jump to last post 1-28 of 28 discussions (122 posts)

Today's O'bama-shell: General David Petraeus resigns

  1. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    CIA Director David Petraeus has tendered his resignation to President Obama.
    He cites personal reasons.
    Specifically, that after 37 years of marriage, he engaged in an extramarital affair.

    Some expected his resignation.
    But the reason?

    Get ready for the incomings!
    Ka-BOOM!

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I read that story earlier, and thought the same thing...I can feel it in my bones MM, here it comes!

    2. donotfear profile image91
      donotfearposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It does seem strange that he resigned all of a sudden, spilled his guts about having an affair, told the whole world about it.....?   Like he needed to confess.  Just a weird way to resign....an affair has nothing to do with the job he was doing unless he was sleeping with the enemy.  Former presidents did it & didnt' resign, going way back over 100 years.  oh well, go figure.

    3. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well at least he's finally coming out with the truth, and stepping down as he should. It would have been nice to hear what he had to say about the Benghazi attacks which he was scheduled to testify in a week or so. But never fear I have full confidence that it had nothing to do with it. The transparency of the Obama administration is clear as mud. Business as usual. Nothing to see here, move along.
      These are not the droids you are looking for.  wink

  2. Hollie Thomas profile image58
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    "Petraeus resignation. Timing, everything suspicious. There has to be more to this story." Rupert Murdoch tweeted this less than one hour ago.

    I do find comments like these from the likes of Murdoch hilarious.

    Someone tweeted back, "perhaps it was just one rouge adulterer"

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol Love that retweet

    2. innersmiff profile image78
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Tom Woods gave a rational reply:
      On Twitter, Murdoch says the Petraeus resignation seems suspicious and there must be more to the story. Anyone who follows American government knows there is always more to a story like this. But because Murdoch said it (and I know Murdoch is not our guy), left-liberals responded with laughter and scorn, for who could possibly think we're not getting the full story? Further evidence that QUESTION AUTHORITY is dead as a governing principle for the Left.

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I question, I just listen as well...some spins in this country are witch hunts; it has always been that way. If one side doesn't get what they want they find a way to discredit and demonize the other side...Bill Clinton is a good example...What a personal affair had to do with being President never made any sense to me..

        1. innersmiff profile image78
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If only the left applied their 'scepticism' as well to their own side as they do to Murdoch.

          George Carlin put it more succinctly: "One rule, I don't believe a single solitary thing the government tells me"

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But we can do research, I looked through all of the spread sheets of the "bailouts," recently on the Treasuries web site, I have followed the statements and suggestions from the CBO, I have researched the BLS, I do not just hear what they have to say and then blindly follow and believe...I also researched Murdoch, he is sure not someone I believe by his mere "saying so"...

        2. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How about... integrity, morals, honesty, situational awareness, sense of right and wrong, respect for the office, etc. etc.

          Aren't those qualities we expect our presidents to have?

          GA

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes they are, and our teachers, preachers, parents....but we are all human, we make mistakes, we fail, we are not perfect, not even the Presidents...We didn't hang Bush for the big WMD lie, now that is something you impeach a POTUS for, not an extramarital affair...

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              +1

              Personally I think it's a real shame, whatever he may have done in his personal life Petraeus was an excellent military expert and losing that talent is a real waste.

              1. Repairguy47 profile image59
                Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I know how dems love to change facts but Clinton was impeached because he was And still is a liar! A convicted liar!

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Man... I said nothing about that... Relax, Clinton lied we know. I was talking about Petraeus.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image59
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I was referring to your plus 1 to the one changing the facts.

                  2. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If you could be convicted of that crime, the jails would be fuller than the steets...BTW, how many Presidents have told the truth???

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Eisenhower had a mistress/driver in Europe during WWII--Kay Summersby. Kennedy bonked at least one intern and had nude swimming parties in the White House pool. Johnson was quite a ladies man. George H.W. Bush allegedly had an Italian mistress stashed in an apartment in NYC. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a notorious philanderer. We make a lot more of such things than they do in many other countries. Jefferson and FDR also were adulterers.

                  "As colorful stories from Clinton’s sexual past in Arkansas began to surface during the campaign, a Clinton aide began digging into the senior Bush’s own robust adultery. This included, writes Kelley, two long affairs — one with Jennifer Fitzgerald, Bush’s White House deputy chief of protocol, who, as the Washington Post once slyly put it, “has served President-elect George Bush in a variety of positions,” and one with an Italian woman with whom he set up house in a New York apartment in the 1960s. The Clinton aide told Kelley, “I took my list of Bush women, including one whom he had made an ambassador, to his campaign operatives. I said I knew we were vulnerable on women, but I wanted to make damn sure they knew they were vulnerable too.”

                  http://www.salon.com/2004/09/14/kelley_2/

                  Philandering Presidents:

                  http://www.funtrivia.com/en/World/Phila … 13741.html

                  1. profile image0
                    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ralph, it was not about him having an affair. It was about him using the Oval Office to get his wanker off AND the questionable situation of it being with an intern. You well know that in any company in this country, a Senior Officer who has sexual relations with an underling, whether it consensual or not, is out of that company. Period.
                    Second, the impeachment wasn't about the affair at all. It was about lying under oath (perjury) and obstruction of justice.

                3. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hello RG. How are you doing tonight?

                  I am sorry to interrupt your fray with Josak, however, in this instance, I am afraid you are the one trying to change the facts and to distort history. President Clinton is not a convicted liar!

                  President Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice in two articles of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives on Dec 20, 1998 by a vote that was virtually along party lines. Two other articles of impeachment could not muster enough votes to pass.  On February 12, 1999, after a five-week trial, the Republican dominated US Senate acquitted President Clinton when both articles fell far short of the 67 votes required by the Constitution for conviction. So, it seems, RG, President Clinton is not a convicted liar as you claim.

                  I just think the facts are more reliable than your version of history.

                  Have a great night.
                  Q.
                  http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/13/us/pr … amp;src=pm

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image59
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You are correct, he wasn't convicted of perjury. My mistake. He did however admit to it and lost his law license for 5 years.

                    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITIC … .lewinsky/

                    He convicted himself.

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image58
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Nice to see you back, Quill. I had wondered how you'd got on after Sandy. smile

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image58
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Rubbish, Murdoch suggesting that there could be more to the story led to laughter because, wait for it; he would never accept that that was the case when it came to his own criminal organisation. That's why me, and people like me, laughed. He's a hypocryt.

        Stacy Herbert suggests that's he's been dropped, reasons unknown, more to come, but no doubt he'll find himself without credit, money a home or a job! No left winger is laughing at that! But there again, she's not a known gangster or liar! Stop making the fact that Murdoch's ridiculous comments are not being taken seriously because left wingers feel that they are always told the truth by the left. And if you have any doubt, ask yourself this question- how many right wingers and so called liberatarians marched against the war in Iraq in comparison to how many left wingers marched against the actions of a left wing government?

        1. innersmiff profile image78
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes he may well be a hypocrite, but he may well be right. We argue for the principles themselves rather than who is saying them. When Romney argues for the free-market, I will defend his point but point out his hypocrisy (he's far from a free-market guy). If you're serious about this, the point should be 'what's really going on?', not 'haha, let's laugh at Murdoch'. Take the mature option.

          If you're going by just the numbers, we're not going to win because there's so many more liberals than there are libertarians (I'm not interested in 'right-wingers'). However, Libertarianism's primary governing principle is of non-aggression, so serious Libertarians are always against war if not protesting about it. A lot of libertarians find marching protests counter-productive, though, so considering all of that, the answer to your question would not be very illuminating if one cared to look for it.

          What I want to know is why did the left suddenly stop marching when Obama was elected? Imperialism is still imperialism, whether it's your guy or Bush.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image58
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Innersmith, the mature option, I agree, is to find out what's really going on. My point, is that you'll never get to the truth with Murdoch, he's way tooooo partisan. He's far more interested in slamming O than discovering the truth behind P's resignation.

            And whilst I agree that marches don't always achieve the desired result, they can, in some circumstances, be effective. I can't possibly see how a march can be counterproductive, ineffective most of the time yes, but not counter productive.

            The left didn't stop marching, see some of the banners at OWS- stop the wars- stop funding Israel- stop spending money on the MIC! I'm not suggesting that all the OWS protesters were of the left, but I wouldn't mind betting that a large proportion were. And what about the stop the war coalition, or the Respect party, or the Greens, all of those groups are quite vocal about their opposition to war and Imperialism. All of those groups are of the left!

            Anyway, Russia Today are reporting that P has resigned because he allowed the "other woman" to read his work related emails. Any truth in this? I don't know!

            The Murdoch brand is irreparably damaged! He will be forever laughed at by those looking for a reliable source, or indeed well informed commentary.

            1. innersmiff profile image78
              innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The BBC suggests that between 6 and 10 million people marched on the eve of the Iraq war - I can tell you that no-where near that many protested the invasion of Libya, if any. You have to admit that there has been considerably less opposition to Obama's war mongering than there has been Bush's. I honestly don't want to get into a left-bashing thing - everybody should be at least opposing the wars. It just makes me so mad how people will defend Obama yet bash Bush on foreign policy when there's so little difference.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The two wars are incomparable, there is a big difference between occupying a nation on false suspicious on WMD's and giving air support to a civilian revolutionary faction with the intention of aiding them. There is nothing wrong with aiding a just cause when people have risen up against oppression and to his credit I thought that it might be use as an opportunity to try to gain greater power in Libya but in the most part the US helped then withdrew and immediately allowed a provisional government to organize elections.

                Sanctity of borders should be a democratic limit, in the case of Iraq there was no major opposition and most Iraqi's did not want the US in their country, the opposite is true in Libya and thus the war is justifiable.

                1. innersmiff profile image78
                  innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Assuming that Libya is the west's business, and it's okay to presume the legitimacy of a revolution, why is it that NATO ignores the oppression of the Qatari people? They would welcome help with open arms, yet we are strangely quiet. Is it because that revolution isn't a real one or that Qatar is of no interest to us? I vote the latter. The military-industrial-complex does not blithely commit itself to 'just' causes - there has to be some benefit for them or they won't do it.

                  I also question the need to blow up civilians for a 'just' cause.

                  But in short, it is not America's responsibility to fight revolutions for people - there are so many instances where revolutionary parties have turned into even more oppressive governments than before, that it's just not safe to get involved. And when the revolution is run by the Muslim Brotherhood you have to be extra careful. Most problems in the middle-east are direct or indirect results of western military intervention in the past - when are we going to learn and just leave well enough alone?

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The legitimacy of a revolution does not need to be presumed it can be investigated the Libyan revolution was legitimate in my eyes and those of the experts and the massive outpouring of support post the fall of the last government from Libyans has further proved it.

                    The "look we don't help them so we shouldn't help anyone" argument is a logical fallacy in and of itself, it's not an argument and does not deserve a response. See two wrongs don't make a right.

                    Yes there was a benefit to the US, the government that was deposed has previously funded terrorism against the US and trained terrorists but that does not change the sum benefit or "goodness" of the action.

                    Most just causes have collateral damage, I saw it personally, it's horrific but that does not change the necessity of the struggle, people can't be oppressed and violated willingly for fear of someone innocent getting hurt in the process of changing their conditions.

                    Everyone has an ethical responsibility to aid the cause of people fighting against violent oppression, the act of not doing so is the greater wrong.

                    The Muslim brotherhood did not run the either of the major revolutions in Egypt or Libya.

                    Yes we have to be careful with any action but fear of the possible "butterfly effect" consequences should not prevent people from doing the right thing or everyone would be paralyzed. As an example the man who did not kill Hitler in WWI may have caused more harm than intended but the extrapolation is not that all prisoners of war should have been executed.

                    Violent murder, torture and oppression of the majority of the population is not "well enough".

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image58
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I read that it was around a million, in the UK that is, a much smaller number. Truth is, I'm skeptical about the involvement in Libya. I think it was too coincidental that suddenly the people (or some) formed a massive resistance. On the one hand, I believe that when people are having to live daily with such oppression they should be helped, but on the other I'm quite cynical about who the rebels really were. And again, you'll find that the Respect party and the stop the war coalition have been very critical of Obama and they are of the left. In terms of marches, STWC and Respect have organised numerous demonstrations and other events. They just don't get any media coverage, which is typical. Just because they are not on the news does not mean that they have stopped marching or protesting just because of O is the president. That is untrue.

                1. innersmiff profile image78
                  innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Then I praise the Respect party and the stop the war coalition - I'm just wondering why you're a supporter of Obama if you accept that Libya was a sham?

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image58
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    As I said, I can't make my mind up about the intervention in Libya. To summarise, I don't trust the intell services and I don't necessarily feel that (I know, I'll get slated for this comment and yes it is just my opinion) that the so called governments behind a National Intel service are  necessarily the ones pulling the strings. I believe (imho) it's far more complex than that.
                    I do support Obama to some extent- but I also feel he has been a bit naive in some respects. I think the dynamics in the mid east are so convoluted that we can't always see the wood for the trees. However, if I were just a blindsided left winger, I'd never have made those comments. There is a little bit more to me that that, Innersmiff.

      3. watergeek profile image92
        watergeekposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm on the left and I question all the time. This interview, conducted by Democracy Now! agrees that the affair was probably not the real reason for Petraeus' resignation and postulates another one, based on his war-making record. It's an interesting interview. (Democracy Now! is a highly respected alternative media - also on the left.)
        http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/12/ … ailure_was

  3. Getridame profile image60
    Getridameposted 4 years ago

    Who needs him, if he can't keep a secret.

  4. KK Trainor profile image60
    KK Trainorposted 4 years ago

    Oh, of course you all believe it has nothing to do with Lybia. He couldn't possibly be the next Oliver North... Don't worry, he'll get his subpoena in the end.

    1. PaulaHenry1 profile image70
      PaulaHenry1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I hope w/ all my heart he does. He was all for testifying and then this. Now he is not? O is full of lies and cover-ups. It'll all come to light. Someday....unfortunately by then it'll be too late.

  5. aware profile image72
    awareposted 4 years ago

    i didn't vote for David.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    General Petraeus, after surviving the Bush years, would not be taken down by something as comparatively small (with no disrespect on the loss of brave American lives) as Benghazi.
    Does not compute.

    1. KK Trainor profile image60
      KK Trainorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How can you say that without disrespect? Never mind, I don't even care any more.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image58
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      One thing, and this is just a thought, is that people may have overlooked  that the affair (if this is indeed the case) was with a man. He's been slated by the Fox on so many levels (and given Murdoch's tweet and the "there must be more to this story" angle) leads me to believe that the gutter press have got their teeth into something: it's possible that P's just trying to protect his family. Many in high positions have had extramarital affairs, but the media always make so much more of it when it's a homosexual relationship. Maybe P was just trying to get out now in the hopes that his family will not be destroyed in any brewing storm. And from the things I've been reading tonight; people are beginning to speculate that P is gay.

      1. PaulaHenry1 profile image70
        PaulaHenry1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        omg, really? He is not gay. He was having an affair w/ Paula who was writing a book. This is to the point of stupid now.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image58
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Which is why I used the term speculation.

    3. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this
  7. tussin profile image60
    tussinposted 4 years ago

    O'bama? Is he Irish now?

  8. Wayne Brown profile image88
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    I don't buy it and neither does his wife of 37 years.  The explanation puts the reason into the category of "personal" and therby drops it from the discussion....or so one might surmise.  This comes just before Petraeus is scheduled to testify on the events of Benghazi and if he does not testify i suspect that will be quite convenient for the administration.  I do not believe that Petraeus was willing to perjure himself to continue the cover-up which is taking place on Benghazi and extends to CIA arms deals in Libya and Syria via Turkey all orchestrated by our deceased Libyan Ambassador.  I do not believe that Petraeus can avoid testimony even with the resignation but he can tell the truth if he is ask to do so.  ~WB

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I guess we will have to see, but Clinton was persecuted for a personal affair, so it happens...

      1. Repairguy47 profile image59
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No Clinton was impeached because he wagged his fingers at the American people and lied to us. History can be your friend!

        1. PaulaHenry1 profile image70
          PaulaHenry1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          AMEN!

        2. profile image0
          Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Because effectively entrapping someone with perjury in relation to a personal affair as a political move is totally valid and fair.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image59
            Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's a new one, he was compelled to lie? Compulsive liars are compelled to lie all on their own.

    2. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And, you are basically comparing this to the Iran-Contra Affair under the Reagan Administration? Reagan bargained for hostages to be free, what do you speculate the bargaining chip to be? Are you saying that WE are the ones slaughtering Syrians? Do you believe the Obama Administration is trying to create WWIII? Please explain what you believe is being "covered up"

  9. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Someone has to pay for the damages, so we sacrifice the head for the people's contentment!

    1. PaulaHenry1 profile image70
      PaulaHenry1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am just sick and tired of people playing stupid in this country.....Cover-up. Plain and simple.

  10. Wayne Brown profile image88
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    Based on the latest info, Petraeus will not be testifying next week...at least that is what the administration is offering.  I see no way for him to avoid it in terms of that which applies to Benghazi.  He was the man in charge at the CIA at the time of the action and thus his testimony is critical to the truth aspects of the investigation.  To simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, he's not the chief anymore, there is no need for him to testify" pretty much goes without saying that Patraeus has something we all need to know about.  I understand that it was the FBI who uncovered this affair while they were investigating some other matters pertaining to Petraeus.  Ty Wood, one of the Navy Seals lost in the Benghazi action, is on record in an interview stating that his mission in Libya was to recover dangerous weapons in the country.  His assigned task was not that of a security guard for the Ambassador. In investigating the events at both embassy and the CIA safe house (an Embassy annex), one can be sure there will be some discussion as to what was the role of the two Navy Seals.  If a truthful answer is given, it will be apparent that the Seals were there for a different purpose than that of insuring he safety of the ambassador.  That opens up many avenues of discussion.  ~WB

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wayne, I was reading an article last week. The article suggested that al-queda had been getting training straight from our soilders as they are pretending to be a citizen type military for Afganistan.I was considering just how many weapons could have been obtained over the past decade from fallen heros alone...I am just thinking out loud here, what do you think of that possibility?

      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Considering some instances of these citizen type military Afghanis that have turned weapons on our soldiers, I would not discount the possibility. Let's be honest though. He was scheduled to testify next week. He suddenly resigns, citing personal reasons. He knows something they do not want the Americans to know. Period. What it is exactly they are covering up, only they know right now. No doubt, we WILL find out though. He will be forced to testify since he was the one in charge at the time.

        1. tammybarnette profile image60
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree that the timing is odd and that we will finally know eventually...I am just digging trying to figure out what this is really about. I read another article about a natural gas pipeline...My guess, is much of this is as usual about power and money, but things are becoming so complex these days we never can definitivley know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys...who are freedom fighters and who are terrorists...The more I research, the more confused I become

  11. knolyourself profile image62
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    How many people has Petraeus killed? But infidelity is the crime.

  12. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    My initial thought was, "Perfect timing!"

  13. gvain98 profile image61
    gvain98posted 4 years ago

    What about ignoring syria .  Discrediting benghazi attack on meet the press .

  14. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Man bites dog--FBI spies on CIA!

  15. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    The woman who blew the whistle on Petaraeus and Broadwell revealed:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 … -to-house/

  16. Repairguy47 profile image59
    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago

    Bus parked on top of the CIA director, advantage obama! Its gonna get good soon.

  17. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    To get back to the facts about Petraeus.

    What do you think of the fact that the FBI kept the investigation which has been taking place for months secret from the President and Congress until last Thursday? Congress is asking for answers to that.

    The FBI was investigating it because the mistress sent a threatening email to a friend of Petraeus and his wife who found out about the affair.

  18. ptosis profile image77
    ptosisposted 4 years ago

    The FBI didn't keep it a secret .. .it was muffled until after the election. Oh yes - "they told the Prez on the aftersoon of his re-election" (yeah right)

    Sex, war & crimes and the real reason for the embassy attack? Juicy story.

    Check this out:

    The CIA denies Broadwell's accusation, (Petraeus' ex-mistress), that the agency held a secret prison against Obama's 2009  EO, (which I'm sure POTUS did really know with a wink and a nod),

    "Paula Broadwell said the CIA had detained people at a secret facility in Benghazi, and the attack on the U.S. Consulate there was an effort to free those prisoners". - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 … -benghazi/

    Can't make this up. The anti-Islamic movie pushed by POTUS for two weeks was a delaying diversion for the sole purpose of surpressing the real reason for the riot.

    The woman beds Petraeus, get him to do some pillow talk ala Mata Hari, security compromised. Petraeus resigns while Congress pushes questions to next week when Petraeus  will no longer be under obligation to show up to answers questions.

    Wow, Broadwell did well as the femme fatale.
    http://static.flickr.com/107/284549536_21659e5d42_m.jpg

  19. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/ … ar-561827/

    "The investigation began after Kelley visited the bureau's Tampa office in early summer and provided investigators with harshly worded emails accusing her of seeking an intimate relationship with Petraeus, The Washington Post reported. FBI investigators traced the emails to Broadwell."


    They were both willing participants in the affair...

  20. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    The comparison to Mata Hari is a bit overboard. Broadwell is nowhere close to that level of femme fatale.

    The General made some bad strategic moves with a woman who will profit with increased sales of her book.

    This is a story that I'm sure we'll never really know the fine details.

    For those interested, an article written in Jan., 2012 about Petraeus which discusses the book and Broadwell. 

    Petraeus timeline from PBS

    1. ptosis profile image77
      ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps it was a bad comparison, Mata Hari legend is just that -  a legend.  She wasn't a seductress-spy but just interested in making money.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic … onage.html

      The French like to kill 'spies' without any evidence, I.E. The Dreyfus affair.

  21. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    I'm surprised that none of the pundits on CNN, MSNBC, Fox and others have provided the perspective that presidents Jefferson, Cleveland, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush I, and Clinton, plus others, no doubt, committed adultery while in the White House. Not to mention Nancy Reagan's reputation in Hollywood before she married Ronald Reagan which got her on one list as one of the top 10 most promiscuous famous women:

    * Nancy Reagan

    "Certainly the name most likely to come as a shock to readers, back in her pre-Ronnie Hollywood days, the future First Lady Nancy Reagan (then Davis) is said to have acquired quite a reputation and opened quite a lot of doors for herself with her willingness to pleasure actors and influential men in town with a certain popular sex act. This according to prolific biographer and scandal author Kitty Kelley.

    "Considering the source, let's just say this one's likely exaggerated at best. There's no reason to think the "Just Say No" lady didn't have plenty of experience at doing just that."

  22. knolyourself profile image62
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    I hear honey-pot. Apparently a war going on between Obama-wing policy makers, and the fanatic ally in the middle east.

  23. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    This story is becoming more interesting as details unfold.  Now another general is involved.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 … id=prn_aol

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 … d%3D233769

  24. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Two Republicans discuss the Petraeus affair, David Brooks and Gail Collins:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … -peeps/?hp

    1. watergeek profile image92
      watergeekposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is a great exchange. They cover all the bases and raise the questions. Although I do think there might be something non-private that might be hiding behind the hugely public, distracting scandal - something related to the quality of work he was doing militarily or this guy who got his position or maybe he actually wanted to resign from the CIA and there are rules against doing that (there used to be).

  25. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Excellent piece.
    Yes. The Kelley twins do look a lot like the Kardashians!!
    And yes. This scandal is definitely a coverup. Maybe it's the distraction from Benghazi that was supposed to be the distraction from the fiscal cliff.
    Or maybe we really have reached critical mass. Life -- even at the highest eschelons of government -- imitates reality TV.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Or maybe a stupid mistress decided to threaten another women in email and that got the FBI involved... and it snowballed from there.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Remember that crazy astronaut lady who wore Depends on a drive cross-country to go thwart her romantic rival?
        This is shaping up to be almost as batsh#t crazy time!


        lol

      2. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        UW and MM Have you heard this:
        :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9650199/CIA-confirms-role-in-US-consulate-attack-in-Benghazi.html

        Maybe I have been behind on my reading here, but I had not heard this till now:

        "CIA confirms role in US consulate attack in Benghazi
        The US consulate in Benghazi that came under attack by militants on September 11 was mainly a secret CIA operation, shedding new light on the deadly assault.

        Chris Stevens, inset, died in the strike on the US consulate in Benghazi Photo: REUTERS/AP
        7:57AM GMT 02 Nov 2012
        President Barack Obama's administration has faced a storm of pre-election questions about why there was not more security at the US consulate where four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed on September 11. "

        "The Wall Street Journal said the consulate was being used as a CIA operation, adding that of the 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the assault, just seven worked for the State Department.

        It also identified the two security contractors killed in the attack – former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty – as working for the Central Intelligence Agency and not the State Department.

        In a break from tradition, it said CIA Director David Petraeus did not attend the ceremony when the coffins arrived back on American soil in order to conceal the CIA operation in eastern Libya."

  26. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Senators McCain and Lindsey Graham's attack on Ambassador Susan Smith is an example of how hard it is for the party of old white guys to learn from its mistakes. McCain's attack reflects his attitude as a sore loser to Obama in 2008 and his lack of judgment in attempting to inflict Sarah Palin on the country. But little Lindsey Graham's lying attack on Susan Smith as a "key player in the Benghazi tragedy" is even more egregious. They are both making fools of themselves over the unfortunate deaths of four Americans. If memory serves, neither has acknowledged their error in voting in favor of our foolhardy, unnecessary invasion of Iraq which resulted in the deaths of 3,000 Americans and untold Iraqi citizens.

    1. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      All intelligence has already come out that they reported and knew this was a terrorist attack less than 24 hours after it happened. Rice came out five days later and told a little fairy tale on nearly every single available news source that this was due to some video. Now they are trying to claim that was her intel. Whatever. She lied, over and over and over, no doubt at the bequest of someone, period.  She might not be a key player in the context of the attack, but she is a key player in the context of the fairy tale they tried to feed everyone. Oh and it is Susan Rice.

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sassy, I watched the report on CNN last night, I actually started a forum on it, but Anderson Cooper showed the video of 2003 as Joh McCain ooohed and ahhhed over Condelezza Rice, told eveyone that she was obviusly a person of integrity, and it just was not her fault that she went around to every news station reporting WMD....Now, 2012, Same man, complete fli flop of attitude about the same scenario...except in Libya 4 died, in Iraq 1000's...Oh and by the way, during his interview from 2003 he smuggly said, that dem's were just being sore losers after losing the election and just trying to hurt Condi sad

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          As I stated before, the difference here is the actual intel. The intel that everyone official in the Government received said there were WMDs. It also said they were moved to Syria (later on). Funny how Syria now has this "secret" cache of chemical weapons among others now isn't it? Wonder where they came from.
          The intel clearly stated this was a terrorist attack less than 24 hours after it happened. They lied.
          One is bad intel (or the weapons were moved), the other is creating your own fantasy and then blaming bad intel.
          EDit: I did want to add I know the Cheney story and how he allegedly had the intel put into lawyer speak. Even this claim though, says that Bush and Condelezza Rice were victims of this falsehood.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sassy the entire Bush Administration lied! it blows how the mind how Republicans think, this is exactly the same except for far less collateral damage of human lives and we are not SPENDING millions a day on a war based on a lie! You can not have it both ways Sassy, sorry....If you want to believe that something illegal and impeachable(that is the real driver as any with a brain knows) has happened then you must realize that W needs to be charged with war crimes...A one sided arguement on this is bias and pathetic, its all or nothing...BTW, our country is going to fall apart because of the ignorance of the Republican Party...We look like complete idiots to the rest of the world, sitting ducks, divided, petty, and stupid...Isreal attacked Gaza and killed the cheif of Hamas, the middle east is about to get ugly, and the completely incompetent Republicans need to get over this whining a sniveling from losing, grow up, join together, and get the work done! Much more of these childish antics and there will not be a country to fix! Pathetic!!!

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The Intel was faked by Cheney and his henchmen and George Tenet, CIA director who was rewarded with a Presidential medal so that he would keep his mouth shut. Condolezza Rice came out with public statements in support of the ill-advised invasion warning of mushroom clouds over the U.S. as a result of an imminent Iraq nuclear attack. That was very dumb because Iraq had neither the weapons, the method of delivery nor the motive to attack the U.S. At most it could have been a threat to Israel or its enemy Iran. Our invasion created a magnet and training ground for militant Muslim extremists from all over the Middle East. Moreover, it pushed Iraq into the arms of Iran.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ambassadors, when they are doing their jobs, are hard to protect. This was pointed out by Edward Crocker, a former ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan and a couple of other Middle East countries three of whose predecessors were assassinated. I believe President Obama's statement that Ambassador Smith's public statements were based on information furnished her by the CIA and state department. One of the pundits suggested that the attacks on her are GOP strategy hoping that Kerry will be named Secretary of State, thus creating a Senate vacancy in Massachusetts which they might have a chance of filling.

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is hard to give any credence to anything you say when you do not even know the proper names of the players. Even after the mistake has been pointed out.
          It pretty much says you are not really reading anything others have to say and just pulling out the soapbox when you think of another point you'd like to make.

    2. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Your dear leader got pretty upset with McCain and Grahm, more upset than he was when Americans died in Lybya.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The death of four (4) Americans in Benghazi was tragic, but the Republicans are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. They are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, grumpy old white man McCain and little liar Lindsey are barking up the wrong tree with their efforts to smear Susan Rice who had nothing to do with the tragedy in Benghazi. Of course they neglect to mention that the GOP turned down the administrations's request for additional money for embassy security.

        1. tammybarnette profile image60
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +100

        2. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Really? So all those Democratic Senators & Representatives who voted for the invasion of Iraq are somehow excused? It's only the GOP responsible?

          You keep wanting to harp on the Iraq war like it is somehow the same idea. It is not. Intel received at the time (and had been received previously as well) said there were WMDs. It later said they were moved to Syria however, by that time, it was no longer a trusted intel source. There were no American diplomats that had requested more security, turned down and left vulnerable. There were no phone calls for help etc etc etc. There was not this invasion and THEN this big made up fairy tale for the public.  Say what you want but UN and Congressional approval was received for the invasion of Iraq.
          Now, back to the issue at hand. We have people in the middle east, on the anniversary of 9/11, in an area that has been attacked twice in the previous months, that has requested additional security on numerous occasions. It all goes wrong. Rather than coming out and calling it what it was, a terrorist attack, OR coming out and saying, we're investigating, we're unsure, no. The WH sends out its mouthpiece, Carney and Susan Rice (whoever she received her marching orders from) to spin an elaborate tale about a video and how it was all to blame.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not excusing anyone, Democrat or Republican, who voted for the invasion of Iraq. Both of my senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow had the wisdom to vote against the foolish, costly, reckless invasion. Three thousand were killed unnecessarily in Iraq compared to four in Benghazi. Little Lindsay Graham claims that Susan Rice was a "key player" in the Benghazi incident. This is nothing but a big fat lie. And compared to Condolezza Rice's mushroom cloud over the U.S., Susan Rice's misstatement strikes me as an insignificant, unintentional, innocent error. If someone gave her misinformation, that person deserves criticism, not her. Little weenie Lindsay and bitter old man McCain are barking up the wrong tree.

        3. Repairguy47 profile image59
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Democrats who voted to attack Iraq! Are they not also responsible? I actually have respect for them they went against the majority of Democrats who don't think Iraqis deserve freedom!

          Gary Ackerman, Rob Andrews, Jim Barcia, Ken Bentsen, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Rod Blagojevich, Bob Borski, Leonard Boswell, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Brad Carson, Bob Clement, Bud Cramer, Joseph Crowley, Jim Davis, Peter Deutsch, Norm Dicks, Cal Dooley, Chet Edwards, Eliot Engel, Bob Etheridge, Harold Ford, Martin Frost, Dick Gephardt, Bart Gordon, Gene Green, Ralph Hall, Jane Harman, Baron Hill, Joe Hoeffel, Tim Holden, Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, William Jefferson, Chris John, Paul Kanjorski, Patrick Kennedy, Ron Kind, Nicholas Lampson, Tom Lantos, Nita Lowey, Ken Lucas, Bill Luther, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn Maloney, Edward Markey, Frank Mascara, Jim Matheson, Carolyn McCarthy, Mike McIntyre, Michael McNulty, Martin Meehan, Dennis Moore, John Murtha, Bill Pascrell, Collin Peterson, David Phelps, Earl Pomeroy, Tim Roemer, Mike Ross, Steven Rothman, Max Sandlin, Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman, Ronnie Shows, Ike Skelton, Adam Smith, John Spratt, Charles Stenholm, John Tanner, Ellen Tauscher, Gene Taylor, Karen Thurman, Jim Turner, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner, Robert Wexler, Al Wynn

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Democrats who voted to attack Iraq! Are they not also responsible?"

            Absolutely, but it was Bush-Cheney and the neocons who lied us into the attack.

            " they went against the majority of Democrats who don't think Iraqis deserve freedom!"

            I don't know of a single Democrat who don't think the Iraqis deserve freedom. But there are plenty of Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who now recognize what a foolish and costly blunder our invasion of Iraq was.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Absolute fail on your part!

              1. watergeek profile image92
                watergeekposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The Iraq War had nothing to do with freedom. Neither did it have anything to do with 9/11 (that was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq). It did have to do with dominance, oil, threats against former Pres. Bush's life and . . . the fact that Iraq had started selling oil for Euros, which broke the agreement that all oil from the Middle East would be sold for US dollars and no other currency.

                Guess who else has broken that agreement??? Iran. They are now selling oil in exchange for the Chinese yen. Why is our country so afraid of losing the dominance of the US dollar? Because we don't have gold to back it up anymore. We were using oil instead. This could destroy our economy.

                Wanna know what I read recently? The Bush family is buying up lands in South America at the headwaters of the Amazon. Apparently some other pretty wealthy people are, too (e.g. the Rockefellers). This lends a new meaning to the saying being bandied about that "water is the new oil." Kind of a mess, isn't it?

                1. ptosis profile image77
                  ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Bump+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  27. tammybarnette profile image60
    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago

    http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Pe … 038977.php

    I am so glad Petraus is going to testify...Yes there are differences between this situation and Iraq...W took misleading information, spread it through the public to create a reason to attack Iraq, he began a preemtive war when half of Americans and the UN said no, or not yet let's get more info...Obama decides to be smart, to use an undercover mission to figure out who is who...he doesn't jump into war, he doesn't jump, period, he uses patients to learn more...

    Now this is how I see this till we know differently, till all hearings are through...for those whining about transparency, get real, this was an undercover CIA mission being investigated by the FBI, We will know what we need to know however, which is...who dropped the ball and why, and why certain information didn't follow through the chain of command as it should have, etc. But this country fighting it's self looks ridiculous...Republicans have always been bullies, they are not use to a Dem Pres. who does not bend to there will, they did not think he would win because they way out spent him on propaganda full of lies, the bullies are now acting like spoiled brats and sore losers...the investigations should most certainly continue, answers found, and if the Administaration broke the law then they should be punished...In the meantime, we have Isreal starting a war and the fiscal cliff approaching...so tell your reps, everyone, tell them to grow up and get to work!

  28. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    "A Phony Hero for a Phony War" by Lucian K. Truscott IV

    "... 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..."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opini … n&_r=0

 
working