person will or will not get a clearance.  That decision is made by the person doing the hiring, who then assumes the responsibility for the appointment.


Yes, you are correct, but would you sign-off on someone's security clearance knowing that they were an adulter/drug-user/whatever, and knowing that if the indiscretions became public you would be the one holding the bag? I don't think so.


> Well, if it's like the Canadian public service, the answer would be yes and no.  These days, new entrants to certain organizations are required to be polygraphed.  It's a condition of their employment.  Senior public servants, however, do not necessarily have to.  The theory being that they have proven their loyalty by their years of service.  They have to be vetted as their security clearance is upgraded, but the do not always need to be polygraphed.  They can volunteer for one, but who would do that?
> 
> I don't know what the requirements for polygraphs are for the CIA, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if, because of his background, he was not.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dan.


You make a good point. After I made my last post I was reading the blog  In From the Cold  which is maintained by a former member of the U.S. Intelligence community and he says something similar. 


> What About the Vetting Process?  Many have expressed surprise that Petraeus's affair wasn't discovered during his confirmation process as CIA Director.  But the fact is, General Petraeus received only a cursory check as he retired from the Army and moved to Langley.  As a senior military commander, Petraeus already had access to the nation's most sensitive secrets, and investigators had decades of security clearance investigations and updates to draw upon.  On the surface, David Petraeus looked remarkably clean and since he didn't disclose the affair at the time of his confirmation, there was nothing in his background check to arouse suspicions.  And, as former FBI agent Gary Aldrich observed during the Clinton years, greater latitude is given to political appointees in terms of past misdeeds and questionable behavior.  But the general failed to report his affair--for rather obvious reasons--so it remained a secret until the FBI began its probe.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

In my previous post I linked to a website  In From the Cold  which is run by a former spook who has some interesting theories on the Petraeus affair. Here, re-produced under the usual provisions of the Copyright Act is his first musings from last Friday:



> The Sudden (and Curious) Departure of David Petraeus
> 
> In one of the first shock waves to hit Washington since Tuesday's Presidential election, CIA Director David Petraeus announced his resignation this afternoon, citing an extra-marital affair. NBC News has the take-away quote from the retired Army general and now "former" spook:
> 
> "AFTER BEING MARRIED FOR OVER 37 YEARS, I SHOWED EXTREMELY POOR JUDGMENT BY ENGAGING IN AN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR. SUCH BEHAVIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE, BOTH AS A HUSBAND AND AS THE LEADER OF AN ORGANIZATION SUCH AS OURS."
> 
> Describing Petraeus's departure as a surprise would be an understatement.  There have been no whispers in the nation's capital about a possible change of leadership at CIA, or any extra-curricular activities involving General Petraeus.  Indeed, with last year's appointment of his wife to a senior post at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, the Petraeus' seemed hard-wired into the Washington establishment, and seemed poised to remain in government indefinitely.  There was no word today on whether the general's wife, Holly Petraeus, planned to leave her position at the CFPB.
> 
> Long-time associates of Petraeus described the resignation as consistent with the general's character.  "He feels that he screwed up.  He did a dishonorable thing and needed to try to do the honorable thing," one former confidant told the Danger Room in an e-mail.
> 
> That may certainly be the case.  But powerful men and women in the nation's capital admit indiscretions only reluctantly.  In fact, there was nothing to indicate that Petraeus would soon leave the CIA post; in recent days, he had provided "rules for living" to Newsweek magazine, through his biographer and long-time confidant, Paula Broadwell--later revealed as the "other" woman.  If Petraeus knew the affair was about to become public, it's doubtful that he would have supplied the list, which includes such axioms as "lead by example," and "recognize and admit your mistakes."  Guess one out of two isn't that bad.
> 
> David Petraeus's sudden fall from grace invites a rather obvious question, namely who leaked information about his affair.  In our experience, someone at the general's level typically resigns over an affair when the story is about to hit the press.  We're guessing that someone in the media was given the details about the CIA Director's extra-marital affair, and they called Langley asking for a statement.  Realizing his indiscretion would soon become public, Petraeus took the pro-active step of submitting his resignation, which was "regretfully" accepted by President Obama.
> 
> So, who "got" David Petraeus?  Beyond his own, deplorable conduct, there is the list of ususal suspects.  We'll begin with veterans of the CIA clandestine service and paramilitary operations directorate.  They are furious over Petraeus's conduct in the aftermath of the Benghazi debacle, when his statements on the attack were similar to those of administration officials, who suggested the attack on the consulate was the result of  an "out-of-control" protest, sparked by outrage over an internet video that offensive to Muslims.  Two CIA contractors were among the four Americans killed in the attack and other agency personnel were wounded.  Yet, the administration did nothing to send assistance to the besieged consulate, other than a quick reaction force from the embassy in Tripoli.
> 
> As we've noted before, no one plays the "leak" game better than the spook community.  As the White House clung to its "video" narrative, operatives involved in the Benghazi operation began passing details of that fateful night, raising new questions about what actually occurred.  The leaks were aimed (in part) at the administration, but they were also directed at Petraeus and the Director of National Intelligence (James Clapper) who were viewed as not only abandoning operatives on the ground, but doing little to defend the reputation of intelligence professionals when various administration officials suggested the community "got it wrong" before Benghazi.
> 
> Then, more than six weeks after the attack, Petraeus did something a bit unusual.  Realizing the White House's well-deserved reputation for throwing people under the bus, the CIA Director announced that no one at his agency had taken steps to prevent assistance from reaching our diplomats and intel operators on the ground in Benghazi.  That assertion shifted the blame squarely on the administration and the Pentagon.  Needless to say, Petraeus's comments didn't exactly win him any friends in the West Wing, or on the E-ring of the Pentagon.  And, if he was trying to rally support in the spook world, it was probably too late for that as well.
> 
> So members of the intel community had plenty of motive for exposing the CIA Director's extra-curricular activities.  And, it wouldn't be that hard to discover what he was up to.  As a former senior commander (and more recently as head of the CIA), Petraeus has been living in a 24-hour security bubble for years, so his protection detail was probably aware of the affair, and it didn't take long for word to leak to other spooks, who had plenty of motive to get rid of Petraeus. Additionally, there are now reports the affair began during his military days--possibly dating to the general's tenure as our commander in Iraq and Afghanistan--so there were plenty of people in a position to "know."
> 
> But don't exclude the possibility of a White House "job," either.  Relations between the retired General and Mr. Obama were never good; there were disagreements over U.S. policies in Afghanistan and many in the administration viewed Petraeus as "too independent" for the job.  And, when the CIA Director blamed the lack of support in Benghazi on the White House, the administration had a clear reason for getting rid of General Petraeus.  As President Obama reviews candidates for his second term cabinet (and other senior positions) we keep hearing the term "pliable" being tossed about.  In other words, the Commander-in-Chief is looking for individuals who will take orders without question or complaint.  David Petraeus clearly didn't fit that mold. So, with his affair under investigation by the FBI, it wasn't hard for Team Obama to obtain that information and use it when it became convenient.
> 
> And of course, the White House derives one more benefit from Petraeus's departure.  Just hours after his resignation was announced, the Administration revealed that the former director will not testify during Congressional hearings on Benghazi next week.  With a key player unavailable, it becomes that much more difficult to determine what happened when our consulate was attacked.  We can only wonder if Representative Mike Rogers (chairman of the House Intelligence Committee) would pursue a Congressional subpoena to compel Petraeus to appear.  But with the GOP licking its wounds after Tuesday's elections--and new demands for bi-partisanship--the White House is betting that Rogers won't press the issue.  So, valuable testimony will be lost as Congress tries to get to the bottom of Benghazi.
> 
> In any case, Petraeus is gone and selection of the next CIA Director will likely be based on political connections, rather than demonstrated expertise.   Petraeus was anything but a great DCI; as a consumer of intelligence, he knew the basics of the business, but had no experience in running an intel bureaucracy, much less reworking it for the challenges that lie ahead.  Still, he's probably better than the person who will follow him at Langley, illustrating yet another danger from Mr. Obama's re-election victory.
> ***
> ADDENDUM:  Later reporting indicates that Petraeus's affair was under investigation by the FBI as a potential security risk.  That's significant because it indicates that the CIA Director's indiscretion was widely known.  Put another way: FBI counter-intelligence agents had to brief their bosses, who (in turn) briefed the Director, who provided updates to the Attorney General, Eric Holder.  From Eric's lips to Obama's ear, as one might say.  Additionally, the FBI agents kept their CIA counterparts in the loop, as a matter of professional courtesy and potential damage assessments.  So, there are plenty of people at Langley who probably caught wind of the director's problems, and were preparing to drop the bomb when Petraeus stepped down.
> 
> One final note: former Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra (who knows as much about intel as anyone in Washington) tweeted this evening that the Petraeus mess will "get much worse..more here than meets the eye."
> 
> We shall see.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

More musings from  In from the Cold  from today:



> The Petraeus Plot Thickens
> It's been barely 24 hours since CIA Director David Petraeus resigned, after admitting he engaged in an extra-marital affair.  But the episode is already metastasizing in to a major sex and political scandal, positioned at the intersection of personal indiscretion, election-year politics and September 11th attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.   Among the recent developments:
> 
> - *Questions as to Why the FBI Was Involved.*  Various media accounts suggest the bureau was looking into Petraeus's relationship with biographer Paula Broadwell for several months.  That revelation is somewhat surprising; as former CIA operative Robert Baer told CNN's Piers Morgan last night, he knew of "four or five" agency directors who carried on affairs during their tenure at Langley.  Mr. Baer may be engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but one thing is clear.  Those other escapades never (apparently) attracted the attention of the FBI, despite the potential blackmail threat.
> 
> So why was the FBI involved?  One of the bureau's primary missions is domestic counter-intelligence, ferreting out enemy moles, spy rings and and other activities that may jeopardize national security (the CIA is responsible for counter-intelligence outside our borders).  Apparently, there was something about the affair that caught the FBI's attention, and with it, the attention of the Obama White House.  With the administration "in the loop," they had a trump card that could be played against Petraeus at a time of their choosing.  With the director scheduled to testify before Congress next week, Team Obama found its moment.  As we noted in a previous post, the possibility that the White House torpedoed General Petraeus is quite likely.
> 
> - *Who is the Second Woman?*   The Wall Street Journal reported late Saturday that the FBI probe began after a second women (who lives in Florida) complained about harassing e-mails she received from Ms. Broadwell, inquiring about her relationship with the general.  Once again, we find the feds' response rather interesting.  Thousands of harassing e-mails are sent across the web each day, yet few receive any attention from law enforcement.  Of course, e-mails that involve the CIA Director would certainly raise the ante, as would those involving a second individual at the upper levels of defense or intelligence.  The "other woman" doesn't appear to be an ordinary "civilian," since the feds promptly acted on her complaint, and launched a full-scale investigation.
> 
> - *What About the Vetting Process? * Many have expressed surprise that Petraeus's affair wasn't discovered during his confirmation process as CIA Director.  But the fact is, General Petraeus received only a cursory check as he retired from the Army and moved to Langley.  As a senior military commander, Petraeus already had access to the nation's most sensitive secrets, and investigators had decades of security clearance investigations and updates to draw upon.  On the surface, David Petraeus looked remarkably clean and since he didn't disclose the affair at the time of his confirmation, there was nothing in his background check to arouse suspicions.  And, as former FBI agent Gary Aldrich observed during the Clinton years, greater latitude is given to political appointees in terms of past misdeeds and questionable behavior.  But the general failed to report his affair--for rather obvious reasons--so it remained a secret until the FBI began its probe.
> 
> - *What Does This Have to Do With Benghazi?*  In a word, plenty.  As we've noted previously, Petraeus's sudden departure may prevent him from testifying about what happned in Libya on the night of September 11th, at the very time Congress is trying to get to the bottom of the mess.  The CIA will still send someone to the Hill this week, but it's unclear if the acting director was actively involved in the decision-making on that fateful evening.  And, if Petraeus (and the administration) choose to fight or ignore a Congressional subpoena, we may never learn what he did during the attacks on our consulate and safe house.  As Ralph Peters observed the other day, the timing of Petraeus's departure is far too convenient.  With the White House aware of Petraeus's affair (through the FBI and attorney general Holder), they could afford to keep him on the job--and articulating the "video" version of Benghazi--until it became convenient to cut him loose.
> 
> *So what comes next? * The hearings on Capitol Hill will go forward, but the narrative has changed, and that's by design.  Questions about what happened in Libya have now been superseded by a good, old-fashioned sex scandal.  The media is already looking for the second woman, and the sex angle will drive coverage for the next few weeks.
> 
> Meanwhile, the issue of Benghazi will fade into the background; Congressional Democrats will likely accept lame excuses offered by the administration, DoD and the intel community, while the public learns every excruciating detail of David Petraeus's extra-marital affairs.  Indeed, the sex angle will become the prism through which many Americans view the Benghazi scandal; the emerging meme will go something like this: David Petraeus was too busy with his affairs to pay attention to the growing threat to our personnel in Libya.  Connect a few more dots, and it's easy to see the former CIA Director becoming a scapegoat for the loss of four Americans in Benghazi.
> 
> And that too, will be by design.


         

Again, re-produced under the Fair Dealings provions of the Copyright Act.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

The third, and (so far) latest musings from the "In from the Cold" website on the Petraeus affair.



> Who Knew? (Petraeus Scandal Edition)
> 
> The sexual affair that forced the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus was one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, or at least that's what The New York Times would have us believe.
> 
> In a report published yesterday, the paper said that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia had a discussion about the matter with an FBI official in October.  The Times' implication is clear: leaders on both sides of the Congressional aisle were aware of Petraeus's misdeeds, but said nothing with the election looming.
> 
> But, as with many accounts offered up by the NYT, you need to read a little further to get to the gist of the story; here's a CNN account of the latest twist, based on the paper's original article:
> 
> _[Cantor spokesman] Doug Heye said the Congressman had a conversation with the whistleblower about the affair and the national security concerns involved in the matter (emphasis ours).
> 
> The New York Times reported Saturday that on October 31, Cantor's chief of staff phoned the FBI to inform the agency about the call between the Congressman and the FBI official.  The Times reported Cantor learned of the whistleblower through Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Washington.
> 
> A spokesman for Reichert told CNN Sunday that the Times article was accurate, but that the Congressman had no further comment on his involvement in the case._
> 
> The key word, obviously, is whistleblower.  Why did an FBI official approach Congressman Reichert when the bureau had been investigating the Petraeus matter for months?  Why didn't the official simply raise his concerns internally?
> 
> One possibility is the official was concerned about how the probe was being handled, and feared recrimination if he or she voiced their objections at the bureau.  Congressman Reichert does not serve on the House Intelligence Committee, but is co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus and was sheriff of King County, Washington before being elected to Congress.  It's rather curious that Reichert referred the matter to Cantor; perhaps he thought the matter was so serious that (a) Congressional leadership needed to hear the the whistleblower's story, and (b) the FBI would pay more attention if the concern was voiced by the majority leader and not an "ordinary" member of the House.
> 
> The timing of Mr. Cantor's involvement is equally interesting.  Both the  Washington Post  and the NYT confirm that the majority leader contacted the bureau in late October, a little more than a week before the presidential election.   By that time (according to earlier reports), the investigation had been underway for several months.  Was the FBI official that approached Congressman Reichert worried that the bureau was about to sweep the affair under the rug, or was it a set-up, aimed at creating "bi-partisan" knowledge of the matter, less than two weeks before Petraeus's affair would become public knowledge?
> 
> Here's another reason to keep the Cantor timeline in mind: the same Washington Post account insists that both the President and the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, did not learn of the investigation until election night:
> The notification came Tuesday evening, while polls were still open in an election that would return President Obama to office for four more years.
> 
> _"Director Clapper learned of the situation from the FBI on Tuesday evening around 5 p.m.," a senior U.S. intelligence official said. "In subsequent conversations with Director Petraeus, Director Clapper advised Director Petraeus to resign." The official said Clapper has been fully briefed on the FBI investigation and has not called for his office or CIA to conduct a follow-up probe or damage assessment, indicating Clapper does not see the case as a security threat.
> The official would not address why the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and others were not notified earlier of the FBI investigation and its link to Petraeus. The emerging details suggest Petraeus was not involved in the decision to notify the White House that he had been ensnared in an FBI probe. Instead, it was Clapper who told the White House late Wednesday.
> A senior administration official defended the decision not to notify the president earlier, saying staffers "needed to get their arms around" the matter before briefing Obama, who had returned from his election trip to Chicago on Wednesday night.
> 
> So, in other words, the nation's highest-ranking intelligence officer and the commander-in-chief didn't learn of the Petraeus investigation until Tuesday night?  Call that one highly implausible, to say the least. _
> 
> Lest we forget, the probe into the CIA Director's activities began over concerns that his e-mail had been hacked, and sensitive information might have been compromised.  Yet, neither the FBI Director or his boss, the attorney general, saw any need to notify the DNI or the President?  If that's the case, then Eric Holder and Robert Muller should be fired immediately for gross incompetence.
> 
> Of course, Mr. Holder is no stranger to controversy, or putting his department in the midst of a political imbroglio.  If the "Fast and the Furious" scandal is any indication, Mr. Holder knew about the Petraeus affair long before the final stages of the presidential campaign--and so did the White House.  Mr. Mueller, on the other hand, is well-regarded in Washington and has done a credible job running the FBI; given his track record, it's difficult to envision the bureau conducting a probe of General Petraeus without Mueller's knowledge.  In fact,  The Wall Street Journal  reported Saturday that Mr. Holder was aware of the investigation "for several months."  That means that Mr. Mueller was in the loop as well.
> 
> If the "who knew" (and when) timeline already seems a bit shaky, one thing is clear: David Petraeus  will not be testifying before Congress on the Benghazi scandal anytime soon.  Appearing on ABC's This Week, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss (the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee) said General Petraeus will "eventually" testify on the matter, but he is not expected to appear during closed-door hearings this week.  "He's trying to put his life back together and that's what he needs to focus on," Chambliss said.  The committee chairman, Senator Diane Feinstein of California, offered similar thoughts on CBS's Face the Nation.
> 
> That puts Republicans in a rather inconvenient position.  If Petraeus doesn't testify soon, the investigation loses steam and it may prove impossible to sort out what happened at Benghazi.  But if they subpoena the former CIA Director, they will lose the public relations battle, viewed as "harassing" a military hero at a low point in his life.  And rest assured, the White House is shrewdly calculating that Congressional Republicans--one week after a major electoral defeat--won't pressure Petraeus to testify.
> 
> If it all seems a little pat, give yourself a gold star and move to the head of the class.  It's evident that many in the administration don't want General Petraeus appearing before Congress in the near future.  And one reason was provided, strangely enough, by the CIA Director's former paramour, Paula Broadwell.   Israel National News reporter Gil Ronen was (apparently) the first journalist to discover a lecture Ms. Broadwell delivered at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on October 26th.
> 
> Broadwell's address, part of an annual alumni seminar,  have been posted at YouTube.  Beginning at 34:52 into her remarks, Broadwell answers a question concerning General Petraeus and the Benghazi incident.  She affirms the CIA Director was aware of requests for assistance from American personnel on the ground, then adds a couple of tantalizing details: first, the CIA was holding two Libyan prisoners at the Benghazi annex, which was attacked after the consulate fell.  That certainly provides another rationale for the assault on the annex.
> 
> To our knowledge, no one has previously acknowledged the presence of Libyan prisoners at that facility.  That sort of information would come from someone in a position to know--say, the CIA Director.  It also suggests that the affair between Broadwell and Petraeus did not end (as originally reported) when the retired general took over the agency in 2011.  Divulging that type of "insider" information indicates that Petraeus and Broadwell were in regular contact through the attack in Benghazi and discussed events that transpired on the night of September 11th.  Yet, the FBI claims that national security wasn't jeopardized by their relationship.  Based on the prisoners claim, it sounds like Congressional Republicans should add one more name to their witness list--Paula Broadwell.
> 
> In her Denver speech, Ms. Broadwell also revealed that besieged CIA operatives in Benghazi made a specific request for a "command in-extremis force."  These elite units, assigned to every regional command, consist of Delta Force operators and other special forces personnel.  One of their specialties is providing quick reaction assistance to American facilities under attack.
> 
> Why is that nugget so important?   According to the official Pentagon timeline, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (and other senior officials) discussed the deployment of SF assets from Croatia and the United States to Benghazi, if violence flared anew.  The discussions took part between midnight and 2 am (Benghazi time) on September 12th.  The in-extremis force is never mentioned, assuming it is not the unit that was training in Croatia at that time.
> 
> And that, in turn, leads to another report that has been making the rounds since the Benghazi incident occurred.  Some in military circles claim there was a sharp disagreement between officials in Washington and General Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. Africa Command.  Libya is part of AFRICOM's geographic region, and the "in-extremis" force that would have been dispatched belonged to General Ham.  The CINC reportedly wanted to send forces to Benghazi, but was told to stand down by his superiors in Washington.  We should note that these claims have been sharply denied by the Pentagon.  It was also announced late last month that General Ham will be leaving his post in March 2013, well ahead of schedule. DoD spokesmen told the Washington Times the leadership change was in the works well before Benghazi, though Ham's tenure will be shorter than other MAJCOM leaders.
> 
> "Curiouser and curiouser," as Lewis Carroll's Alice once observed.  This much we know: the Petraeus scandal--and its connection to events in Benghazi--won't magically disappear, as much as the Obama Administration might prefer.  General Petraeus is going through a rough patch right now--completely of his own making--but that doesn't negate his obligation to testify before Congress.  Republicans in the House and Senate should demand that he appear this week, and issue a subpoena, if necessary.  The families of four dead Americans deserve that much.



Re-produced under the provisions under the Copyright Act.


----------



## cupper

In response to the identity of "the other woman" the Washington Post is reporting that it is a woman named Jill Kelly.

In one story she was identified as the State Department's Liaison with JSOC, however that reference seems to have disappeared from subsequent Post articles, however other web sources carry the JSOC reference.

She is now being identified as an unpaid volunteer working at McDill.


----------



## Infanteer

From SNL:

David Patraeus had an affair with the author of his biography entitled "All In".  The original working title, before things really progressed, was "Just the Tip".


----------



## OldSolduer

Now another general is being investigated.

Burn the witches!


----------



## GAP

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Now another general is being investigated.
> 
> Burn the witches!



Maybe the US is just downsizing to meet budget requirements........should Canada follow their example?


----------



## tomahawk6

USMC GEN Allen is now under the gun. This brings a new meaning to military access. By the way he was supposed to be the next SACEUR,but now the nomination is on hold. I suspect Allen will retire instead - if he didnt violate the UCMJ which now seems a possibility.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15119872-emails-on-coming-and-goings-of-petraeus-other-military-officials-escalated-fbi-concerns

By Michael Isikoff and Bob Sullivan
NBC News

New in this version: FBI search Paula Broadwell's home Monday night; officials say the FBI agent who worked with Jill Kelley, the Tampa, Fla. woman who received anonymous emails from Broadwell, was dismissed from case because he became obsessed with Kelley.

Updated at 11:36 p.m. ET: “Menacing” anonymous emails that launched the FBI investigation which ultimately brought down CIA Director David Petraeus contained references to the “comings and goings” of high-level U.S. military officials, raising concerns that someone had improperly gained access to sensitive and classified information, a source close to the recipient tells NBC News.

The first email sent anonymously to Jill Kelley, the Tampa, Fla., woman who reported the threatening emails to the FBI, in May referred to Kelley socializing with other generals in the Tampa area and suggested it was inappropriate and should stop, according to the source close to Kelley, who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity.

After Kelley alerted the FBI, agents began pursuing it as a possible case of cyber harassment or stalking. "The thought was she was being followed," the source said.

The anonymous emails continued -- sent from multiple alias accounts -- and some later ones in the sequence contained references to Petraeus, though not by name, the source said.

What most alarmed Kelley and the FBI, the source said, were references to "the comings and goings" of high-level generals from the U.S. Central Command, which is based at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, and the U.S. Southern Command, as well as Petraeus -- including events that were not on any public schedule. This raised the question as to whether somebody had access to sensitive -- and classified -- information.

Moreover, the sender of the emails had "covered her tracks pretty well," the source said.

Multiple government and law enforcement officials have told NBC News that FBI agents traced the emails to Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ biographer. In the course of the investigation, the agents also discovered emails between Petraeus and Broadwell that were indicative of an extramarital affair, they said.

The source close to Kelley said that she had never met Broadwell and had no idea who she was. The source also stressed that Kelley has been active in multiple social events in the Tampa area and is purely a social friend of the Petraeus family.

Meanwhile, it has come to light that the FBI agent contacted by Kelley about the emails she received from Broadwell was removed from the case. According to officials, the agent’s supervisors said he had become infatuated with Kelley and had sent her shirtless photos of himself.

The FBI remains involved in the case, however. On Monday evening, plain-clothed FBI agents arrived at Broadwell’s home in Dilworth, N.C. around 9 p.m. Monday night for what a senior law enforcement official called a “consensual search.” The official said the search is not a raid and “not a game changer.”

Rather, the official said that the FBI is being thorough as it finishes its investigation into Broadwell and whether she violated cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying laws.

The investigation of Petraeus has concluded. Law enforcement sources tell NBC News that Petraeus is not under investigation and that they don't expect their inquiry will result in criminal charges.

The search of Broadwell's home is not expected to yield information that would lead to charges against her, the official said. At the house, agents did not respond when reporters asked for their affiliation, although WCNC in Charlotte, N.C. confirmed they were with the FBI.

NBC News has been unable to reach Broadwell for comment.

The new information offers clues about how federal investigators could connect a handful of anonymous emails to Broadwell, a trained intelligence officer who spent years working with some of the most secretive agencies in the world.

Federal officials who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity on Monday said it took agents a while to figure out the source. They did that by finding out where the messages were sent from -- which cities, which Wi-Fi locations in hotels. That gave them names, which they then checked against guest lists from other cities and hotels, looking for common names. 

That led them to Broadwell, they said, noting that the pattern coincided with her travel to promote her book.

Finding the location from which the emails emanated would not have been difficult, experts say.

Some webmail services, including Yahoo and Microsoft's Outlook.com, send user IP addresses across the Web with every note, according to privacy researcher Chris Soghoian. Those IP addresses can be used to track the physical location of a computer user connected to the Internet, sometimes without the help of an Internet service provider.

Broadwell had used a Yahoo account publicly in the past. If she used a new, fake Yahoo account for some of those anonymous emails, agents would have had an easy time gathering a list of IP addresses from the threatening emails Kelley provided to them. And even if she had used Gmail or another service that doesn't "leak" IP information, an FBI agent could have obtained such information by calling Google with a subpoena, the experts said.

Once there was evidence to link Broadwell to the emails, agents would have had little trouble proving probable cause and getting a warrant under the provisions of the Stored Communications Act, which would allow them to access any emails sent or received during the prior 180 days. Agents could also have sought a wiretap order and monitored Broadwell’s email in real time, though wiretaps are more challenging to obtain, and there is no indication that agents took that step.

Soghoian said the successful cyberhunt for Broadwell shows anonymity is much harder to preserve than many Internet users realize.

"We see this again and again. We saw it with the Anonymous (hacker) arrests last year.  The lesson for the rest of us here us you have to go through a lot of steps to maintain anonymity, and you only have to screw up once," said Soghoian. "The FBI was able to pierce the veil of anonymity even for someone who's been trained. The government only has to get one clue. You have to be successful 100 percent of the time (when trying to hide)."


----------



## Edward Campbell

David Patraeus was, apparently, a favourite of the _intellectual right_ in America, even touted, by some, presidential material.

Folks like Max Boot have gone so far as to describe him as a "great" general - when challenged on "great" he has, in fairness, backed away.

But it illustrates a problem we face today: defining "great."

George G Marshall was "great," by any historical standards; in the pantheon of American leadership Omar Bradley, Chster Nimitz and Matthew Ridgway were "great," too. But David Patraeus? Great?

Gen Patraeus was a very fine officer, smart, aggressive, and, and, and ... but his primary skills were on a par with, say, Maxwell Taylor, who hardly merited the designation of "great." 

It can be argued that modern, 21st century war doesn't provide the stage that, say, Nimitz, Wavell, Bradley, Slim, Ridgway and our own Murray used to demonstrate their strategic or tactical brilliance, their moral courage, determination and their leadership skills, and, maybe, "great" leaders only emerge, as President Ronald Reagan put it, when speaking of Ridgway, _"Heroes come when they're needed; great men step forward when courage seems in short supply."_

My  :2c: is that David Patraeus was a good officer who was, no doubt, a highly _political_ general who courted the press (Rick Hillier, anyone?); is that why he is considered, by some, to be "great?" But he made a tragic* error, perhaps fortunately, for his supporters, before he rose too far.


-----
* Tragic in the way that Euripides might have described


----------



## tomahawk6

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Patraeus was, apparently, a favourite of the _intellectual right_ in America, even touted, by some, presidential material.
> 
> Folks like Max Boot have gone so far as to describe him as a "great" general - when challenged on "great" he has, in fairness, backed away.
> 
> But it illustrates a problem we face today: defining "great."
> 
> George G Marshall was "great," by any historical standards; in the pantheon of American leadership Omar Bradley, Chster Nimitz and Matthew Ridgway were "great," too. But David Patraeus? Great?
> 
> Gen Patraeus was a very fine officer, smart, aggressive, and, and, and ... but his primary skills were on a par with, say, Maxwell Taylor, who hardly merited the designation of "great."
> 
> It can be argued that modern, 21st century war doesn't provide the stage that, say, Nimitz, Wavell, Bradley, Slim, Ridgway and our own Murray used to demonstrate their strategic or tactical brilliance, their moral courage, determination and their leadership skills, and, maybe, "great" leaders only emerge, as President Ronald Reagan put it, when speaking of Ridgway, _"Heroes come when they're needed; great men step forward when courage seems in short supply."_
> 
> My  :2c: is that David Patraeus was a good officer who was, no doubt, a highly _political_ general who courted the press (Rick Hillier, anyone?); is that why he is considered, by some, to be "great?" But he made a tragic* error, perhaps fortunately, for his supporters, before he rose too far.
> 
> 
> -----
> * Tragic in the way that Euripides might have described



Its pretty political to get promoted beyond Major General. He did rise to the rank of General which is quite an accomplishment in itself. He had alot of enemies on the left.I still remember democrat Senators calling him a liar before he had even said a word when he testified to Congress about the surge in Iraq.


----------



## Infanteer

It's like some Stalinesque purge of the Generals or something!


----------



## Jed

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> USMC GEN Allen is now under the gun. This brings a new meaning to military access. By the way he was supposed to be the next SACEUR,but now the nomination is on hold. I suspect Allen will retire instead - if he didnt violate the UCMJ which now seems a possibility.
> 
> http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15119872-emails-on-coming-and-goings-of-petraeus-other-military-officials-escalated-fbi-concerns



What was that old Navy Toast? " A Bloody War and a Sickly Season " We will have to bring it up to date and toast to " An enraged politically correct public and a sensationalist mainstream media "


----------



## tomahawk6

More like self inflicted careericide. I might add that both Petraeus and Allen are Academy grad's. Ooops my bias is showing. :-X


----------



## Journeyman

It seems like the trend is either giving secrets to the Russians or having sex with attractive younger women.  No requirement for a coin-toss for me.


----------



## GAP

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It seems like the trend is either giving secrets to the Russians or having sex with attractive younger women.  No requirement for a coin-toss for me.



Don't the Russians have sexy attractive younger women, or are you still attracted to the babushka type...?


----------



## Journeyman

Bitch


----------



## MarkOttawa

USMC GEN Allen: Not exactly _Semper Fi_?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6

Panetta is asking the Senate to delay Gen Allen's confirmation hearing and to speed up GEN Dunford's who will be the next ISAF Commander.

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15673

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 889-12
November 12, 2012


Statement by the Secretary of Defense on General John Allen


 On Sunday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation referred to the Department of Defense a matter involving General John Allen, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. 

 Today, I directed that the matter be referred to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense for investigation, and it is now in the hands of the Inspector General. I have informed the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The House Armed Services Committee has also been notified.

 While the matter is under investigation and before the facts are determined, General Allen will remain Commander of ISAF. His leadership has been instrumental in achieving the significant progress that ISAF, working alongside our Afghan partners, has made in bringing greater security to the Afghan people and in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists. He is entitled to due process in this matter.

 In the meantime, I have asked the President - and the President has agreed - to put his nomination on hold until the relevant facts are determined. I have asked both Senators Levin and McCain that the confirmation hearing on General Allen's pending nomination to be Commander of United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe be delayed.

 The President has nominated General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, to succeed General Allen at ISAF. I respectfully requested that the Senate act promptly on that nomination.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Slightly  ff topic:  being about Gen Allen, but this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Slate_ is funny:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/13/jill_kelley_gen_john_allen_emails_what_20_000_inappropriate_emails_look.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar


> U.S. Gen. John Allen reportedly sent 20,000 to 30,000 pages of “potentially inappropriate” emails to Tampa socialite Jill Kelley. We got to wondering, what would 20,000 pages of inappropriate emails look like?
> 
> We stacked up 40 reams of office paper each containing 500 sheets. To provide a point of comparison, we stood them beside Slate’s tallest staffer—Executive Editor Josh Levin, who is 6 feet 5 inches tall—as well as one of Slate’s shorter editors, Katy Waldman, who is 5 feet 3 inches tall. The tower reached just to the level of Levin’s hairline, a height of 6 feet and 4 inches.




Oh my, oh my.


----------



## Maxadia

So....roughly about the same amount of texting that my teenage students do on a daily basis.


----------



## Nemo888

Dead drop email accounts where both persons share the password/login and use the "save draft" option to share info are definitely off my list.

Momin Khawaja, SLt. Jeff Delisle and now Petraeus. Not a great track record for security.


----------



## Nemo888

The Chinese are never that sloppy. ie (circa 2003)

A NOVEL FAST IMAGE ENCRYPTION SCHEME
BASED ON 3D CHAOTIC BAKER MAPS*
YAOBIN MAO
Department of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology,
Nanjing, P. R. China
maoyaobin@163.com
GUANRONG CHEN
Department of Electronic Engineering, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China
SHIGUO LIAN
Department of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology,
Nanjing, P. R. China
Received June 27, 2003; Revised November 5, 2003


----------



## FJAG

"Sources close to the family told Fox News that Kelley, an unpaid social liaison to the military's Joint Special Operations Command in Florida, was not having an affair with Petraeus."

Quite interesting that JSOC has an unpaid social liaison.   :SOF:


----------



## Nemo888

Unpaid social liaisons don't count right? It's not really cheating.

I would guess there are a few women up late praying that their email accounts are not next on the list. To say Petraeus's wife let herself go doesn't even cut it, she looks like she could be his mom.


----------



## cupper

You're gonna need a program to follow this one.

Latest from NBC Nightly News, apparently the first FBI agent involved, is under investigation for sending shirtless photos to Jill Kelly.  :facepalm:

What the hell? Are they putting ED meds in the water supply at McDill?

You know, you really can't make this crap up.

And this just in from NBC, apparently Kelly is claiming to be an "Honorary Consul General" for Lebanon (maybe?).

Here is a backgrounder from today's Washington Post.

*
Jill Kelley: Tampa woman who was hostess to the military*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tampa-woman-was-hostess-to-the-military-but-had-deep-financial-troubles/2012/11/13/45cea33c-2d19-11e2-9ac2-1c61452669c3_story.html?hpid=z1



> At the parties Jill Kelley hosted at her Tampa mansion, guests were frequently treated to the indulgences of celebrity life: valet parking, string quartets on the lawn, premium cigars and champagne, and caviar-laden buffets.
> 
> The main recipients of the largesse were military brass — including some of the nation’s most senior commanders — based at nearby MacDill Air Force Base.
> 
> 
> 
> Kelley both flaunted her access to these military VIPs and developed what family members called genuine friendships with some. Now Kelley’s close connections to retired Gen. David H. Petraeus and Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, have brought them all under intense scrutiny in an unfolding scandal.
> 
> Federal investigators have said that Kelley’s complaint about harassing e-mails — eventually traced back to Petraeus’s biographer — triggered the FBI’s discovery of the general’s extramarital affair and his eventual resignation. According to a senior U.S. defense official, Kelley, 37, also exchanged hundreds of e-mails with Allen, who has now been ensnared in the case, amid questions over whether he had had “inappropriate communications” with her.
> 
> Kelley has not responded to requests for comment since her name surfaced as part of the controversy. Officials close to Allen strongly denied suggestions that the general had acted inappropriately with Kelley. In an interview, Kelley’s brother said the relationship between his sister and Petraeus was social and entirely platonic.
> 
> “They were truly good friends for years,” said David Khawam, a lawyer in New Jersey.
> 
> The investigations into Petraeus’s and Allen’s actions, nonetheless, have raised questions about how Jill Kelley, a woman with no formal military role, had cultivated such close ties to two of the nation’s most revered generals.
> 
> One former aide to Allen, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the case, suggested Kelley had simply become a de facto social ambassador among high-ranking military personnel at MacDill, home to U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command.
> 
> “Part of the job is social in nature,” including accepting and extending invitations, the aide said. “She was someone who was connective tissue to that world.”
> 
> Friends said Kelley was a fixture at social and charity events involving Central Command officials in Tampa, and that her life has often focused on the lavish galas she throws with her husband, Scott, a prominent surgeon in nearby Lakeland. Scott Kelley told grateful guests of various parties that he and his wife felt an obligation to share their good fortune by showing support for the military.
> 
> Behind the glamour, though, the couple was racking up substantial debt. Banks have initiated foreclosure proceedings on two of the Kelleys’ properties — not including their six-bedroom home — and other creditors have sued them for tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, according to court records filed in Hillsborough County District Court. A lawyer who represented the Kelleys in the civil suits said he had not been authorized by his clients to discuss the cases.
> 
> The Kelleys’ party-giving tradition began even before Petraeus’s stint as commander of Central Command from 2008 until 2010, friends said, but once the general arrived, the two couples developed a genuinely close bond.
> 
> Jill Kelley and her twin sister, Natalie Khawam, often went shopping and out to lunch with Holly Petraeus, particularly when her husband was stationed in Afghanistan, the friends said. In a 2011 custody battle involving Natalie Khawam and her estranged husband, both Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Allen submitted letters of support to the court.
> 
> “We have seen a very loving relationship — a mother working hard to provide her son enjoyable, educational, and developmental experiences,” Petraeus wrote, speaking on behalf of himself and his wife.
> 
> In addition to being invited to the Kelleys’ parties, the Petraeuses were also invited to intimate family gatherings, including a Christmas dinner. In one family photobook posted online, David Petraeus is pictured grinning sweetly with the Kelleys’ three young daughters. The caption from their 7-year-old daughter reads: “I was with General Petraeus. He was at my house.”
> 
> Federal investigators said Jill Kelley’s closeness to Petraeus — captured in party pictures in local newspapers and online — may have explained why she received harassing e-mails from Paula Broadwell, the woman with whom Petraeus had an extramarital affair.
> 
> But Kelley’s brother, David Khawam, said that neither of his sisters had anything but a social relationship with Petraeus. He said his sister Jill was a born giver, who early on channeled her charitable efforts into political fundraising and later to the military.
> 
> It is a quality, he said, borne of the Catholic family’s persecution in their native Lebanon, when Jill, David and Natalie were small children and their parents eventually fled to the United States, he said. All three built productive new lives in America.
> 
> “We feel we owe everything we have to this country,” David Khawam said. “We’re extremely patriotic.”
> 
> Jill Kelley seemed eager to make her civic involvement clear to those around her. Outside her two-story mansion on Tuesday was a gray S5000 Mercedes, with vanity plates that read: “Honorary Consul” and “1JK.” Nearby, contractors were piling up tables and folding chairs from a weekend party.
> 
> A military officer who is a former member of Petraeus’s staff said Kelley was a “self-appointed” go-between for Central Command officers with Lebanese and other Middle Eastern government officials.
> 
> The officer said Kelley’s presence was often a bit puzzling to Petraeus’s staff, but added that there was never any indication that her relationship with the general was anything more than social.
> 
> Aaron Fodiman, the publisher of Tampa Bay Magazine and a friend of the Kelleys, said people in the family’s social sphere are shocked by the spotlight that the investigations have cast on the community.
> 
> “She is so gracious, so lovely,” he said of Jill Kelley. “She’s one of those people — she walks in the room, and the room lights up.”


----------



## Infanteer

20,000 pages of email - maybe General Allen uses size 48 font?

As for all the other stuff, you can't even make this up.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Don't shit where you eat, sheesh.


----------



## cupper

It seems Eric Cantor may be on someone's s**t list for not bringing it up when he found out.

*House Majority Leader Cantor heard of Petraeus affair Oct. 27 from FBI source he didn’t know*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/house-majority-leader-cantor-heard-of-petraeus-affair-oct-27-from-fbi-source-he-didnt-know/2012/11/12/a3d9d884-2d46-11e2-b631-2aad9d9c73ac_story.html



> An aide to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says the Virginia congressman first heard about CIA Director David Petraeus’ extramarital affair on Saturday, Oct. 27, from an FBI source he didn’t know.
> 
> Communications director Rory Cooper told The Associated Press Monday that Cantor notified the FBI’s chief of staff of the conversation, but did not tell anyone else because he did not know whether the information from an unknown source was credible. Petraeus resigned last week as the nation’s top spy because of the affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.
> 
> The Cantor spokesman said the Oct. 27 conversation was arranged by Rep. Dave Reichert, a Washington state Republican. Reichert had initially received a tip from an FBI source who was a colleague of the bureau employee who called Cantor.
> 
> The FBI agent who contacted Reichert was the same one who first received the allegations from Tampa socialite Jill Kelley that she was receiving threatening emails, a federal law enforcement official said Monday night. FBI agents eventually traced the alleged harassment emails warning Kelley to stay away from Petraeus to Broadwell.
> 
> Petraeus has told associates his relationship with Kelley was platonic, though Broadwell apparently saw her as a romantic rival. Kelley served as a sort of social ambassador for U.S. Central Command, hosting parties for the general when Petraeus was commander there from 2008-2010.
> 
> That agent’s role in the case consisted simply of passing along information from Kelley to the FBI agents who conducted the investigation, but that agent was subsequently told by his superiors to steer clear of the case because they grew concerned that the agent had become obsessed with the investigation, the official said. The agent was a friend of Kelley and long before the case involving Petraeus got under way, the agent had sent Kelley shirtless photos of himself, according to this official. The Wall Street Journal first reported that this FBI agent was kept away from the case.
> 
> The day after the late-October call, Rory Cooper said, Cantor conferred with his chief of staff, Steve Stombres, and Richard Cullen, a former attorney general of Virginia who also served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
> 
> Cantor decided after those conversations to call the FBI, but couldn’t do so until Wednesday, Oct. 31, because the government was closed due to Superstorm Sandy.
> 
> On that Wednesday, Stombres called the FBI chief of staff to relay the information and received a return call from the official the next day. The Cantor aide was told the FBI could not confirm or deny an investigation, but the bureau official assured the leader’s office it was acting to protect national security.
> 
> Cooper said Cantor’s office did not notify anyone else because, “at the time, it was one person making the allegation which, while serious, was completely unsubstantiated. He (Cantor) didn’t know this person. He did the only thing he thought appropriate and that he thought was responsible. Two weeks ago, you don’t want to start spreading something you can’t confirm.”
> 
> Cantor believed that if the information was accurate and national security was affected, the FBI would — as obligated — inform the congressional intelligence committees and others, including Speaker John Boehner.
> 
> Congress will now investigate why the FBI didn’t notify lawmakers of its investigation.
> 
> But by late October, the FBI had concluded there was no national security breach and was only pursuing a criminal investigation of the harassing emails and whether Petraeus had played any role in them, according to two federal law enforcement officials. They demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing controversy on the record.
> 
> In response to criticism from members of Congress that they should have been told about the matter earlier, one of the officials pointed out that long-standing Justice Department policy and practice is not to share information from an ongoing criminal investigation with anyone outside the department, including the White House and Congress.
> 
> For a matter to fall in the category of notifying the Hill, national security must be involved. Given the absence of a security breach, it was appropriate not to notify Congress or the White House, this law enforcement official said.


----------



## Privateer

An interesting piece on the North American pathological focus on matters of a sexual nature, to the exclusion of (what should be) matters of much more importance: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/12/shaken_not_stirred_by_cia_values 



> The real scandal here is that when the head of the CIA sleeps with someone who is not his wife, it causes a national scandal, but when the agency manages a drone program that serially violates the sovereignty of nations worldwide, that it helps formulate and then execute "kill lists" that make James Bond's most egregious sprees of violence look a kindergarten birthday party, it does not.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Privateer said:
			
		

> An interesting piece on the North American pathological focus on matters of a sexual nature, to the exclusion of (what should be) matters of much more importance: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/12/shaken_not_stirred_by_cia_values



Would you rather see predator drones having sex with each other and generals going after people on kill lists?


----------



## cupper

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Would you rather see predator drones having sex with each other and generals going after people on kill lists?



It would save money on buying new drones. ;D


----------



## FJAG

:rofl:

Lovely graphic in the National Post to explain the whole thing to date:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/13/graphic-perteaus-kelley-broadwell-allen-and-the-fbi-guy-with-no-shirt/

Looks to me like "No-shirt FBI agent" has some explaining to do.


----------



## cupper

FJAG said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Lovely graphic in the National Post to explain the whole thing to date:
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/13/graphic-perteaus-kelley-broadwell-allen-and-the-fbi-guy-with-no-shirt/
> 
> Looks to me like "No-shirt FBI agent" has some explaining to do.



So, how are they going to close the loop with a link between Allen and shirtless FBI guy?


----------



## a_majoor

Well, this makes about as much sense as anything else being said about the topic:

http://senseofevents.blogspot.ca/2012/11/petraeus-and-broadwell-fbi-circles.html



> Tuesday, November 13, 2012
> *Petraeus and Broadwell: The FBI circles the wagons*
> 
> By Donald Sensing
> 
> How interesting that last night I was speaking to a former field-grade Marine infantry officer about l'affaire Petraeus wherein we marveled at other senior Army or Marine officers we had known in our careers who could not keep their pants zipped and ruined their otherwise-stellar careers. For my buddy it was a regimental commander, years ago. The one that I recollected first was an armor brigade commander who decided to poke his Spec 4 driver, and I don't mean on the then-nonexistent Facebook.
> 
> I confess to having a more jaded view of the whole sordid mess than a lot of folks for two main reasons. One, my final assignment in the Army was as a principal staff officer of US Army Criminal Investigation Command - and you do that for awhile and you will never again be surprised at anything stupid or criminal that anyone does, no matter his/her reputation, accomplishments or station in life. Two, I've been in ecclesial ministry for 15 years, same lesson (including, sadly, fellow clergy).
> 
> So last night my buddy, bemoaning the fall of David Petraeus (whom he briefed weekly, in person, in Baghdad for two years when serving there during the Surge), said confidently, "You'll never see John Allen doing anything like that." That would be four-star Gen. John Allen, US Marine Corps, supreme allied commander in Afghanistan, with whom my friend served when they were both mid-grade officers.
> 
> My response was, well, typically jaded: "He will never do it until he does it." I recollected 1986's blockbuster movie, Top Gun, in which a Navy air-combat instructor pilot tells Tom Cruise's character, "That was some of the best flying I've ever seen. Right up to the point where you got killed." And the men or women you would never suspect of stupidity or unzipping their pants never do so - right up until the time they do.
> 
> So a creepy feeling this morning to behold this headline: "Petraeus investigation ensnares commander of U.S., NATO troops in Afghanistan"
> 
> PERTH, Australia — The FBI probe into the sex scandal that prompted CIA Director David Petraeus to resign has expanded to ensnare Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, the Pentagon announced early Tuesday.
> 
> According to a senior U.S. defense official, the FBI has uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of documents — most of them e-mails — that contain “potentially inappropriate” communication between Allen and Jill Kelley, the 37-year-old Tampa woman whose report of harassment by a person who turned out to be Petraeus’s mistress ultimately led to Petraeus’s downfall.
> 
> Allen, a Marine, succeeded Petraeus as the top allied commander in Afghanistan in July 2011. He also served as Petraeus’s deputy when both generals led the military’s Tampa-based Central Command from 2008 until 2010.
> 
> Well, zing! Wait a minute: thirty thousand pages of emails? That's, what, nine millions words or so! Hey, John, who's running the war while you're writing the equivalent of 15 volumes of War and Peace? Okay, so surely most of the pages were documents attachments. But why were they sent to Jill Kelley, who was as far from "need to know" as you can imagine. CBS News asks, "Who is Jill Kelley?" and here is the answer:
> 
> The Tampa, Florida socialite has three young children with her husband, a prominent cancer surgeon. The couple met Petraeus about five years ago through their charitable work for military families. The couple often attends events at the military's central command center in Tampa.
> 
> So a socialite enjoys a string of personal emails from a four-star general running the Afghanistan war, amounting to 30,000 pages or correspondence and attachments. No wonder SecDef Leon Panetta ordered a Defense Inspector General investigation. (Update: Kelley is a shameless self promoter, advertising herself as the "social liaison" for Central Command. Of which there is no such thing. "Social butterfly" would be a better description.)
> 
> Okay, let me try to walk this dog:
> 
> •Petraeus and Paul Broadwell have an affair, supposedly breaking it off about three months ago.
> •The communicated covertly with each other by using a Google Gmail account set up for just that purpose, using the same logon to write emails to one another but never sending them, which would leave an electronic trail. Instead, they save them as drafts and then read them unsent.
> •Broadwell decided that Kelley is trying to muscle in on her man and sends Kelley some (vaguely) threatening emails, stupidly using the special Gmail account, thus laying down electronic breadcrumbs.
> •Kelley, not knowing who sent the emails (which in fact are pretty innocuous) happens to have a personal relationship with and FBI agent in town. She shows him the emails and,
> •He springs into action and opens an investigation! Why? Not because there is anything actually criminally actionable in the emails but because he wants to have an affair with Kelley! How do we know? Because his superiors yanked him off the investigation for sending Kelley topless photos of himself.
> •Nonetheless, the investigation goes forward because, well, that's what investigations do. The FBI cracks the secret Gmail account and discovers at least some of the emails between Petraeus and Broadwell. But, as the FBI has explained, they did not uncover evidence that Petraeus himself had done anything illegal. Nor for that matter, has any such evidence been uncovered against Broadwell, at least so far. And yet, only last night did the FBI get around to searching Broadwell's residence.
> •Apparently, Gen. Allen was roped into the investigation because the FBI was reviewing Kelley's emails, too, and discovered a reference to the Broadwell emails in an email she had sent to Allen.
> The senior defense official said the voluminous collection of e-mails sent between Allen and Kelley occurred between 2010 and this year but did not give details. The official also declined to say whether Allen sent or received any of the messages from his military or government e-mail accounts, or if classified material was compromised.
> 
> So here is may personal assessment as things stand now:
> 
> 1. The question on everyone's mind is, "Is Petraeus's resignation connected to his formerly-forthcoming testimony to Congress about the massacre at Benghazi?" My answer: "No." Resigning neither prevents Petraeus from testifying nor the committee from subpoenaing him.
> 
> 2. Was Gen. Allen romantically involved with Jill Kelley? No, but he did rather stupidly carry on a long and lengthy email correspondence with her.
> 
> 3. Was the US consulate in Benghazi being used as a detention cell for al Qaeda prisoners, which Broadwell said in a speech last month (video here)? No, but Libyan Islamists may well have thought so, which could have prompted the attack.
> 
> 4. What was going on with Paula Broadwell and Jill Kelley? They did not apparently know each other very well, if at all, living two states apart. But both strike me as social climbers and status seekers, Broadwell using her West Point diploma as a key to biograph Petraeus and Kelley using her husband's wealth to ingratiate herself with US Central Command officers as a friend of the military.
> 
> 5. Since the FBI's investigation has been going on for, minimally, many weeks if not many months, and no criminality has been uncovered, why does it still continue? What was the basis for plundering Broadwell's home last night?
> 
> 6. Did the FBI withhold announcing the investigation until after the election to avoid embarassing President Obama as election day loomed? No, they didn't announce until Petraeus resigned. They didn't announce otherwise for two main reasons: (1) they didn't really have anything to announce. Theirs was a criminal, not counterintelligence, investigation and as of late last week (and today, too) they had not found evidence of criminality by anyone involved; (2) to avoid embarrassing themselves for having the investigation's lead agent revealed as hot to trot for Kelley (the complainant), initiating the investigation not based on adequate reasons but from boyish infatuation, as way to move in on her, and sending her provocative pix of himself. IMO, this is the primary reason the FBI stayed mum.
> 
> Right now, it seems to me that the main thing going on is the FBI is engaging in a huge coverup of its own ineptitude and failure to adhere to professional standards. There is no "there" there in the investigation - no evidence of criminal conduct or intelligence threat and, most importantly, no reason for the Broadwell emails to have been the subject of an investigation to begin with. But now the FBI is "all in," and is not going to stop until somehow, some way, no matter how flimsy the reason, they get the opportunity to slap cuffs on somebody.
> 
> Now the "investigation" is not about Petraeus, not about Obama, not about Allen or Broadwell or Kelley. It's about the FBI circling the wagons.
> 
> Update: This is on the money, too: "FBI's abuse of the surveillance state is the real scandal needing investigation"
> 
> Which reinforces my point that the investigation is now about FBI self protection. One way or another they are going to arrest someone.
> 
> Update: News reports say that the FBI conducted a consent search of Broadwell's home, meaning that the Broadwells permitted it through their attorney. It also means that the FBI did not have probable cause for a search, else it would have been done under warrant long ago. That in turn means that the "threatening" emails were not threatening in the least because if their content had crossed some legal threshold, once the FBI established who sent them, it would have arrested Broadwell right away and conducted a home search incident to the arrest.
> 
> Once again: There is nothing here deserving of the media attention it is getting (which should be redirected now directly upon the FBI itself, not the principals) or deserving the investigator man hours and resources being expended on it. Does one smell the aroma of a US attorney general ordering the FBI to make sure that this non-issue stays the lead story as Congress prepares to hear testimony about the Benghazi attacks?
> 
> The only reason the Broadwells would have consented to the search was to exculpate themselves by the FBI's analysis of their computer equipment and other items coming up null. This was a major mistake on Broadwell's and her attorney's part. As I said above, the FBI is going to make darn sure it arrests somebody, anybody, in connection to this case, and right now Paula Broadwell is the leading contender. They will find a way. Paula, if you don't know who the fall guy is, it's you.


----------



## Nemo888

My question is how much longer do I have to wait in the news cycle to read the, "I'll kill you! You skanky whore. I know what you did," emails.

It's such a conundrum that the crazy ones are sexy. Unpaid social liaisons usually stay quiet. Those emails must be really psycho. I say 7 days, just when we get totally bored they will come out.


----------



## Journeyman

An ever-increasing circle of:     op:       :stars:       :boring:


                                                                          ......with an occasional touch of   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## OldSolduer

A nurse friend of mine and I were discussing this Petraeus affair the other day. She stated that the more she works in Health Services, the more she thinks human beings are not monogamus by nature. I tend to agree.

Hundreds of thousands of years of human development and evolution cannot be undone by a few decades of "thou shalt not sleep with (insert whatever you want here)". It has happened with us on more than one occassion and will happen again.


----------



## Infanteer

The only thing that would make this story more epic than it already is would be for Chewbacca to show up playing a fender guitar.


----------



## 57Chevy

Well lets face it,  the guys a chick magnet.

He's the guy posers try to imitate. ;D


----------



## Nemo888

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> She stated that the more she works in Health Services, the more she thinks human beings are not monogamus by nature. I tend to agree.


Bwahaha, me too. The gift that keep on giving must still be making the rounds. Line ups in the morning ladies and gentlemen. Medics prefer to drink coffee and shoot the shit, not earn their pecker checker/ punani prognosticator nick name.


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting in two ways: 

1. The General visited Libya after the terrorist attack, something generally not known before now, and filed a report on the situation

2. The report is being held; even the Democrat Chair of the Senate Intelligence committee is unable to access this (which should be part of their normal remit; the committee has access to the same intelligence sources as the President), and is now threatening to subpoena the Agency to get it.

So there is a lot of information out there that is missing or being drowned out in a flood of titillating but irrelevant scandal mongering:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/13/feinstein-ill-subpoena-cia-about-petraeus-trip-to-libya-after-benghazi-attack/



> *Feinstein: I’ll subpoena CIA about Petraeus trip to Libya after Benghazi attack*
> posted at 8:51 am on November 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
> 
> One piece of information that got lost the last few days of sex scandals is the news that David Petraeus personally traveled to Libya after the Benghazi attack — and apparently filed a “trip report” covering his own findings.  Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee probing the Benghazi terrorist attack, wants either the report or Petraeus to testify to its contents.  So far, though, the CIA and the White House have refused to provide it — and yesterday, Feinstein threatened that subpoenas may be forthcoming if the stonewalling continues:
> 
> “The premise is not necessarily an investigation,” Feinstein said, speaking of an investigation into Petraeus. “The premise is to see exactly what happened. I believe that Director Petraeus made a trip to the region, shortly before this became public. I believe that there is a trip report. We have asked to see the trip report. One person tells me he has read it, and then we tried to get it and they tell me it hasn’t been done. That’s unacceptable. We are entitled to this trip report, and if we have to go to the floor of the Senate on a subpoena, we will do just that.”
> 
> Host Andrea Mitchell asked Feinstein for clarification, and Feinstein explained that trip would include “relevant information.”
> 
> “Yes,” she replied. “For the very reason that it may have some very relevant information to what happened in Benghazi.”
> This seems more than passingly curious.  Why wouldn’t the CIA share the trip report with Feinstein? First of all, the Congressional intelligence committees in both chambers are entitled to see it as part of their oversight responsibilities over the agency, especially given the fact that the report comes after a terrorist attack that Congress has an obvious interest in investigating.  On top of that, Feinstein and the Senate committee are arguably a more friendly venue than the House committees looking into the attack.
> 
> This lack of openness, coming on the heels of the revelations of Petraeus’ affair and his resignation, will only raise more questions about why Petraeus is no longer testifying, and why he was so quick to get out of the way.  When a Democratic Senator has to go on MSNBC to threaten a Democratic administration with a subpoena, well …. it should raise a few eyebrows.


----------



## Jarnhamar

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-horrified-to-learn-about-war-in-afghanistan,30367/

Nation Horrified To Learn About War In Afghanistan While Reading Up On Petraeus Sex Scandal


----------



## cupper

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-horrified-to-learn-about-war-in-afghanistan,30367/
> 
> Nation Horrified To Learn About War In Afghanistan While Reading Up On Petraeus Sex Scandal



What, there's a war going on in Afghanistan? When did that happen?


----------



## cupper

Apparently the makers of Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 didn't vet their characters well enough.

*Petraeus a now unlikely defense secretary in Call of Duty*

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57549396-1/petraeus-a-now-unlikely-defense-secretary-in-call-of-duty/



> More than a decade in the future, we'll see a still-strapping Secretary of Defense David Petraeus greeting troops aboard the decks of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Barack Obama.
> 
> OK, so that reality seems a little less likely in our world of carbon-based life forms now that Petraeus has resigned his CIA post amid an adultery scandal, but it's still very much part of the digital world in Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.
> 
> The designers at Activision Blizzard thought the much-admired General made the most sense for a future leader of the U.S. military, and few would have disagreed with the choice before it was revealed last week that Petraeus had been engaging in his own secret ops with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.
> 
> In fact, the scandal broke and Petraeus resigned on Friday, just a few days before long-awaited game launched for PC, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360.
> 
> But it was too late, and there stands future SecDef Petraeus on the digital deck of the Obama.
> 
> The disgraced general's role in the game is actually pretty limited, but the company obviously thought it was a hot enough topic to issue this statement to reporters:
> 
> _General Petraeus was not paid, was not involved in the creation of the game, and has not been asked to endorse the game. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 and its fictional storylines are aimed at providing fun and enjoyment. It is clear to game players that his character and others that are based on real-life figures are fantasy. Including Gen. Petraeus and other real-life figures was strictly a creative decision made many months ago when the storyline was drafted. We are not commenting further on the latest news or Gen. Petraeus. His service to his country and career accomplishments are a matter of public record.
> _
> With Petraeus' career in public service coming to an apparent end, it's likely he'll find plenty of opportunities in the private sector. Perhaps he could follow in the footsteps of Lt. Col. Oliver North, who met with plenty of scandal in the 1980s Iran-Contra affair, and most recently served as a military adviser... to the creators of Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.



There is a video clip of Petraeus meeting with other characters on the carrier USS Barack Obama. (yes, you read that right)


----------



## Kat Stevens

What I want to know is, when will the CBC uncover the facts it needs to squarely lay the blame for the whole thing at PM Harper's feet?


----------



## GAP

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> What I want to know is, when will the CBC uncover the facts it needs to squarely lay the blame for the whole thing at PM Harper's feet?



Well.....they've been known to hold tight to info until the time was ripe.....when is the new rating season starting?.... :


----------



## Brad Sallows

You mean Broadwell isn't Harper in drag?


----------



## cupper

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You mean Broadwell isn't Harper in drag?



That's an image I'll have nightmares about! >


----------



## skyhigh10

Sad that this is even news.

At days end, the man is still a human being like the rest of us. I will not remember him as an adulterous boogy man who jeopardized national security. As much as I feel for his wife and family, I do not think the mans sex life has to do with his ability to serve his country honourably.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The Taliban's take....


> The sex scandal that has brought down CIA chief David Petraeus may be causing heartache in the Washington security establishment but the affair has prompted laughter among the Taliban.
> 
> Petraeus resigned last week to pre-empt revelations of an affair with his married biographer Paula Broadwell, bringing to an end a glittering military career that included a spell commanding NATO forces fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
> 
> A stony-faced Taliban official burst into laughter at the mention of the Petraeus affair during an interview with AFP in northwest Pakistan this week.
> 
> The Islamists dealt harshly with adulterers during their brutal 1996-2001 rule in Afghanistan, dishing out public floggings for offenders.
> 
> The traditional moral code of the Pashtuns, the main ethnic group the Taliban draw their members from, also demands severe punishment for adulterers.
> 
> "From a Pashtun point of view, Petraeus should be shot by relatives from his mistress's family," the Taliban official explained.
> 
> "From a Shariah point of view, he should be stoned to death." ....


Emirates 24/7, 15 Nov 12


----------



## a_majoor

More "fail" on the story. Stonewalling and ever changing timelines only serves to make the revelations far more damaging and dragging down more people when the truth finally arrives. You can bet a fair amount that more and more people are starting to look at what they know and their place in the food chain, and starting to consider if stonewalling or leaking information will serve to best protect their own careers and positions:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/more-hot-air-from-white-house-and-eric-holder/



> *More Hot Air From White House and Eric Holder*
> Posted By David Truman On November 16, 2012 @ 12:44 pm In Homeland Security,Legal,US News | 21 Comments
> 
> The claim by Eric Holder that it was right to keep the FBI investigation of General Petraeus secret from the White House, along with Jay Carney’s claim that the White House was not informed of the investigation of the General Petraeus affair until after the election because of “FBI protocols,” doesn’t hold water. Sources are claiming in news reports [1] that “it is long-standing FBI policy for the FBI not to brief Congress or the White House in the middle of a criminal probe that does not involve a security threat.” Holder now says that “we do not share outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations.”
> 
> But those claims by Holder and Carney are demonstrably false.
> 
> The Petraeus affair did involve a security threat, although it started out as an investigation of anonymous emails sent to Jill Kelley by Paula Broadwell, who the FBI quickly identified as Petraeus’s mistress. By having an affair with Ms. Broadwell, the head of the CIA risked being blackmailed, and his poor judgment and use of personal emails raised the possibility that he was improperly disclosing classified information to her. In fact, reports indicate that the FBI found classified information when it searched the computer of his mistress, although she claims she didn’t get it from Petraeus. She also apparently bragged about having access to classified information [2] while researching her book about Petraeus’s work in Afghanistan.
> 
> Obviously, such an FBI protocol against disclosing criminal investigations to the White House except for those involving security concerns would not apply to this investigation.  The possible security risk was posed by a senior government official who was directly briefing the president on matters of national security.
> 
> Furthermore, Attorney General Eric Holder was informed of this FBI investigation in late summer. The FBI is part of the Justice Department, not the other way around. No such FBI protocol that may apply to FBI agents or to the head of the FBI would apply to the attorney general or limit his ability to brief the president.
> 
> It is true that former Attorney General Michael Mukasey issued guidance [3] to the Justice Department on December 19, 2007, limiting DOJ contacts with the White House regarding ongoing criminal or civil investigations. But that guidance provided that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general could communicate with the White House counsel or his deputy “where it is important for the performance of the president’s duties and where appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.” Further, national security investigations were not subject to the limitations, so long as the attorney general or his two senior aides were notified about the communications with the White House by other DOJ personnel.
> 
> Obviously, the president relies on the CIA director for security assessments and briefings on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. Can the attorney general and the White House seriously argue that the fact that Petraeus had an extramarital affair that made him subject to blackmail, and that he might have disclosed classified information to his paramour, was not important for the president to know when carrying out his duties to protect the country from national security threats as commander-in-chief?
> 
> One of the reasons for the FBI protocols and the DOJ guidance is preventing interference with criminal investigations of third parties who may have political connections with the White House or Congress. That rationale does not apply to the investigation of a high-level government official who is a direct subordinate of the president. Both the president and the National Security Council should have been immediately informed about this investigation when the security issues arose.
> 
> In fact, a long-time acquaintance who worked in the Office of the Attorney General in a prior administration told me it was inconceivable that an attorney general would not inform the White House counsel or the president that the president’s CIA director was being investigated.
> 
> It certainly was convenient for the president’s reelection campaign that information about this probe, on top of the Benghazi fiasco, did not come out as an October surprise just before the election given that members of his administration have known about it for months. But those who worry about our national security and the many threats we face around the world, including an ongoing war with terrorists who want to destroy us, should be very concerned about an attorney general and an FBI director who did not immediately inform the president that his chief intelligence officer was under investigation. Or about a president who shows no concern about the failure of his two chief law enforcement subordinates to inform him of this problem.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/more-hot-air-from-white-house-and-eric-holder/
> 
> URLs in this post:
> 
> [1] news reports: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/white-house-insists-it-was-unaware-petraeus-scandal-until-day-after-election
> 
> [2] classified information: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/11/broadwell-spoke-of-access-to-classified-info-149263.html
> 
> [3] guidance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902303.html


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisons of the Copyright Act from the _New York Times Sunday Review_, is a nasty attack on Gen Petraeus' character and ability but one in which, I must admit, I find a fair bit with which to agree:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/a-phony-hero-for-a-phony-war.html?_r=0


> A Phony Hero for a Phony War
> 
> By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV
> 
> Published: November 16, 2012
> 
> FASTIDIOUSNESS is never a good sign in a general officer. Though strutting military peacocks go back to Alexander’s time, our first was MacArthur, who seemed at times to care more about how much gold braid decorated the brim of his cap than he did about how many bodies he left on beachheads across the Pacific. Next came Westmoreland, with his starched fatigues in Vietnam. In our time, Gen. David H. Petraeus has set the bar high. Never has so much beribboned finery decorated a general’s uniform since Al Haig passed through the sally ports of West Point on his way to the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illustration by Sean McCabe; Photograph by David J. Phillip/Associated Press
> Source: _New York Times_
> 
> “What’s wrong with a general looking good?” you may wonder. I would propose that every moment a general spends on his uniform jacket is a moment he’s not doing his job, which is supposed to be leading soldiers in combat and winning wars — something we, and our generals, stopped doing about the time that MacArthur gold-braided his way around the stalemated Korean War.
> 
> And now comes “Dave” Petraeus, and the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. No matter how good he looked in his biographer-mistress’s book, it doesn’t make up for the fact that we failed to conquer the countries we invaded, and ended up occupying undefeated nations.
> 
> The genius of General Petraeus was to recognize early on that the war he had been sent to fight in Iraq wasn’t a real war at all. This is what the public and the news media — lamenting the fall of the brilliant hero undone by a tawdry affair — have failed to see. He wasn’t the military magician portrayed in the press; he was a self-constructed hologram, emitting an aura of preening heroism for the ever eager cameras.
> 
> I spent part of the fall of 2003 with General Petraeus and the 101st Airborne Division in and around Mosul, Iraq. One of the first questions I asked him was what his orders had been. Was he ordered to “take Mosul,” I asked. No answer. How about “Find Mosul and report back”? No answer. Finally I asked him if his orders were something along the lines of “Go to Mosul!” He gave me an almost imperceptible nod. It must have been the first time an American combat infantry division had been ordered into battle so casually.
> 
> General Petraeus is very, very clever, which is quite different from stating that he is the brilliant tactician he has been described as. He figured if he hadn’t actually been given the mission to “win” the “war” he found himself in, he could at least look good in the meantime. And the truth is he did a lot of good things, like conceiving of the idea of basically buying the loyalties of various factions in Iraq. But they weren’t the kinds of things that win wars. In fact, they were the kinds of things that prolong wars, which for the general had the useful side effect of putting him on ever grander stages so he could be seen doing ever grander things, culminating in his appointment last year as the director of the C.I.A.
> 
> The thing he learned to do better than anything else was present the image of The Man You Turn To When Things Get Tough. (Who can forget the Newsweek cover, “Can This Man Save Iraq?” with a photo of General Petraeus looking very Princeton-educated in his Westy-starched fatigues?) He was so good at it that he conned the news media into thinking he was the most remarkable general officer in the last 40 years, and, by playing hard to get, he conned the political establishment into thinking that he could morph into Ike Part Deux and might one day be persuaded to lead a moribund political party back to the White House.
> 
> THE problem was that he hadn’t led his own Army to win anything even approximating a victory in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s not just General Petraeus. The fact is that none of our generals have led us to a victory since men like Patton and my grandfather, Lucian King Truscott Jr., stormed the beaches of North Africa and southern France with blood in their eyes and military murder on their minds.
> 
> Those generals, in my humble opinion, were nearly psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations. Thankfully, we will probably never have cause to go back to those blood-soaked days. But we still shouldn’t allow our military establishment to give us one generation after another of imitation generals who pretend to greatness on talk shows and photo spreads, jetting around the world in military-spec business jets.
> 
> The generals who won World War II were the kind of men who, as it was said at the time, chewed nails for breakfast, spit tacks at lunch and picked their teeth with their pistol barrels. General Petraeus probably flosses. He didn’t chew nails and spit tacks, but rather challenged privates to push-up contests and went out on five-mile reveille runs with biographers.
> 
> His greatest accomplishment was merely personal: he transformed himself from an intellectual nerd into a rock star military man. The problem was that he got so lost among his hangers-on and handlers and roadies and groupies that he finally had his head turned by a West Point babe in a sleeveless top.
> 
> If only our political leadership, not to mention the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies, had known how quickly and hard he would fall over such a petty, ignominious affair. Think of how many tens of thousands of lives could have been saved by ending those conflicts much earlier and sending Dave and his merry band of Doonesbury generals to the showers.
> 
> _Lucien K Truscott IV is a novelist and journalist who is writing his new book on the blog Dying of a Broken Heart._




I'm afraid my opinion of American _generalship_ has declined over the years. Accepting, as I do, that George C Marshall was _sui generis_, I just don't see anyone like Nimitz or Bradley or even Ridgway. Maybe admirals and generals have _evolved_ along with the politicians and bureaucrats who direct them. 

My opinion of Canadian _generalship_ is almost as bleak.


----------



## Infanteer

What a junk opinion piece.  Really, we are going to rely on this sort of writing as an indicator of today's military leadership?

_The generals who won World War II were the kind of men who, as it was said at the time, chewed nails for breakfast, spit tacks at lunch and picked their teeth with their pistol barrels._

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

So Patreaus had an affair - I'm sure if GMail had existed in 1945, we'd know for sure if Eisenhower was indeed screwing his driver.  That isn't really indicative as his skills as a General - in fact, IIRC, he deftly handled the 101st Air Assault Division during the Iraq War in 2003.

As critical as I was of the Pop-Centric COIN fad that grew around Patreaus, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't affairs to lay solely at the feet of bad generalship.  It was bad policy that led armies into no win situations and one simply has to play "spin the bottle" with G.W. Bush's cabinet to find culpability in the situations that unfolded over the 2000s.  Comparing Patreaus command ability in the political gong-show that was policy in Iraq and Afghanistan to Truscott and Patton's "Here's your Army, now go to Berlin" scenario is simply silly.

Rather than pumping his grand-dad's tires, Truscott could have said what he or his ancestor would have done in Patreaus' place - spit nails?  There is nothing in the author's polemic to indicate whether a Patton or a Truscott would have succeeded in a Vietnam or an Afghanistan.


----------



## Old Sweat

Well said, Infanteer.

We already know how Patton reacted to troops suffering from PTSD.


----------



## GAP

> There is nothing in the author's polemic to indicate whether a Patton or a Truscott would have succeeded in a Vietnam or an Afghanistan.



In Viet Nam he would just another garlanded pass through glamour chicken.....we had lots....


----------



## FJAG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisons of the Copyright Act from the _New York Times Sunday Review_, is a nasty attack on Gen Petraeus' character and ability but one in which, I must admit, I find a fair bit with which to agree:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/a-phony-hero-for-a-phony-war.html?_r=0
> 
> I'm afraid my opinion of American _generalship_ has declined over the years. Accepting, as I do, that George C Marshall was _sui generis_, I just don't see anyone like Nimitz or Bradley or even Ridgway. Maybe admirals and generals have _evolved_ along with the politicians and bureaucrats who direct them.
> 
> My opinion of Canadian _generalship_ is almost as bleak.



I tend to disagree. There are good and bad officers everywhere and if you dig deep enough you'll always find some warts. Some of the older ones from history have just survived unscathed because they were not always subject to the same scathing criticism by the press and bloggers pretending to be journalists.

The author of this piece - Lucien K Truscott IV - major claim to fame is being born into a military family. He himself has a military career of West Point and one year or so as a 2nd lieutenant in 1970 before resigning from the army over an argument about an article he wanted to publish. I don't consider this article as anything more than a fluff opinion piece. It has neither depth nor substance.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending or promoting Patreus one way or the other. I just don't think that this article is the one to hang one's hat on. I expect the truth lies somewhere between this article and Broadwell's book - but that leaves quite some room doesn't it?


----------



## cupper

He needs to stick with what he knows best, writing fiction. :nod:


----------



## a_majoor

Just a reminder the story is far broader and deeper than just the moral failings of one man. Many questions need to be answered from multiple sources, most especially the State Department:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324556304578117182552208160.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop



> *Hillary and Libya
> The policy failure goes beyond the murder of her deputies in Benghazi*.
> Article
> Comments (266)
> 
> David Petraeus told Congress Friday in closed hearings that the CIA believed from the start that the September 11 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were by terrorists. That leaves one VIP who's still missing from Congressional scrutiny: Hillary Clinton.
> 
> GOP Congressman Peter King said Mr. Petraeus's testimony differed from what the former CIA director told Congress immediately after the attacks. Mr. King also said Mr. Petraeus said that the CIA's original talking points on the attacks were edited. The altered version became the basis for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's misleading and now infamous comments blaming the attacks on a YouTube video. Both that discrepancy and the issue of the altered talking points need further digging, especially if Ms. Rice is nominated to be the next Secretary of State.
> 
> But Mr. Petraeus wasn't responsible for lax consulate security or the U.S. policy that led to the Libya debacle. That's Mrs. Clinton's bailiwick. Last month in interviews from deepest Peru, the Secretary of State said "I take responsibility" for Benghazi.
> 
> Except she hasn't. She was conveniently out of the country for this week's House Foreign Affairs hearing, and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry refuses to hold any hearings on Benghazi. His loyalty may get him a cabinet job, while Carl Levin's Armed Services Committee also pretends nothing much happened in Libya.
> 
> The targets of the attacks and its first victims were diplomats. Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation in the blaze, becoming the first American ambassador killed in the line of duty in over 30 years. A junior colleague also died. These men were Mrs. Clinton's "responsibility." Several hours after the assault on the consulate, members of the jihadist militia Ansar al-Shariah turned on the CIA compound about a mile away, killing two of Mr. Petraeus's men.
> 
> In Congressional hearings last month, career State officials admitted that threat warnings from Benghazi were overlooked and requests for better security turned down. They said Foggy Bottom misjudged the ability of a weak Libyan state to protect them. It's not clear how high up the chain these concerns went, but over to you, Mrs. Clinton.
> 
> For over a week after the attacks, the Administration blamed the YouTube video. Mrs. Clinton didn't push this misleading narrative in public as enthusiastically as Ms. Rice. Still, she bought into it. The father of Tyrone Woods, a CIA contractor who was killed in Benghazi, told media outlets last month that Mrs. Clinton tried to comfort him by promising that the U.S.-based maker of the video would be "prosecuted and arrested"—though terrorists killed his son.
> 
> Beyond the Benghazi attacks is the larger issue of the Administration's Libya policy, a failure that Mrs. Clinton should also answer for. At the start of the Libya uprising, Washington hid behind the U.N. Security Council to resist calls for intervention. Mrs. Clinton's department then made the mistake of agreeing to a U.N. arms embargo on both the Gadhafi regime and the rebels. This blunder forced the rebels to look elsewhere for weapons and cash, particularly Gulf states like Qatar that favored Islamist militias.
> 
> As Gadhafi's forces were about to overrun Benghazi in March, the Arab League, Britain and France called for military intervention. Only after the Security Council gave the green light—when Russia abstained—did NATO launch air strikes. American cruise missiles and bombers led the way, but on April 7 President Obama pulled the U.S. out of a leadership combat role.
> 
> The U.S. also waited until July to recognize the Benghazi rebel opposition as "the legitimate governing authority," after Luxembourg and 25 other countries had already done so. The war lasted until October, much longer than necessary.
> 
> American disengagement continued after Gadhafi fell. Though rich in oil, Libya's well-intentioned new leaders needed advice and encouragement to build a functioning state. The most pressing need was to rein in the anti-Gadhafi militias and stand up a national army. But the U.S. was reluctant to follow up with aid or know-how. (See our December 24, 2011 editorial, "MIA on the Shores of Tripoli.") Qatar and the United Arab Emirates stepped in with money and weapons, again favoring Islamist groups.
> 
> The Libyan people nonetheless voted in elections this summer for secular, pro-Western leaders. Yet the government has limited powers and lacks a proper army. The militias have stepped into the vacuum, while al Qaeda-style training camps proliferate in the hills around Benghazi.
> 
> ***
> This abdication is the backdrop to what happened on September 11. The large CIA outpost in Benghazi was supposed to monitor jihadists and work with State to round up thousands of mobile surface-to-air missiles in Libya. Yet it turns out that it's hard to fight terrorists on the ground with drones from remote bases. Without a functioning government or broader U.S. aid, a small Islamist militia was able to target foreign diplomats and eventually lay siege to the U.S. compound. The CIA closed its entire Benghazi shop that very morning—an abject retreat.
> 
> For weeks, the Administration has tried to shift blame for Benghazi to the "intelligence community." Mr. Petraeus's fall makes him an easy scapegoat, even as Mrs. Clinton takes a valedictory lap at State and sets her sights on a 2016 Presidential run.
> 
> But U.S. Libya policy has been her handiwork, and with the exception of the fall of Gadhafi it is a notable failure. Mrs. Clinton is also a main architect of U.S. policy in Syria, which continues to descend into disorder that may engulf the region. She shouldn't get a free pass from Congress.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Author and historian Max Boot offers a spirited critique of Lucien Truscott IV's nasty bit of character assassination in which he  returns to his own "great man" theme by describing: _"the gleeful Schadenfreude being exhibited by so many who are eager to kick a great man when he is temporarily down,"_ he goes on to describe Truscott's piece as _"egregious and nauseating ... risible name-calling ... _[and]_ runaway nostalgia."_


----------



## FJAG

While Truscott's article above was drivel, the following article - also examining failures in US leadership at the general rank - is well researched and well written. 

Thomas Ricks, to the best of my knowledge, has no military experience, but is a Pulitzer winning author with excellent credentials on the topic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/?single_page=true


----------



## Old Sweat

Interesting article, thanks for bringing it to our attention.

And to go completely off on a tangent, somebody - Pinnochio maybe - could argue a convincing case that if the CG of the 90th Division had had access to Powerpoint, he would have kept his job. It obviously was the key to the later generation making out so well.


----------



## Infanteer

Be careful with Ricks, he makes a few salient points that are worth considering (I like the one about generals becoming a guild) but he is one of the biggest promotors of the pop-centric COIN narrative that says "the Army sucked until St David of Patreaus came along and revealed FM 3-24 to all".  I noticed this latest article uses a bit of sleight of hand to transition from general commentary on senior leadership to a focus on Franks and Sanchez, who probably weren't the best of leaders, but are frequently used for him to promote the narrative.  He's made a lot of money and blog hits from selling this line.

The narrative is very Ameriocentric and is laden with selective interpretation of histroy from Malaya to Iraq.  The is a growing literature that is quite critical of the narrative, its poor use of historical analysis and its negative implications for policymakers.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FJAG said:
			
		

> While Truscott's article above was drivel, the following article - also examining failures in US leadership at the general rank - is well researched and well written.
> 
> Thomas Ricks, to the best of my knowledge, has no military experience, but is a Pulitzer winning author with excellent credentials on the topic.
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/?single_page=true




It doesn't persuade me, either. It seems to me that failures in command/leadership/generalship are both common and normal, at least as I read the historical record. Those failures seem more common when an army expands rapidly and/or the "rules" of battle (tactics and technology) change. It has been thus since Cannae 2,200 years ago. I remain convinced that David Petraeus was:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... apparently, a favourite of the _intellectual right_ in America, even touted, by some, presidential material.
> 
> Folks like Max Boot have gone so far as to describe him as a "great" general - when challenged on "great" he has, in fairness, backed away.
> 
> But it illustrates a problem we face today: defining "great."
> 
> George G Marshall was "great," by any historical standards; in the pantheon of American leadership Omar Bradley, Chster Nimitz and Matthew Ridgway were "great," too. But David Patraeus? Great?
> 
> Gen Patraeus was a very fine officer, smart, aggressive, and, and, and ... but his primary skills were on a par with, say, Maxwell Taylor, who hardly merited the designation of "great."
> 
> It can be argued that modern, 21st century war doesn't provide the stage that, say, Nimitz, Wavell, Bradley, Slim, Ridgway and our own Murray used to demonstrate their strategic or tactical brilliance, their moral courage, determination and their leadership skills, and, maybe, "great" leaders only emerge, as President Ronald Reagan put it, when speaking of Ridgway, _"Heroes come when they're needed; great men step forward when courage seems in short supply."_
> 
> My  :2c: is that David Patraeus was a good officer who was, no doubt, a highly _political_ general who courted the press (Rick Hillier, anyone?); is that why he is considered, by some, to be "great?" But he made a tragic* error, perhaps fortunately, for his supporters, before he rose too far.
> 
> 
> -----
> * Tragic in the way that Euripides might have described




I doubt that anyone reaches flag/general officer rank in the modern US (or Australian, British or Canadian) armed forces without having displayed both good leadership and management skills, but the skills that may have served William Westmorland well, making him a colonel and a divisional chief of staff at the age of 30 were, in my estimation, not adequate for the tasks he was assigned just 20 years later when he went to Viet Nam. Why should we be surprisd when the lessons of Viet Nam were not easily transferred to the Middle East?

But I also believe that Westmorland, himself, and his boss, Robert McNamara, embedded a _management virus_ in the US military - a _virus_ that spread, quickly, to all modern armies, including the CF. I also blame a social/political system that rewards "superstars," be they charismatic politicians, businessmen/CEOs or generals:







   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Pierre Trudeau                                          Bernard Lamarre               Rick Hillier
Three charismatic Canadians: a _superstar_ PM, CEO (SNC Lavalin)  and general

My contention that _generalship_ have 'evolved' along with the socio-political system, and political masters, that they serve still seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Infanteer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I doubt that anyone reaches flag/general officer rank in the modern US (or Australian, British or Canadian) armed forces without having displayed both good leadership and management skills, but the skills that may have served William Westmorland well, making him a colonel and a divisional chief of staff at the age of 30 were, in my estimation, not adequate for the tasks he was assigned just 20 years later when he went to Viet Nam. Why should we be surprisd when the lessons of Viet Nam were not easily transferred to the Middle East?



To a point, but we have to be cautious about how we interpret failures in generalship when we try and use metrics that aren't the basic "destroyed this enemy, took that city".  Westmoreland was promoted fast because he was an aggressive fighting general; he did exactly what he was promoted to do and was pretty good at pounding the crap out of the NVA/VC to buy SVN time; is it Westmoreland's fault that the U.S. government couldn't stop meddling in regime change in Saigon, turning SVN's government, especially between 1963-1967, into a complete circus?  I don't care what your military approach is; it will fail if the political conditions do not set the conditions for success.

General Patreaus is considered as "great" (to the point where a fifth star was actually being discussed) because he had promotors worthy of Don King - the crowd of Ricks, Kilcullen, Nagl, McFate, Sewell and the Kagans sold the narrative so persistently that it became accepted as truth.  The "Bandwagonistas", as one article termed them, create dichotomies out of commanders; guys like Casey and McKiernan are unfairly pilloried as "not getting it", despite the fact that they operated within unique policy constraints, while guys like Patreaus and McChrystal are seen as knights on white horses.

What is more interesting is how fast McChrystal and now Patreaus are jettisoned by the Bandwagonistas once their human failures come to light.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Want a bit of a split?  Check here ....
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/108329.0.html
.... for the "management virus" stuff - now back to discussing Petraeus' woes.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## cupper

Apparently David Frum doesn't agree with Mr. Truscott's op=ed either.

*Here's How Not to Craft an Argument*

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/19/here-s-how-not-to-craft-an-argument.html



> In this Sunday's New York Times, the novelist Lucien Truscott IV *manages to set some kind of land-speed record for stupid or wrong observations in the span of a single oped*. High among them is his claim that the generals who won World War II did not care about their uniforms. Warning: if the exceptions to your rule about World War II generals include George Patton and Douglas MacArthur, then your rule is wrong.


----------



## Journeyman

cupper said:
			
		

> Apparently David Frum doesn't agree with Mr. Truscott's op=ed either.
> 
> *Here's How Not to Craft an Argument*


One of the online comments may be correct; however I suspect that the poster didn't realize it. 

"Given that Truscott's grandfather rose from regimental to division to corps and then army command during WWII, he may have some insight into this matter."

Yes, he, _the grandfather_ may have had some insight; it takes more than a birth certificate to assume that the grandson has any sort of insights; none were apparent in the article. Googling the grandson's other writings, he bases a lot of his insights and credibility on his pedigree.....without justification.


----------



## Rifleman62

"Too many Generals are taking orders from their privates!"


----------



## Edward Campbell

I was momentarily tempted to post this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _New York Post_, in our mismanaged medals thread but, of course it belongs here:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/kelley_medal_outrage_Fq5K754z1Nntf5uayAFiUO


> Jill Kelley awarded prestigious medal from Joint Chiefs in 2011
> 
> By JEANE MacINTOSH
> 
> Last Updated: November 22, 2012
> 
> They’ll give a medal to anyone.
> 
> Military schmoozer Jill Kelley — a central figure in the investigation of Gen. David Petraeus — in March 2011 was awarded a prestigious medal from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
> 
> The award, the country’s second-highest honor for a civilian, was given to acknowledge Kelley’s “selfless contributions” and “willingness to host engagements” for top pols and military brass.
> 
> Petraeus recommended her for the award while he was commander of Tampa’s US Central Command, a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Tampa Tribune.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COMRADES: Jill Kelley demonstrates her “selfless
> contributions” for which Gen. David Petraeus (left)
> bestowed the second-highest citation for a civilian.
> Zuma Press
> 
> Adm. Mike Mullen, who was then the Joint Chiefs chair, approved it.
> 
> Kelley during a Washington, DC, ceremony received a silver medal, lapel pin and a citation for her efforts. Petraeus presented the award, which recognized the Florida socialite’s “outstanding public service to the United States Central Command, the MacDill Air Force Base community and the Department of Defense from October 31, 2008 to May 31, 2010.”
> 
> The citation also notes Kelley’s work in “advancing various military endeavors” and her “willingness to host engagements with senior national representatives from more than 60 countries,” according to the Tampa Tribune.
> 
> “On multiple occasions, Mrs. Kelley invited senior national representatives, their spouses and senior leaders to her home to demonstrate their gratitude and support,” the citation continues.
> 
> Kelley and her doctor husband are known for the lavish parties they throw for civic and military leaders at their $1.5 million waterfront Tampa mansion, replete with free-flowing champagne, caviar and cigars.
> 
> “These events promoted camaraderie, understanding and a better appreciation for coalition and military customs, concerns and abilities,” her citation noted.
> 
> Kelley also got a nod for helping Petraeus when he first took command of CentCom.
> 
> “She [was] instrumental in introducing the commander, early in his tenure, to local and state officials, particularly the mayor of Tampa and the governor of Florida,” according to the citation.
> 
> “The singularly distinctive accomplishments of Mrs. Jill Kelley are in keeping with the finest traditions of public service and reflect great credit upon herself, United States Central Command and the Department of Defense.”
> 
> Kelley’s complaint to the FBI allegedly threatening e-mails from Petraeus mistress Paula Broadwell sparked a probe and Petraeus’ resignation as CIA boss. The investigation also uncovered several e-mail exchanges between Kelley and Gen. John Allen.
> 
> The e-mails are now part of a Defense Department probe: Allen’s nomination to lead NATO’s forces in Europe has been put on hold.
> 
> Allen yesterday returned to his post as head of NATO forces in Afghanistan.




I like how they defined Ms. Kelly as a woman of "singularly distinctive accomplishments." But it was only the silver medal; what, inquiring minds want to know, did she need to do for the gold?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> "Too many Generals are taking orders from their privates!"


That's a t-shirt right there!


----------



## Blackadder1916

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I like how they defined Ms. Kelly as a woman of "singularly distinctive accomplishments." But it was only the silver medal; what, inquiring minds want to know, did she need to do for the gold?



That picture says a lot.  When I served down in the US, I attended a number of events (Mardi Gras, NIOSA, . . . .) that, like in the pic, made use of "beads" (the partying equivalent of medals?).  The presentation of same to a woman was usually followed by the request, "show us your t*ts".


----------



## Haggis

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> "Too many Generals are taking orders from their "_privates_"!"



TFTFY   ;D


----------



## cupper

Bumping for new events that unfolded today:

*Prosecutors weigh charges against David Petraeus involving classified information*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/prosecutors-weigh-charges-against-david-petraeus-involving-classified-information/2015/01/09/d6b4bb36-9854-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html?hpid=z3



> Federal prosecutors have recommended that David H. Petraeus face charges for providing classified documents to his biographer, raising the prospect of criminal proceedings against the retired four-star general and former CIA director.
> 
> The recommendation follows a federal probe into how the biographer, Paula Broadwell, apparently obtained classified records several years ago while working on a book about Petraeus. Broadwell was also his mistress, and the documents were discovered by investigators during the scandal that forced Petraeus’s resignation as CIA director in 2012.
> 
> Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. must decide whether to pursue charges against Petraeus, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
> 
> The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment, as did Robert B. Barnett, a lawyer for Petraeus.
> 
> Both Petraeus and Broadwell have denied in the past that he provided her with classified information. Investigators have previously focused on whether his staff gave her sensitive documents at his instruction.
> 
> The prosecutors’ recommendation was first reported Friday evening on the Web site of the New York Times, which said Petraeus has rejected the possibility of a plea deal.
> 
> The FBI has been pushing to resolve several high-profile counterespionage investigations that have lingered for months and in some cases years. In addition to the case involving Petraeus and Broadwell, the bureau wants the Justice Department to decide whether to pursue charges against Robin Raphel, a veteran State Department diplomat, and James E. “Hoss” Cartwright.
> 
> Cartwright was the target of a Justice Department investigation into the leak of information about the Stuxnet cyberattack against Iran’s nuclear program. The details of Raphel’s case remain murky, but officials have said classified information was found at her home.
> 
> FBI agents believe they have strong cases against all four of them, said another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. Each of the cases is considered sensitive given the involvement of high-ranking officials in the U.S. government.
> 
> The Justice Department has also faced political pressure to resolve the Petraeus matter. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), now the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote Holder last month expressing concern the case has continued to linger.
> 
> “At this critical moment in our nation’s security, Congress and the American people cannot afford to have this voice silenced or curtailed by the shadow of a long-running, unresolved investigation marked by leaks from anonymous sources,” said McCain, adding that he wasn’t seeking action “on behalf of any particular interest — and don’t presume to judge the outcome of any investigation.”
> 
> Federal investigators first searched Broadwell’s home in Charlotte in November 2012 and seized dozens of boxes of records as well as computer equipment. Aides to Petraeus have said they were often tasked to provide military records or other documents to Broadwell for her work on her book about him. That book, “All In,” was published in January 2012.
> 
> Any classified information investigators discovered could expose both her and Petraeus to charges. It is a crime to remove classified information from secure, government locations as well as to provide that information to others not authorized to receive it.
> 
> Petraeus now spends his time teaching and giving speeches; he also serves as chairman of the KKR Global Institute, a part of the private-equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.
> 
> The 2012 investigation into Petraeus was triggered when Broadwell allegedly sent threatening e-mails to another woman who was a friend of Petraeus, Jill Kelley of Tampa. Kelley alerted an FBI agent she knew to seek protection and to help track down whoever had sent the e-mails.
> 
> The FBI traced the messages to Broadwell, a married Army reservist, and in the course of its investigation, uncovered explicit e-mails between Broadwell and Petraeus.
> 
> Investigators said they were at first concerned about the possibility that Petraeus, then the director of the CIA, had had his e-mail hacked. Further investigation led to the discovery of the affair with Broadwell.
> 
> Petraeus had become CIA director a short time earlier, in September 2011. His resignation cut short his time at the agency and also seemed to scuttle long-rumored presidential aspirations.


----------



## cupper

And the mystery deepens about "the other other woman" who inadvertently became the whistle blower of the whole affair.

*Jill Kelley e-mails depict a striving Tampa socialite and a smitten military brass*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jill-kelley-e-mails-depict-a-striving-tampa-socialite-and-a-smitten-military-brass/2015/02/03/ef8cb06c-a800-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html?hpid=z5



> Judging from her e-mails, Jill Kelley was star-struck by the big-name military commanders rotating between the war zones in the Middle East and her home town of Tampa. And they were equally smitten with her.
> 
> “Everyone thinks you’re a RockStar!” Kelley gushed in a 2012 e-mail to Marine Gen. James N. Mattis, then commander of all U.S. military forces in the Middle East. “We agreed how amazing it must be that you’re single-handedly re-writing history,” she added, recalling how she had sung the general’s praises to several foreign ambassadors at the Republican National Convention that August in Tampa.
> 
> After another social event, she wrote a similar mash note to Mattis’s deputy, Vice Adm. Robert S. Harward. “What a Leader you were to these heads of State,” she enthused. “You ROCK!!!”
> 
> Replied Harward: “YOU ROCK MORE!”
> 
> In late 2012, Kelley’s talent as a Tampa hostess and her knack for charming men in uniform indirectly triggered one of the most embarrassing national security scandals of the past decade. Among other casualties, the fallout led to the forced resignation of CIA Director David H. Petraeus — a former four-star Army general — and the early retirement of Marine Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
> 
> Kelley’s chumminess with Petraeus and the military brass had attracted the notice of the spymaster’s biographer and mistress, Paula Broadwell. She bad-mouthed Kelley in anonymous e-mails to military officials and others, according to federal investigators and a lawsuit filed by Kelley. The FBI got involved. Petraeus quit in disgrace. Allen retired.
> 
> The case still has not been entirely resolved. The Justice Department is deciding whether to charge Petraeus with leaking classified material to his lover. He has denied doing so.
> 
> Long after the scandal broke, it remains unclear what exactly prompted Broadwell to view Kelley as a rival. Kelley has said the two never met and that she never had an affair with Petraeus, Allen or anyone else.
> 
> Nor has anyone fully explained why Allen, while busy overseeing the war in Afghanistan, exchanged a blizzard of correspondence with Kelley — between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of e-mails, according to some senior defense officials. Other officials have said that figure includes many duplicate notes and exaggerates the extent of their communications, adding that there were only about 300 total e-mails.
> 
> The Defense Department inspector general investigated and concluded in 2013 that Allen had not committed any wrongdoing. But it has kept its report and all of Allen’s e-mails under lock and key.
> 
> Now, a glimpse into Kelley’s relationship with military commanders has emerged from another, previously undisclosed batch of e-mails: her correspondence with Mattis, a legendary Marine, and Harward, a Navy SEAL, from when they served as the top two officers at U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa.
> 
> The Washington Post requested the e-mails in November 2012 under the Freedom of Information Act. More than two years later, after numerous unexplained delays, the Pentagon released 238 pages of heavily censored documents.
> 
> The unredacted portions of the e-mails — from Mattis’s and Harward’s government e-mail accounts — contain no evidence of improper behavior. But taken together, the records depict two wartime commanders who were easy marks for the flattery of an exuberant socialite.
> 
> “I wish that we could clone a couple thousand of you, but the land is likely not ready for that big an impact,” Mattis told Kelley in a Jan. 31, 2012, e-mail.
> 
> Mattis and Harward, who have both since retired from the military, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
> 
> Kelley, 39, who still lives in Tampa, referred questions to her attorney, Alan C. Raul of Washington. He released a statement that read, in part: “The latest set of e-mails made public by the government simply confirms that Jill Kelley is and was a talented, civic-minded woman doing productive work as Honorary Ambassador to Central Command in Tampa and as Honorary Consul for the Republic of Korea.”
> 
> “Nonetheless,” he added, “continued unauthorized government release of the Kelleys’ e-mails exposes them to further unjustified embarrassment and injury.”
> 
> A relative newcomer on Tampa’s social scene, Kelley and her husband, Scott, hosted events at their mansion for military officers from nearby MacDill Air Force Base, home of Central Command headquarters. The e-mails show how Kelley was eager to deepen and formalize the relationship, urging the brass to bestow on her the title of honorary ambassador for Central Command and the U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
> 
> “Sooooooooo…..Did you and Jim finally decide to make me your ‘official’ CentCom ambassador?????” Kelley asked Harward on Jan. 12, 2012. “Please! Please! Please! I always wanted to be an Ambassador, since I was made to be a ‘catalyst’ — that helps build or facilitate Foreign relations.”
> 
> Harward gave a teasing reply: “We’ll have to put you through the vetting process and interviews to ensure you have the right attributes!”
> 
> She passed muster soon enough. On April 19, Harward hosted an official recognition ceremony and reception in which Kelley was anointed “United States Central Command and Coalition Honorary Ambassador.”
> 
> Mattis was tied up in Baghdad and couldn’t attend. Kelley, who is of Lebanese descent, e-mailed him afterward with a narrative of the event. She described how she gave a speech, partly in Arabic, and did her best to make a good diplomatic impression with VIPs from Middle Eastern countries.
> 
> “I gave my commitment . . . as the Ambassador, to make it my priority to advance global trust, international exchange, and camaraderie within the Command,” she wrote. “But most importantly I thanked Gen Mattis for his priceless support and glorius leadership. I said, without him, this would not be a reality!”
> 
> She added: “Harward also spoke — really flattering words about ‘Madame Ambassador’ He explained how they decided to designate this new position — and why the CentCom unilaterally chose me.  (which was very humbling to hear in front of a million guys)”
> 
> A medical researcher and the mother of three young children, Kelley found her niche as a networker, volunteering her time to arrange dinners, charity functions and other events in Tampa and Washington. Her ebullient personality stood out in military and diplomatic circles, catching attention from some unexpected corners.
> 
> In January 2012, for example, the South Korean Embassy in Washington informed Kelley that she had been selected to become an honorary consul. Even though she knew little about the country, she accepted the title with gusto.
> 
> “YES!!!! Honorary Consul General. I’m soooooo excited about the humbling honor,” she wrote to Mattis on Jan. 31 to inform him of her appointment. “It’s ironic that I get the request from the state of Korea — which is NOT my expertise. However as a lover of International Politics/Foreign Affairs, I do find the Korean Statehood quite interesting . . . (I’m a lover of conflict problem solving, and have a keen sense of seeking opportunities in chaos.).”
> 
> While Kelley’s appointments as ambassador and consul general were honorary positions, the e-mails indicate that she was eager to become a diplomatic player.
> 
> In July and August 2012, she informed Harward in a series of notes that she had received an official invitation from the parliament of Afghanistan to visit Kabul. In correspondence with State Department officials, she emphasized that her planned visit to Kabul had the backing of Allen, the U.S. general in charge of military operations in Afghanistan.
> 
> “I am honored by their petition of me, and would be humbled to serve the request to foster, promote and proliferate future relations and agreements with the Members of Parliament,” Kelley wrote in an Aug. 27 e-mail to an unidentified State Department official, which was copied to Allen. “As I stated in our conversation, COMISAF John Allen is well aware of the invitation by Parliament, and is in support of my visit to Kabul.”
> 
> Kelley’s attorney did not respond to a query about whether she went on the trip.
> 
> As she embraced her honorary roles, Kelley also became protective of her diplomatic turf. The tone of her cheery, solicitous e-mails changed abruptly in early July 2012 after an unidentified NATO official informed her matter-of-factly that three other coalition ambassadors had been appointed and would be attending a French-sponsored Bastille Day party.
> 
> “Bob,” she e-mailed Harward minutes later. “WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT??? You never informed me of ‘3’ other Honorary Ambassadors??????”
> 
> When Harward replied that he would check into the matter, Kelley fumed some more. “Please call . . . and make it very clear that you are NOT supporting this,” she wrote. “These NATO guys manipulate passive behavior . . . Clearly, I’m offended, and not standing up for this . . . Please address this today, and kill this for once and for all.”
> 
> Kelley’s diplomatic career crumbled a few months later — not because of her perceived NATO rivals but because of the FBI’s investigation into Broadwell’s anonymous e-mails and the ripples from Petraeus’s downfall.
> 
> Although Kelley was never accused of wrongdoing, her name and her unusual niche in the national-security establishment were quickly publicized by the news media. In 2013, she sued the FBI and the Defense Department, asserting that her privacy rights had been violated by officials who leaked her name and personal information to reporters.
> 
> The federal government has sought to dismiss the case, but a judge has ruled that the lawsuit can proceed in U.S. District Court in Washington.



If this doesn't make you go Hmmm or Huh for several different reasons, I'll be surprised.


----------



## FJAG

I'm surprised that there hasn't been an unofficial biography or made-for-TV movie yet. 

Maybe they're just waiting to see how the Petraeus will-they-or-won't-they charge him thing plays out?

op:

:cheers:


----------



## OldSolduer

Twenty years of SHARP and Harrassment briefings, and years of no fraternization policies won't trump millions of years of evolution.


----------



## medicineman

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Twenty years of SHARP and Harrassment briefings, and years of no fraternization policies won't trump millions of years of evolution.



As I told my CSM in Kabul when he freaked out at me making up a condom dispenser - "Sir, I know exactly what the TFC's standing orders regarding fraternization are, but I also know a thing or two about human nature and biology..."

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar

> “Bob,” she e-mailed Harward minutes later. “WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT??? You never informed me of ‘3’ other Honorary Ambassadors??????”
> 
> When Harward replied that he would check into the matter, Kelley fumed some more. “Please call . . . and make it very clear that you are NOT supporting this,” she wrote. “These NATO guys manipulate passive behavior . . . Clearly, I’m offended, and not standing up for this . . . Please address this today, and kill this for once and for all.”



That's gold. Bitch level 10.

If I was more articulate I could inject a clever joke about what she is and is not standing up for.  Either way it's pretty obvious she held the generals balls in her purse.   She could get a spot on 'Real house wives'.


----------



## Rifleman62

Petraeus has been under investigation by the FBI for two years. That's a long, long investigation to hold over someones head (his other head got him in trouble anyway).

His investigation keeps his mouth shut re Benghazi. Concupiscence, I mean coincidence of course.


----------



## Edward Campbell

_Politico_ reports that Gen (ret'd) Petraeus has pled guilty to the mishandling of information charge and that a plea deal ~ no jail time ~ has been agreed.

Politicpo suggests this is part of a carefully orchestrated "rehab" scheme ... "Petraeus has edged back into the limelight by making speeches, joining universities and authoring bullish op-ed columns – including one last year for POLITICO Magazine. He has taken a lucrative job as the head of the “global institute” for a private equity fund in New York City. But the federal investigation into his release of secrets to biographer Paula Broadwell has hung over him like a shadow, carrying with it the prospect of an embarrassing trial and even prison time."

The PR _"spin"_ just never ends in _official Washington_; ditto in _official Ottawa_ I'm afraid.


----------



## cupper

Reports in the news on the way home say he's likely to get a $40K fine, no jail time and 2 years probation. Maximum would be $100K and 1 year in jail.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And it's two years of probation and a $100,000 fine and, of course, yet another (insincere) apology.


----------



## cupper

Probably the most expensive date he's ever had. And the bills will probably still be piling up if the wife decides to take her pound of flesh and flush him.


----------



## daftandbarmy

When a man steals your wife, there is no better revenge than to let him keep her.

SACHA GUITRY, attributed

Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/adultery_quotes.html#BOHOXLFi3RSDOffw.99


----------



## Edward Campbell

Now, according to reports (gossip?) in _The Daily Beast_  Secretary of Defense Ash Carter "is considering retroactively demoting retired Gen. David Petraeus after he admitted to giving classified information to his biographer and mistress while he was still in uniform," as part of a larger programme aimed at putting "the clamp down on misbehaving generals."  :tsktsk:


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/18/exclusive-pentagon-may-demote-david-petraeus.html

01.18.164:53 PM ET

*Exclusive: Pentagon May Demote David Petraeus*

_The defense secretary is looking to clamp down on misbehaving generals. Pentagon insiders say Petraeus could be the next general to face the consequences._

The Pentagon is considering retroactively demoting retired Gen. David Petraeus after he admitted to giving classified information to his biographer and mistress while he was still in uniform, three people with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Beast.

The decision now rests with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who is said to be willing to consider overruling an earlier recommendation by the Army that Petraeus not have his rank reduced. Such a demotion could cost the storied general hundreds of thousands of dollars—and deal an additional blow to his once-pristine reputation. 

“The secretary is considering going in a different direction” from the Army, a defense official told The Daily Beast, because he wants to be consistent in his treatment of senior officers who engage in misconduct and to send a message that even men of Petraeus’s fame and esteemed reputation are not immune to punishment.

Pentagon spokesperson Peter Cook told The Daily Beast that Carter had requested the information ex-Army Secretary John McHugh had when he made his recommendation on the matter, before reaching a final decision. McHugh had recommended taking no action against Petraeus.

“The Department of the Army is still in the process of providing the secretary with information relevant to former‎ Secretary McHugh’s recommendation,” Cook told The Daily Beast. “Once the secretary‎ has an opportunity to consider this information, he will make his decision about next steps, if any, in this matter.”

Carter could also recommend other actions that don’t result in Petraeus losing his fourth star. Or the defense secretary could simply allow the Army’s previous recommendations to stand.

Petraeus, arguably the most well-known and revered military officer of his generation, retired from the Army in 2011 with the rank of a four-star general, the highest rank an Army officer can achieve. If Carter decides to strip Petraeus of his fourth star, he could be demoted to the last rank at which he “satisfactorily” served, according to military regulations.

Reducing Petraeus’s rank, most likely to lieutenant general, could mean he’d have to pay back the difference in pension payments and other benefits that he received as a retired four-star general. That would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars over his retirement. According to Pentagon figures, a four-star general with roughly the same years of experience as Petraeus was entitled to receive a yearly pension of nearly $220,000. A three-star officer would receive about $170,000.

Petraeus didn’t respond to a request for comment.

But the financial pain to Petraeus isn’t likely to be severe. He has confided to friends and acquaintances that he’s making a hefty sum from his job at a private equity firm and through speaking fees.

The demotion in rank would be a bigger, lasting blow, and take from Petraeus the rare achievement he’d set his eyes on many years ago.

At any given time, there are only 12 four-star generals in the Army, the largest of the services. By the time he was a colonel, in the mid-1990s, many thought Petraeus was destined to be one of them.

The reduction in Petraeus’s rank could force him to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars in pension payments. But the the bigger blow would be to his reputation.

The U.S. military has, on several occasions, demoted generals, increasingly for improper personal contact and not for poor battlefield decisions. But rarely does it demote four-star generals, in part because there are so few of them. It’s also more common to reduce the rank of more junior officers than of top generals.

If Petraeus were demoted, it would mark another spectacular fall. Petraeus stepped down as director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2012 after his affair with Paula Broadwell, a writer and current Army reservist, was revealed. At the time, Petraeus had been frequently mentioned as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

Petraeus pleaded guilty last year to giving Broadwell eight notebooks that he compiled while serving as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and that he knew contained classified information. The notebooks held some of the most sensitive kinds of military and intelligence secrets, including the identities of covert officers, intelligence capabilities, quotes from high-level meetings of the National Security Council, and notes about Petraeus’s discussions with President Obama.


----------



## cupper

Another turn of events from the woman who started the whole ball rolling.

*Lawyers bail on Florida woman in Petraeus saga*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/jill-kelley-david-petraeus-lawyers-220982



> The lawyers for a Florida woman who claims her privacy was invaded during federal investigations into former Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus are seeking to drop out of her lawsuit against the government, new court filings show.
> 
> Jill Kelley filed the Privacy Act lawsuit in 2013, charging that the FBI and Pentagon leaked personal information about her — including messages from her personal email account — after she triggered federal probes that led investigators to uncover Petraeus' extramarital affair with biographer Paula Broadwell. The inquiries also set in motion Petraeus' resignation in November 2012 and his guilty plea last February to a charge of mishandling classified information.
> 
> Kelley and her husband, Dr. Scott Kelley, retained a leading privacy attorney, Alan Raul of Chicago-based law firm Sidley Austin, to bring the high-profile suit against the federal government.
> 
> However, in a court motion filed under seal Wednesday and partially released Friday, Raul and other Sidley lawyers asked U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to excuse them from the case. The edited version of the motion made public on Friday is vague about the attorneys' reason for begging off the suit, but refers to "irreconcilable differences between the lawyer and client."
> The motion also notes that D.C. legal rules say lawyers "shall withdraw if 'the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law.'" However, it's unclear whether the attorneys were saying that scenario had actually played out.
> 
> The withdrawal request followed a proposal from the Kelleys' side that the U.S. government pay $4.35 million to settle the suit, The Associated Press reported Friday.
> 
> The feds apparently rejected the offer.
> 
> Kelley, who organized social events with top officials at Central Command in Tampa, went to the FBI after receiving emails from an unfamiliar address that she found threatening and which appeared to indicate a familiarity with the movements of top military leaders and Petraeus.
> 
> Raul declined to comment Friday. Jill Kelley did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. She is preparing to publish a book on the saga, entitled "Collateral Damage," the New York Post reported Wednesday.
> 
> Jackson threw out much of the suit in 2014, but allowed the Privacy Act claim over leaks to proceed. After the judge rejected the Kelleys' effort to get testimony from former Pentagon general counsel and current Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, the Kelleys subpoenaed nine reporters last year to ask them about their sources for stories about the episode. It is unclear whether any of the journalists were questioned.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And, now, Jill Kelly has a book: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/tell-all-book-exposes-petraeus-emails-221278


----------



## cupper

Paula Broadwell says she screwed up.  In other surprising news, Donald Trump is running for President.  :facepalm:

*Paula Broadwell to NYT: I screwed up*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/paula-broadwell-new-york-times-david-petraeus-223686



> Three years after Gen. David Petraeus resigned as CIA director and apologized to Congress for an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell now asks, “how long does a person pay for their mistake?”
> 
> “I’m the first to admit I screwed up. Really badly, I know that,” Broadwell told the New York Times in a profile published Saturday.
> 
> An FBI investigation in 2012 revealed that Petraeus had an affair with Broadwell, who had co-authored the four-star general’s biography, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.” Petraeus was later sentenced to two years' probation and fined after pleading guilty to mishandling classified information, some of which he had shared with Broadwell.
> 
> The Times’ profile contrasts Broadwell's struggle to return to a life of normalcy against Petraeus' efforts to bounce back from his fall from a storied military career, including leading the so-called "surge" strategy in Iraq in 2007.
> 
> Broadwell told the Times she keeps busy by volunteering for advocacy groups as well as for women in combat, being particularly active in a group called West Point Women. Broadwell was married at the time of the affair, and she and her husband are still together. They have two young boys.
> 
> Petraeus frequently publishes opinion pieces in prominent publications, and is affiliated with three universities, the Times reported. He was mentioned as a potential draft challenger for an outside party bid for the 2016 presidency in a column published in the Washington Post, among others.
> 
> Broadwell has attempted to convince the Associated Press to not use the word “mistress,” suggesting some words reflect mistakes made by two people, not just one. This, she said, has given her a reason to help others.
> 
> “On the one hand, I don’t want to define myself by this. But on the other hand, I’ve been defined by this,” she said. “So if I can change things for the better because of it, then why not?”


----------



## dapaterson

...and Edward Snowden is still in exile and Chelsea Manning is still in jail.  Same offence, radically different treatment.


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...and Edward Snowden is still in exile and Chelsea Manning is still in jail.  Same offence, radically different treatment.


Hey, hey, hey - take your factiness over to rabble.ca, buddy  ;D


----------

