CIA Director Petraeus Resigns, Cites Extramarital Affair

[TUFFTURF]

This is a total cover story. The American people will never get the real story. If some one is cheating on his wife, that isn't important because you might have half of congress forced to resign if that was the case. This has nothing to do with who he is fucking or fucked. After the Libya total cluster fuck, you have to have:

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. It typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.
More generally, "plausible deniability" can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. Examples of this are the use of electric shock, waterboarding or pain-compliance holds as a means of torture or punishment, leaving few or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place.

[ThreeBet]

odds bet:

[DirtyB]

This is a total cover story. The American people will never get the real story. If some one is cheating on his wife, that isn't important because you might have half of congress forced to resign if that was the case. This has nothing to do with who he is fucking or fucked. After the Libya total cluster fuck, you have to have:

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. It typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.
More generally, "plausible deniability" can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. Examples of this are the use of electric shock, waterboarding or pain-compliance holds as a means of torture or punishment, leaving few or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place.

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make.

[bukowski72]

CIA Chief Resigns Over Affair
Petraeus Relationship With Biographer Surfaced After FBI Probe of His Email
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories


Nice Call 4D

[SixToedPete]

This is a total cover story. The American people will never get the real story. If some one is cheating on his wife, that isn't important because you might have half of congress forced to resign if that was the case. This has nothing to do with who he is fucking or fucked. After the Libya total cluster fuck, you have to have:

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. It typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.
More generally, "plausible deniability" can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. Examples of this are the use of electric shock, waterboarding or pain-compliance holds as a means of torture or punishment, leaving few or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place.

You make a very good point.

The Obama Administration is rife with corruption and possessed of zero transparency. They have the Lame Stream Media covering for them but in the end the truth will come out.

That's why I say let's wait and see.

Eventually Obama's house of cards will fall.

[TUFFTURF]

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make.

That this is a total bullshit story. Obviously when you have a major fuck up like Libya, someone is gonna
lose their job. Do you believe Obama wasn't aware of what was happening over over?

I thought Obama was going to have transparency in his Presidency?



Some things the public shouldn't know in certain situations but LIBYA wasn't one of them.

[sonatine]

.The official party line right now is that during the course of an unrelated security investigation, the FBI uncovered emails indicating David Petraeus was having an affair.

Two things seem spectacularly weird about this.

1) How do you end up reading the D/CIA's emails during the course of an unrelated security investigation? This is strange in several directions.. The FBI monitors all emails, specifically those of CIA employees (or anyone else with security clearance). And if there really was an unrelated security investigation, and if somehow it led, incredibly, to the D/CIA's personal email correspondence, why potentially compromise it by needlessly revealing it during the resignation of the D/CIA?

And this is the other thing I dont get.

2) They say the affair unraveled because of damning emails. Am I to believe the biggest single spook on the planet sent *emails* indicating he was having an affair?

"The bulk of the e-mails were believed to be from Petraeus to Paula Broadwell".

Really.

If anyone on earth was aware that every single piece of digital correspondence he had was under ritual examination by the FBI, it was this man. And hes just tip-tapping away on his keyboard, sending this woman love poems?

Im sorry but this all seems terrifically unlikely to me. I believe he had the affair, there is a lot of corollary evidence to support it, unless its all been manufactured after the fact (100% possible). But the spectacular lack of discretion we are being asked to accept blindly seems utterly out of character to the point of brazenly suspicious.

[sonatine]

Huh....

Im starting to suspect that he was simply never a spook, had absolutely no tradecraft or actual espionage experience, and got the job because he was in the best position to orchestrate intelligence efforts in the middle eastern theatre.

Which is.. real fucked up.

I got a bad feeling that foreign actors had popped this rubes email and that was the 'unrelated security investigation'.

[bukowski72]

2) They say the affair unraveled because of damning emails. Am I to believe the biggest single spook on the planet sent *emails* indicating he was having an affair?

"The bulk of the e-mails were believed to be from Petraeus to Paula Broadwell".

Really.

If anyone on earth was aware that every single piece of digital correspondence he had was under ritual examination by the FBI, it was this man. And hes just tip-tapping away on his keyboard, sending this woman love poems?

"A Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry into use of Mr. Petraeus's Gmail account led agents to believe the woman or someone close to her had sought access to his email, the people said."

Gmail? I find him using gmail even for a personal account very strange for the head of the CIA.

Also a very simple trick for hiding e-mail communication is to talk back and forth through the draft feature. You never actually send an e-mail. Each person has the password and you add to the drafted message to talk to each other. This is a method used by terrorist groups.

[sonatine]

2) They say the affair unraveled because of damning emails. Am I to believe the biggest single spook on the planet sent *emails* indicating he was having an affair?

"The bulk of the e-mails were believed to be from Petraeus to Paula Broadwell".

Really.

If anyone on earth was aware that every single piece of digital correspondence he had was under ritual examination by the FBI, it was this man. And hes just tip-tapping away on his keyboard, sending this woman love poems?

"A Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry into use of Mr. Petraeus's Gmail account led agents to believe the woman or someone close to her had sought access to his email, the people said."

Gmail? I find him using gmail even for a personal account very strange for the head of the CIA.

Also a very simple trick for hiding e-mail communication is to talk back and forth through the draft feature. You never actually send an e-mail. Each person has the password and you add to the drafted message to talk to each other. This is a method used by terrorist groups.

Thats fucking insane.

By the by, its fairly well known that Google has been in bed with the CIA since the second they decided to make google maps a real thing. Supposedly they were even given permission to buy a plot of land adjacent to a NASA campus responsible for, among other things, the deployment, upkeep, and maintenance of spy sats.

Which makes it _doubly_ outrageous that this guy has his affair documented via Gmail.

What in the fuuuuuuuuck....

[bukowski72]

Huh....

Im starting to suspect that he was simply never a spook, had absolutely no tradecraft or actual espionage experience, and got the job because he was in the best position to orchestrate intelligence efforts in the middle eastern theatre.

The lack of discretion or being unaware that anyone might be interested in your business is astounding.

I probably told this story before but one of my grandfathers was in the spy business. Another family member was high up in the military and wanted to talk some shop. This was a guy who was at my grandfather's house at least once a month. They could have probably stepped into the bathroom and had a quick conversation. I highly doubt my grandfather thought his house was being surveilled.

Instead they put on disguises and met in a park in D.C. to talk. My grandmother used to really laugh about helping my grandfather get his disguise ready.

[sonatine]

Huh....

Im starting to suspect that he was simply never a spook, had absolutely no tradecraft or actual espionage experience, and got the job because he was in the best position to orchestrate intelligence efforts in the middle eastern theatre.

The lack of discretion or being unaware that anyone might be interested in your business is astounding.

Im absolutely speechless. Im floored. Sarah Palin was _eviscerated_ for having a yahoo.com account when it got hacked, and the D/CIA had a gmail account? Who trained this guy, Mr Magoo?

I probably told this story before but one of my grandfathers was in the spy business. Another family member was high up in the military and wanted to talk some shop. This was a guy who was at my grandfather's house at least once a month. They could have probably stepped into the bathroom and had a quick conversation. I highly doubt my grandfather thought his house was being surveilled.

Instead they put on disguises and met in a park in D.C. to talk. My grandmother used to really laugh about helping my grandfather get his disguise ready.

I had no idea of this, this is fantastic.

[Crowe Diddly]

This may be a funny coincidence, and it's definitely funny that Chuck Closterman writes a column called "The Ethicist", but it's worth a read. From the NYT Magazine, July 13, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/ma...yond.html?_r=0

MY WIFE’S LOVER
My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD
--
Don’t expose the affair in any high-profile way. It would be different if this man’s project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The only motive for exposing the relationship would be to humiliate him and your wife, and that’s never a good reason for doing anything. This is between you and your spouse. You should tell her you want to separate, just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman. The idea of “suffering in silence” for the good of the project is illogical. How would the quiet divorce of this man’s mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He’d probably be relieved.
The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you’re even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times.
Your dilemma is intriguing, but I don’t see how it’s ambiguous. Your wife is having an affair with a person you happen to respect. Why would that last detail change the way you respond to her cheating? Do you admire this man so much that you haven’t asked your wife why she keeps having sex with him? I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either.

The Broadwell lady is married w/ 2 kids.

[sonatine]

This may be a funny coincidence, and it's definitely funny that Chuck Closterman writes a column called "The Ethicist", but it's worth a read. From the NYT Magazine, July 13, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/ma...yond.html?_r=0

MY WIFE’S LOVER
My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD
--
Don’t expose the affair in any high-profile way. It would be different if this man’s project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The only motive for exposing the relationship would be to humiliate him and your wife, and that’s never a good reason for doing anything. This is between you and your spouse. You should tell her you want to separate, just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman. The idea of “suffering in silence” for the good of the project is illogical. How would the quiet divorce of this man’s mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He’d probably be relieved.
The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you’re even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times.
Your dilemma is intriguing, but I don’t see how it’s ambiguous. Your wife is having an affair with a person you happen to respect. Why would that last detail change the way you respond to her cheating? Do you admire this man so much that you haven’t asked your wife why she keeps having sex with him? I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either.

100% him, I think even Drudge is all over this. Gawker def is.

[sonatine]

I wonder if the woman trying to access his emails was his wife?

[Crowe Diddly]

100% him, I think even Drudge is all over this. Gawker def is.

I saw it on BoingBoing. When its about the CIA, sites of all colors join in their mockery and distrust, I guess.

[4Dragons]

CIA Chief Resigns Over Affair
Petraeus Relationship With Biographer Surfaced After FBI Probe of His Email
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories


Nice Call 4D

Reminds me of that quote from Heavy Metal 'I gave her the stars and stripes.. forever'.

[4Dragons]

I'm not gonna comment too much on this but I would say that whatever leaks came out were most likely on her end.

[bukowski72]

Fargo Rock City is my handle on another poker site.

Here is a good link from gawker article. It is a review from Rolling Stone of Broadwell's book on Petraeus:

"The genius of David Petraeus has always been his masterful manipulation of the media. But after reading the new biography about him – All In: The Education of David Petraeus, by former Army officer Paula Broadwell – I’ve started to wonder if he’s losing his touch. The best spinsters never make their handiwork too obvious; they allow all parties to retain a semblance of dignity. Yet the Petraeus-approved All In is such blatant, unabashed propaganda, it’s as if the general has given up pretending there’s a difference between the press and his own public relations team."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz2BnfVdxnZ

The Rabbit hole goes deep. Jon Stewart was also cuckolding her husband. That is "Mr" Broadwell to the right of Stewart:

"I'm here for the gang bang!"

[Walter Sobchak]

Sorry but the other thread is hilariously fucking retarded.

The official party line right now is that during the course of an unrelated security investigation, the FBI uncovered emails indicating David Petraeus was having an affair.

Two things seem spectacularly weird about this.

1) How do you end up reading the D/CIA's emails during the course of an unrelated security investigation? This is strange in several directions.. The FBI monitors all emails, specifically those of CIA employees (or anyone else with security clearance). And if there really was an unrelated security investigation, and if somehow it led, incredibly, to the D/CIA's personal email correspondence, why potentially compromise it by needlessly revealing it during the resignation of the D/CIA?

And this is the other thing I dont get.

2) They say the affair unraveled because of damning emails. Am I to believe the biggest single spook on the planet sent *emails* indicating he was having an affair?

"The bulk of the e-mails were believed to be from Petraeus to Paula Broadwell".

Really.

If anyone on earth was aware that every single piece of digital correspondence he had was under ritual examination by the FBI, it was this man. And hes just tip-tapping away on his keyboard, sending this woman love poems?

Im sorry but this all seems terrifically unlikely to me. I believe he had the affair, there is a lot of corollary evidence to support it, unless its all been manufactured after the fact (100% possible). But the spectacular lack of discretion we are being asked to accept blindly seems utterly out of character to the point of brazenly suspicious.

It is inexplicable and I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to it. Then again, throughout history, men have thrown all caution and sense to the wind in pursuit of pussy.