David Patraeus

asherbassad

This "greatest" military mind since Eisenhower has resigned. Turns out the tool had 2 mistresses and one emailed the other to "stay away from her man"

:pac:

So this donker is supposed to be able to conduct a war. This douche is made head of the CIA ( an organisation who one would think employs people who know how to keeps secrets, haha) yet he has a GMAIL account to conduct his extra-marital slutting around. :pac::pac:

Reindeer

Military is all about conquests...

superblu

Was she his biographer or something? There was some reference in an email to him giving her a lash under his desk. What a dawg

A Primal Nut

Are you saying other great military minds didn't have mistresses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Summersby

Really don't see what impact it has on him doing his job.

Victor

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Really don't see what impact it has on him doing his job.

Surely it somewhat affects his trustworthiness, which is important in the spy business. That he thought it was a resigning matter meant that he could, potentially have been manipulated over it.

asherbassad

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Are you saying other great military minds didn't have mistresses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Summersby

Really don't see what impact it has on him doing his job.

Absolutely not. Field Marshall Rommel had a loving marriage yet also fathered a child with a lifelong paramour.

Petraeus is credited with being a "decorated war hero". When has this guy ever been in combat? He sustained a gunshot wound from when a cadet dropped a rifle and the thing discharged hitting old hero Dave in the chest. His other serious wound was from a skydiving accident.
Some war hero, But that aside I don't care how many women he shags behind his wife's back. As Director of the CIA....like I said an organisation that holds secrecy in high regard, this guy had multiple affairs and communicates with his lovers via a Gmail account. That's as pathetic as the Pentagon system passwords recenlty hacked being the factory default. And this clown is decorated?

Manic Moran

When has this guy ever been in combat? He sustained a gunshot wound from when a cadet dropped a rifle and the thing discharged hitting old hero Dave in the chest. His other serious wound was from a skydiving accident.

Odd. I went to two wars, and got out without being wounded. I must suck at war.

nagilum2

asherbassad wrote: »

Absolutely not. Field Marshall Rommel had a loving marriage yet also fathered a child with a lifelong paramour.

Petraeus is credited with being a "decorated war hero". When has this guy ever been in combat? He sustained a gunshot wound from when a cadet dropped a rifle and the thing discharged hitting old hero Dave in the chest. His other serious wound was from a skydiving accident.
Some war hero, But that aside I don't care how many women he shags behind his wife's back. As Director of the CIA....like I said an organisation that holds secrecy in high regard, this guy had multiple affairs and communicates with his lovers via a Gmail account. That's as pathetic as the Pentagon system passwords recenlty hacked being the factory default. And this clown is decorated?

A. Petraeus spent ample time in combat zone, not everyone who has been in combat zone has been shot, thank God.
B. If Clinton wasn't an issue than neither should be Petraeus
C. Former CIA director Allen Dulles is believed to have had, "at least 100" affairs, and is widely considered one of the best directors in the history of the agency.
D. Excellence in compartmentalizing and deception is practically a core competency for a spy agency.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Odd. I went to two wars, and got out without being wounded. I must suck at war.

But you hurt your toe and fingers, didn't you?

Manic Moran

And I got stitches in my head.

A Primal Nut

asherbassad wrote: »

Absolutely not. Field Marshall Rommel had a loving marriage yet also fathered a child with a lifelong paramour.

Petraeus is credited with being a "decorated war hero". When has this guy ever been in combat? He sustained a gunshot wound from when a cadet dropped a rifle and the thing discharged hitting old hero Dave in the chest. His other serious wound was from a skydiving accident.
Some war hero, But that aside I don't care how many women he shags behind his wife's back. As Director of the CIA....like I said an organisation that holds secrecy in high regard, this guy had multiple affairs and communicates with his lovers via a Gmail account. That's as pathetic as the Pentagon system passwords recenlty hacked being the factory default. And this clown is decorated?

Friendly fire injuries and casualties are unfortunately quite common and a big risk when operating in wartime environments, nothing to be laughed at.

In addition I would expect him to conduct his personal affairs via gmail or something similar. I'd be more worried if he was using an official account to conduct his personal affairs.

Or is there a special secure e-mail account for high up officials who conduct affairs?

Scofflaw

Given that the thread has begun to generate some reasonable, non-AH, responses, I won't close it. However, I consider it to be the case that the reasonable responses happened despite the OP, which invited AH-style responses, so a red card for the OP. For the record, I am tempted to yellow card those responses which similarly fell below the forum standards, and may do so on future occasions.

Continued creation of such threads will lead to a ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

mathproblem

This story is beginning to meander a bit now, who knows where it will end up. There's video floating about now of her last week giving a speech in Denver where she suggested the attack on Benghazi was to do with a prison/containment facility within the embassy & she intimated she got the info from him.

Some conservative media were pondering whether it may have all been a bit of a fix(the revelation of it/resignation) to stop the General from having to testify about Benghazi. If his second in command testifies in his place some conspiracy theorists on the right may continue to suggest that something is still being kept hidden, given their level of paranoia over Libya.

I don't think having an affair should be a sackable offense & apparently there are even channels for them to register the affair to keep it above board. The trouble seemed to arise here when she went off the deep end a bit after he broke it off; threatening a female family friend through anonymous e-mail. Perhaps the Denver speech was a bit contrived in her imagination too, a woman scorned & all that; maybe she wanted to stoke the fires to hurt him.

If you're going to have an affair you both have to be adult about it seems to be the unwritten rule but given his position & susceptibility to blackmail & all that there seems to be no getting around it.

Another angle on it is that the White House wasn't informed until very late in the day. The reason given was that the investigation was on her & not him, and didn't involve a threat to security, i.e. she wasn't a spy. It was broke by an FBI leak to a Republican Congressman, who in turn questioned senior FBI leadership who in turn decided it had to move beyond an in house thing.

If that leak hadn't have happened maybe it could've been swept under the rug, although given the volatility of Broadwell's behavior perhaps they decided it was something that would have to come out at some stage. I'd say the White house are thanking their lucky stars they weren't informed earlier because you get the impression Fox & Friends are dying to try and tar Obama with some of the fallout from this.

She seems like quite the high achiever this girl but is displaying some amount of fawning whenever talking about the general in her book promo interviews. It's like she had it all until falling under the spell of the power he held & then going haywire when it was taken away from her.

gizmo555

Excellent analysis of the Petraeus scandal in the Guardian by Glenn Grenwald today (13/11/12).

The astonishing thing is that the whole affair seems to have been precipitated by an over-enthusiastic FBI agent in Florida who was personally involved with one of the rivals for Petraeus's affections. On that basis and without the need for any warrant or court order, as Greenwald puts it:

. . . the FBI investigation began when Jill Kelley - a Tampa socialite friendly with Petraeus (and apparently very friendly with Gen. John Allen, the four-star U.S. commander of the war in Afghanistan) - received a half-dozen or so anonymous emails that she found vaguely threatening. She then informed a friend of hers who was an FBI agent, and a major FBI investigation was then launched that set out to determine the identity of the anonymous emailer.

That is the first disturbing fact: it appears that the FBI not only devoted substantial resources, but also engaged in highly invasive surveillance, for no reason other than to do a personal favor for a friend of one of its agents, to find out who was very mildly harassing her by email. The emails Kelley received were . . .quite banal and clearly not an event that warranted an FBI investigation . . .

But that isn't all the FBI learned. It was revealed this morning that they also discovered "alleged inappropriate communication" to Kelley from Gen. Allen, who is not only the top commander in Afghanistan but was also just nominated by President Obama to be the Commander of US European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (a nomination now "on hold"). Here, according to Reuters, is what the snooping FBI agents obtained about that [emphasis added]:

"The U.S. official said the FBI uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of communications - mostly emails spanning from 2010 to 2012 - between Allen and Jill Kelley . . . .

"Asked whether there was concern about the disclosure of classified information, the official said, on condition of anonymity: 'We are concerned about inappropriate communications. We are not going to speculate as to what is contained in these documents.'"

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

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

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

Mr.Micro

It goes to show that we all have our weaknesses, no matter who or what we are. This man is no exception.

Manic Moran

gizmo555 wrote: »

Excellent analysis of the Petraeus scandal in the Guardian by Glenn Grenwald today (13/11/12).

I am not a fan of Greenwald at the best of times, though I will admit he occasionally makes good points.

On this one, however, I think he's really going on the wrong rails and is attempting to use this as a foundation for a rant against the surveillance abilities of the authorities. He may be right about having concerns about the latter, but his logic on how he supports it doesn't hold water.

- Concern: The FBI started an investigation as a result of the initialtive of a single agent who, for whatever reason, saw more in something than a reading of the email would indicate.
Response: So? FBI agents can have 'hunches' too. If there was something ringing an alarm bell in that agent's mind beyond what was obvious, for whatever reason even if it was just her own personal familiarity with the persons involved, and the FBI supported it, good for the FBI. It means they trust their agents, and their initiative. Too few organisations will do that these days. You will also note that after starting the investigation, the FBI keep the original agent out of the loop in order to ensure detachment This strikes me as being an excellent case of an investigative organisation doing something the way it should be doing it.

- Concern: The FBI conducted an investigation on a scale beyond that one would ordinarily expect.
Response: Well, duh. We're talking about the head of the CIA and the head of the US forces in ISAF. If there is something to investigate at that level (and remember, the FBI is responsible for ensuring security as the nations' counter-espionage agency, not the CIA or the military) then damned straight an unusual amount of effort is going to be expended on it.

And as it turns out, there was fire behind the smoke as well, presumably the more they dug, the more they found, thus leading to the three-month-plus investigation.

NTM

gizmo555

Except in this case, the agent with the "hunch" apparently started this thing off to help out a "friend" to whom he (it's a male agent, not female) had emailed pictures of himself shirtless. And this was before either of the general's names were in the frame at all. Other agents were highly doubtful that the original emails complained of contained any threat:

"'What does this mean? There's no threat there. This is against the law?' the agents asked themselves by the source's account.

"At most the messages were harassing. The cyber squad had to consult the statute books in its effort to determine whether there was adequate legal cause to open a case.

"'It was a close call,' the source says.

"What tipped it may have been Kelley's friendship with the agent."

The agent concerned is apparently now himself under disciplinary investigation by the FBI for his conduct in the matter.

Of course you can see why it escalated once the director of the CIA's name was dragged into the matter, but I think the point Greenwald is making is that if this kind of thing can happen to Petraeus, what hope is there for the ordinary citizen to preserve any kind of online privacy? None . . .

The Corinthian

mathproblem wrote: »

I don't think having an affair should be a sackable offense & apparently there are even channels for them to register the affair to keep it above board. The trouble seemed to arise here when she went off the deep end a bit after he broke it off; threatening a female family friend through anonymous e-mail.

Unfortunately affairs involving persons in sensitive positions can have ramifications that affect national security, this is something that has been long understood. It is presently suspected that Broadwell may have had access to sensitive information, even Petraeus' email, and this would make the matter quite serious.

Personally I find the entire thing fascinating on the basis of just how damaged many of the actors in this drama are. Broadwell, for one appears to have gone bunny-boiler, over the whole thing, to begin with.

Then you have a character such as Kelley, who appears to be some form of social climbing socialite who became an 'honorary consul' and would commonly drop the 'honorary' from the title when describing herself and actually believing that she enjoyed diplomatic privileges through it.

Enter another General, Allen, who is now accused of sending "inappropriate" emails to Kelley - as it turns out, the two appear to have been flirting, apparently something that Broadwell felt she was doing with Petraeus too, which resulted in the 'harassing' emails that eventually saw this entire thing blowing up.

The whole thing reads as the synopsis to a reality show, except for the fact that a number of the participants are also in highly influential positions where the influence of such clearly damaged women could well be a serious issue for concern.

Personally, I'm loving the whole thing. It's like all that crap you get about celebrities having affairs and doing stupid things, but made respectable to follow by being under the auspices of 'current affairs'. And every day there are revelations that just make it better and better.

asherbassad

Manic Moran wrote: »

Odd. I went to two wars, and got out without being wounded. I must suck at war.

So did thousands upon thousands of rear echelon staff. Does that make them "war heroes"?

Love this term "hero" now.....it means just about any jackass who follows an order.

Some beer soaked idiot in vomit spattered fatigues stumbles off the plane after his 11 month stint jerking off in the motor pool in Germany and dopes applaud him for his "heroic service" at the airport. :pac:

This fool Petraeus who has been busy fcuking up every military decision he's made since 2004 is lauded as someone who rises above Eisenhower?
Idiots in the media were classing this spanner as some kind of Montgomery or some shit. FFS!!!

Take a look at this clown and his decorations....Jesus Christ. His whole uniform is covered in little ribbons and colours and bits and pieces. What the hell are they all for? A little red stitch everytime he takes a dump? Christ, even Lynndie England had more flashes on her uniform than Patton.

You pulled the trigger...here's a medal. You pointed the gun in the right direction...medal. You hit the target a few times...medal. Like giving the losers in a little-league game a load of take-home trophies too.

Utterly laughable.

Tombo2001

the most impluasible part of this story is that part of the attraction of Broadwell was that she was a very good runner and could keep up with Petraeus on his 6 minute mile runs........sorry David, you were making up that bit.......the rest of it is true.

what beef did broadwell have with kelley?

gizmo555

asherbassad wrote: »

Take a look at this clown and his decorations.....

Petraeus did look pretty absurd, and not far off the late unlamented Col Gadhaffi.

Compare and contrast the current CGS of the British Army, Sir Peter Wall:



One case where I personally prefer British understatement . . .

asherbassad

nagilum2 wrote: »

A. Petraeus spent ample time in combat zone, not everyone who has been in combat zone has been shot, thank God.
B. If Clinton wasn't an issue than neither should be Petraeus
C. Former CIA director Allen Dulles is believed to have had, "at least 100" affairs, and is widely considered one of the best directors in the history of the agency.
D. Excellence in compartmentalizing and deception is practically a core competency for a spy agency.

Well you see this is where I have difficulty.
You give this puppet a pass merely because you want to. If it was a guy who stole a loaf of bread you'd want him banged up and taught a lesson. How is that relevant, I hear you ask.

Well, I would imagine that integrity and strength of character are quite important when you are head of the CIA. There are many jobs that are far more important and far more delicate than president of the US. Clinton's pecadillos, Bush's cocaine and alcohol problems, Kennedy's debauchery, etc. should be proof positive of that.

Petraeus was always a joke. A disaster of a man who beat his own drum and I guess that scores points in Washington even if the guy has basically lost two unwinnable wars while having CNN tell the world he's about to win them (just give him a few more years).

Leaving aside presidents and former CIA directors, it would interest you to know that adultery is a crime under the UCMJ. So this "war hero" didn't see fit to think about that when Ms. Broadwell was going down on him (....another crime under the UCMJ...re:sodomy).

Kimmet, McChrystal, Abizaid, ...and now Petraeus.....absolute muppets.

And to think that these stuttering clowns were compared to Von Luck, or Guderian or Auchinleck, or even Napoleon :pac:

Manic Moran

Take a look at this clown and his decorations....Jesus Christ. His whole uniform is covered in little ribbons and colours and bits and pieces. What the hell are they all for? A little red stitch everytime he takes a dump? Christ, even Lynndie England had more flashes on her uniform than Patton.

You pulled the trigger...here's a medal. You pointed the gun in the right direction...medal. You hit the target a few times...medal. Like giving the losers in a little-league game a load of take-home trophies too.

Curiously, I addressed this issue over on Military only last week. Here's the post, for your education.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81791639&postcount=23

Christ, even Lynndie England had more flashes on her uniform than Patton.

Actually, no.



vs



I assume you can tell which is which.

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

Curiously, I addressed this issue over on Military only last week. Here's the post, for your education.

Saw your post on Military and had actually referred to it in my post above, but then edited my comment on it out again when I realised I'd confused the two threads.

But since you raise it here, there are two things about the US military's "CV on your chest" notion in Petraeus's case. Firstly, as you can see here, a good third of his ribbons were obscured by his lapel, so "readers" of his "CV" couldn't even see them:





Secondly, how many US soldiers would even recognise half the ribbons he wore, say, the Knight Grand Cross with Swords of the Order of Orange-Nassau
of which he was a recipient?

I think it's reasonable to conclude that a custom for which there is good practical reason may be taken to extremes by guys like Petraeus for reasons of personal vanity.

PS - It was a bit unfair comparing photos of Patton wearing his medals and England with just her ribbons. Suffice it to say that it's not at all clear to me from the two pictures you chose that Patton did in fact have more decorations than England - certainly if he did, she appears to have run him a close second!

Manic Moran

gizmo555 wrote: »

Firstly, as you can see here, a good third of his ribbons were obscured by his lapel, so "readers" of his "CV" couldn't even see them:

Yes, it is a glitch with the design, and varies with the tailoring a bit. On the plus side, if you are close enough to read the ribbons, you can usually figure out what's obscured from just the partial visibility or deduction. Because of the low position, they tend to be the most common and easily recognised. For example, the most 'obscured' award in Patraeus' case seems to be the ASR. You know he has one somewhere...

Secondly, how many US soldiers would even recognise half the ribbons he wore, say, the Knight Grand Cross with Swords of the Order of Orange-Nassau
of which he was a recipient?

How many would need to? Anything after the OSR or NATO medals on the rack, both of which would be commonly recognised, is not going to be a US Army award. On the other hand, a Dutch Army officer is almost certain to recognise it, which might be of import to the Dutchman.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that a custom for which there is good practical reason may be taken to extremes by guys like Petraeus for reasons of personal vanity.

The general rule is that you wear what you are awarded. For official photographs, it's actually a regulation. Also, while awards like an Army Commendation or Army Achievement Medal are considered particularly low and may be the sort that senior officers may -want- to not bother with, what does it tell your Private or Corporal who is getting his first medal for meritorious service "Well done, here's your medal. It's so low that the head of the Army doesn't bother wearing it." Not wearing everything is something of a poor example. Similarly, what would the Dutch government think if a US awardee said "thanks for that, but I'm not going to wear your medal because I don't want to"

PS - It was a bit unfair comparing photos of Patton wearing his medals and England with just her ribbons. Suffice it to say that it's not at all clear to me from the two pictures you chose that Patton did in fact have more decorations than England - certainly if he did, she appears to have run him a close second!

All medals have ribbons associated with them. When wearing full-sized medals, the ribbons which do not have medals associated are not worn at all. As a result, SPC England in the photo is wearing six medals. For comparison, I wear 13 US Army ribbons, but only ten medals.

The other issue is that "Number of medals =/= number of awards," as multiple awards of the same medal is designated by a small metal device affixed to the ribbon of the medal. The photo of Patton shows that most awards seem to have devices, but the photo of England indicates that all are singleton awards, the only device visible being the "M" for a mobilised reservist. The devices can be very important. For example, my Bronze Star has an oak leaf on it, whereas others have the letter 'V'. The 'V' is far more impressive.

NTM

Jonny7

asherbassad wrote: »

Well you see this is where I have difficulty.
You give this puppet a pass merely because you want to. If it was a guy who stole a loaf of bread you'd want him banged up and taught a lesson. How is that relevant, I hear you ask.

Well, I would imagine that integrity and strength of character are quite important when you are head of the CIA. There are many jobs that are far more important and far more delicate than president of the US. Clinton's pecadillos, Bush's cocaine and alcohol problems, Kennedy's debauchery, etc. should be proof positive of that.

Petraeus was always a joke. A disaster of a man who beat his own drum and I guess that scores points in Washington even if the guy has basically lost two unwinnable wars while having CNN tell the world he's about to win them (just give him a few more years).

Leaving aside presidents and former CIA directors, it would interest you to know that adultery is a crime under the UCMJ. So this "war hero" didn't see fit to think about that when Ms. Broadwell was going down on him (....another crime under the UCMJ...re:sodomy).

Kimmet, McChrystal, Abizaid, ...and now Petraeus.....absolute muppets.

And to think that these stuttering clowns were compared to Von Luck, or Guderian or Auchinleck, or even Napoleon :pac:

Congratulations on spelling his name correctly, is all this random bluster due to his nationality or do you have any coherent criticism?

Manic Moran

The affair apparently did not start until after he left the military. UCMJ does not apply.

RATM

What I find most interesting about all of this is the 20,000-30,000 emails between the other general and the mistress. They occurred between 2010-2012, a 3 year period. Taking the lower number of 20,000 and being overly generous and allowing 1,095 days (3 full years) it comes out to somewhere in the order of 18 emails per day, every day. At the 30k level it amounts to 27 per day which is an extraordinary amount of emails to send to one person- surely you'd just ring them than do all that typing.

It is looking like the General is the source of a huge leak of classified documents, this story is only at the beginning.

Victor

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/1206/1224327561948.html

Fox News pushed Petraeus for presidency
LARA MARLOWE, in Washington

Roger Ailes, the founder and chairman of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News corporation, sent an emissary to Gen David Petraeus when he was still commander of all forces in Afghanistan, asking Petraeus to stand for president and offering to bankroll his campaign.

...

Interesting that Petraeus quit immediately after the election.