General Petraeus: collection

**jcustis** · 11-10-2012

Although the impact of his departure from the CIA will have a significance that goes well beyond the sphere of that seat, it looks like he had simply behaved as he shouldn't have.

The 'net is raging with speculation on why this wasn't picked up on a polygraph, how many knew about it but didn't let it out or confront him with it until he refused to go along with a narrative for "Benghazigate", Broadwell was a plant by the Democratic Party, and on to this being the first of many purges in a second-term administration. I even saw someone post elsewhere, with a degree of self-assurance, that he was resigning over a flap about the White House not embracing the CIA timeline for Benghazi.

Despite the striking coincidences and my disappointment that this happened to a man I considered a solid leader, it seems all so simple as well. The fact that he'd stuck his wick where it didn't belong was about to get out, and he wasn't going to lie about it.

Sometimes, things just need to be taken for what they are, and not what we want them to be.

It will be interesting to see what Ralph Peters, Tom Ricks and Bing West have to say when the stunned mullet sensation wears off.

**gute** · 11-10-2012

"Just Name Me a Hero and I'll Prove He's a Bum" - Pappy Boyington

**R A B** · 11-10-2012

About a week ago I saw an article that read: "General Petraeus thows Obama
under the bus." My immediate thought was, of course, he would not be a party to the deception that is taking place. Please do not ask where I saw the article. Probably better to not say even if I could remember. (a senior moment). I sincerely hope that in sharing my thoughts I have not offended the enemy. Best regards to all. R A B
PS I rarely share my thoughts, but enough is enough.

**The Cuyahoga Kid** · 11-10-2012

A real shame, but also a display of character. Petraeus could've stayed on as DCIA despite the affair, past Directors certainly have.

Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso

Good work, Paula. Looks Like the GEN was "All In".

Damn it sir, now I've got coffee on my screen.

**carl** · 11-10-2012

Originally Posted by gute

"Just Name Me a Hero and I'll Prove He's a Bum" - Pappy Boyington

He ought to have known. He looked at one in the mirror every day of his life.

It always pains me just a little that many people know who Boyington was but they don't know who Joe Foss, John Smith and Marion Carl were.

**carl** · 11-10-2012

Originally Posted by R A B

About a week ago I saw an article that read: "General Petraeus thows Obama
under the bus." My immediate thought was, of course, he would not be a party to the deception that is taking place. Please do not ask where I saw the article. Probably better to not say even if I could remember. (a senior moment). I sincerely hope that in sharing my thoughts I have not offended the enemy. Best regards to all. R A B
PS I rarely share my thoughts, but enough is enough.

Here is the article of which you spoke.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...us_657896.html

The press release that prompted that article probably sealed Gen Petraeus' fate. I speculate the administration already knew of the affair prior to that and had it ready to use. Using personal things against political enemies is something that the people in the administration have done in the past I've read. So this fits.

What strikes me about this is the vindictiveness involved. Mr. Obama and minions could have just had a word with Gen P and forced him out. Easy enough. But they went after his family. Somehow, someway they got him to announce publicly the affair knowing that would reflect upon his domestic life. Bringing in domestic life brings in family. They know that. It wasn't enough for them to ease Gen P out, they made sure his family was hurt too.

That ain't right.

**gute** · 11-11-2012

Originally Posted by carl

He ought to have known. He looked at one in the mirror every day of his life.

I believe that was his point - last sentence of his autobiography.

**carl** · 11-11-2012

Originally Posted by gute

I believe that was his point - last sentence of his autobiography.

I think you are right and I stand corrected.

**slapout9** · 11-11-2012

Stop looking at the General and start looking at who benefits and that will lead you closer to the truth.

**davidbfpo** · 11-11-2012

I was wondering as a non-American observer whether anyone has commented in the US MSM on the implications for the CIA as an internationally active intelligence agency with partners?

Secondly, on the impact of such a resignation as a former general, with a till now intact reputation as a "winner".

Here we know that the CIA and the US military are far more than one man. And realise that human relationships matter, especially when one to one meetings are necessary.

**Ken White** · 11-11-2012

Originally Posted by slapout9

Stop looking at the General and start looking at who benefits and that will lead you closer to the truth.

You're a good cop...

**Polarbear1605** · 11-12-2012

...the game is afoot...and it smells of all politics...IMO

**carl** · 11-12-2012

Originally Posted by slapout9

Stop looking at the General and start looking at who benefits and that will lead you closer to the truth.

I am too dense to figure that. What do you mean?

**ganulv** · 11-12-2012

Originally Posted by carl

I am too dense to figure that. What do you mean?

It's like Lenin said, Carl.

**gute** · 11-12-2012

Originally Posted by ganulv

It's like Lenin said, Carl.

That is funny.

**gute** · 11-12-2012

Patraeus is the distraction from the real story and that's what was going on at the annex in Benghazi. Was it a spontaneous demostration? A terrorist attack? or a rescue mission? To refer to it as a "flash mob" never made sense to the sensible. What was to be gained by not calling it a terrorist attack? But there is something to be gained by not acknowledging that it may have been a cover for CIA ops. What's to be gained by outing the Patraeus affair? He is still going to testify before Congress. IMO it's timing and never letting a crisis go to waste.

**bourbon** · 11-13-2012

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

I was wondering as a non-American observer whether anyone has commented in the US MSM on the implications for the CIA as an internationally active intelligence agency with partners?

Haven't seen any such comments yet, David. I think our partners probably have strong opinions about our secret keeping ability, and this only reinforces such opinions.

I recall reading a book by a Cold War era DGSE chief who held a very poor opinion of the US governments ability to keep something secret.

**slapout9** · 11-13-2012

Originally Posted by carl

I am too dense to figure that. What do you mean?

The greatest chemical attack known to man is still.......CHANEL No.5

This is all still unfolding and more will come to light I imagine. But in the meantime the General has essentially been neutralized. No matter if he testifies about Benghazi or run for President in 2016.......he is now damaged goods. This smacks to much like a Political Operation for me to just believe it was spontaneous combustion. The General is a lightening rod and he is drawing and will draw tremendous heat for this. That gives a lot of Political cover for the WH with respect to many items on their agenda.

**carl** · 11-13-2012

Slap:

Very good. I thought it was mostly revenge and didn't get that this manuvere (sic) has the effect of turning Gen P into a black hole that will draw everything associated with Benghazi into it and make it disappear.

He was a dead man walking the second the FBI found out about this during the summer. They had something that would prove useful and something came up where it could be used. The revenge angle was only a little bit of extra fun they could have while using this for the main purpose.

Ken was right, you is a sharp officer.

**SWJ Blog** · 11-13-2012

Top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Is Linked to Petraeus Scandal

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.