Looks like the good 'ole General may have gotten himself mixed up with a looney
Looks like the good 'ole General may have gotten himself mixed up with a looney
Anyone who thinks this wasn't purposely delayed until after the election is an idiot.
With that said, I actually kinda believe the story itself... except I don't think the FBI just stumbled onto Petraeus' involvement by reading Broadwell's e-mails. I imagine that the "other woman" mentioned Petraeus to them, which is why they took such an interest in the first place.
Regarding Petraeus' marriage, it's an interesting situation. Say you are Petraeus and you have a wife who is both matronly-looking and devoid of a sex drive. I'm not saying that I know for a fact that she has no sex drive, but let's say hypothetically that it's true, which isn't hard to imagine for a woman over 60.
Say that you are still a horndog and possess the sex drive that you had when you were 30. At the same time, you are the head of the CIA.
What do you do?
Sure, you can get a divorce, but that's a lot easier said than done, especially if there's a lot of money involved, or if you still love your wife, aside from the sexual issues.
Sometimes these dudes just think it's easier to get some on the side instead of going through the divorce.
I'm not defending Petraeus' actions. He definitely should have just divorced her if this was the case, but sometimes it's hard for these guys to bring themselves to do it, and giving up half their assets for something that they don't feel is their fault.
With that said, I never understood public figures having affairs, because that sort of thing is incredibly hard to pull off without someone finding out. It's hard enough to keep your illicit affairs hidden if you're a nobody, but if you someone with constant eyes on you, I just can't see how you can ever think you're going to get away with it.
Sorry if you or Barry felt that I didn't want you guys to post. I never meant that. Please post away.Originally Posted by bukowski72
I agree with you that the Obama Admisitration may be hiding something but turnover is not a fact that shows this.
You have told Barry and me to wait it out when we post points, but you are free to post away anything you think shows your side?
Sorry if it seemed I was digging at Bush. I was not. Just pointing out it happens in all 2nd term White Houses.
This is also BS. Wiki is good quick reference to make. If you had disputed any of my assertions that many major people left in the first 2 weeks I would have dug further for you. I didn't want to take a lot of time looking things up. Do you dispute those people left in the 2nd term? No. Then shut up please.
Here is another quick one from google. The Bears are on and I have to go.
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage...econd_Term.pdf
Although from time to time I give you guys some much deserved shit, you both are obviously bright enough to contribute good content to PFA.
However, your remarks about Wikipedia are naive. Wikipedia is practically a useless source of information for any serious research or discussion.
I admit it can be a fun, frivolous website but perhaps you don't realize how Wikipedia works.
I am a registered contributor/editor to Wikipedia. Sounds great hey? The truth is anyone can become a registered contributor/editor of Wikipedia. I can log on, go to any General Petraeus 'Official" page at Wikipedia and write, delete and edit any bullshit I want.
I can publish on Wiki that General Petraeus appointed 408Mike as the CIA agent who prevented WW3 and that 'fact' will remain there forever unless someone catches it and eventually enough Wiki users vote to remove it.
That's how Wikipedia works and precisely why serious scholars scoff and ridicule Wiki. The flip side is that users can correct and add useful information to Wikipedia. That was the noble intent of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and I've actually done that.
Here's what Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said on the record about using his website as a viable source:
...if the Professor has a more nuanced view that Wikipedia should not be cited “as a source” by university students then I agree completely! I think the same thing about citing Britannica or any other encyclopedia. Citing an encyclopedia for an academic paper at the University level is not appropriate – you aren’t 12 years old any more, it’s time to step up your game and do research in original sources.
Source
So yes, use Wikipedia for fun and perhaps a jumping off site but if you want relevant, accurate sources do some real research.
While it's amusing to watch you guys spin yourselves in circles, the only question I have is... who is this other woman that complained to the FBI and why would Babs be upset with her? I could go out on a limb and say she was mistress #2, but that just couldn't happen, could it?
Here's a good clip of her speaking about the 9/11 attacks - DEM ARMS. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...ret-CIA-Prison
Last edited by 4Dragons; 11-11-2012 at 09:03 PM.
Uh oh!! This could get very interesting.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1200299
Get yo popcorn ready.But Broadwell’s father said Sunday his daughter is the victim of character assassination and implied the bombshell story is just a smoke screen for something bigger.
“This is about something else entirely, and the truth will come out,” Broadwell’s dad, Paul Krantz, told the Daily News outside his home in Bismarck, N.D.
“There is a lot more that is going to come out,” said Krantz, claiming he was not allowed to elaborate. “You wait and see. There’s a lot more here than meets the eye.”
Hopefully it's that she and the other woman were going at it too, and there are pictures.
SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798
PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
lotz of hot jill kelly's
The more I read about this Broadwell chick, the less I like her.
From what I can tell....
- She is super-ambitious to the point where she will step on or use anyone to get ahead.
- She is one of those women who uses her looks to get what she wants. Particularly off-putting was the report that she wore tight, somewhat revealing clothes while in Afghanistan, despite the fact that dressing in such a way would piss off the locals, and she ignored military requests to dress differently.
- She married some rich-but-dorky doctor, presumably for the money, and then fucked around on him with Petraeus and probably tons of other dudes -- especially if fucking other guys would advance her career.
- In all of her interviews, she comes off as extremely full of herself and overconfident.
And yet, despite all of her supposed intelligence, she apparently sent "anonymous" threatening e-mails to this Kelley woman, and wasn't even bright enough to do it without being traced (which isn't very tough on the internet).
Havent read this thread but is it me or does Petraeus look like Nicholas Brody
The Transformers are involved? Awesome.
Look at this left-wing garbage from Mother Jones, accusing the fascination about Broadwell of being based upon misogyny.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...aula-broadwell
If it walks like a whore, acts like a whore, and dresses like a whore......it's probably a fucking whore.
You know everyone called Petraeus 'betray-us' but i'm starting to lean more toward 'penetrate-us'.
... and now there's a potential second sex scandal, which spun off from this one.
There is now an investigation into Petraeus' replacement, John Allen.
They believe that he engaged in some "flirtatious" e-mails with the woman who reported Broadwell to the FBI in the first place.
What a fucking mess.
Chance that Obama didn't know about this situation before the eleciton:
This looks like the most likely situation [VIDEO]: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz2CCRIbBuC
What we are witnessing now is the fallout of Obama trying to blackmail Petraeus for favorable testimony on Benghazi and the General told O to get bent. So now the White House is trying to discredit Petraeus as much as possible before the hearings so the media keeps the tagline "disgraced ex-General" in front of everything he says.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.
And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?
As a point of reference, ABCNews.com reported on September 14:
The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.
This of course was the administration line for almost two weeks after the attacks.
With that in mind, Krauthammer drove his point home further a few minutes later:
KRAUTHAMMER: Of course it was being held over Petraeus’s head, and the sword was lowered on Election Day. You don’t have to be a cynic to see that as the ultimate in cynicism. As long as they needed him to give the administration line to quote Bill, everybody was silent. And as soon as the election’s over, as soon as he can be dispensed with, the sword drops and he’s destroyed. I mean, can you imagine what it’s like to be on that pressure and to think it didn’t distort or at least in some way unconsciously influence his testimony? That’s hard to believe.
If Krauthammer is correct, it's going to be very interesting to see if and how the Obama-loving media reports it.
You seriously believe this? After Pataerus's congressional testimony is met with a big yawn, I will bump this post and remind you not to listen to Weekly Standard blowhard.
But then, sadly, they'll lie to you again, and you'll believe them again.
Aid- "Sir, General Pataeus was banging his biography and quite possibly told her some classified information. Nothing really important, though."
Obama- "God dammit. Suspend his security clearance and he'll resign next week."
Oooohhh.. big scandal.
Just throwing it out there. Funny how something can come out about a CIA Director when it's just not at all likely that something like this would ever see the light of day unless someone wanted it to. The source of all of this information has been the FBI which is completely internally controlled and if someone is protected, it never sees the light of day. Somehow this did.You seriously believe this? After Pataerus's congressional testimony is met with a big yawn, I will bump this post and remind you not to listen to Weekly Standard blowhard.
But then, sadly, they'll lie to you again, and you'll believe them again.
Last edited by 4Dragons; 11-14-2012 at 09:13 AM. Reason: wrong to(o)
So you think the Obama administration should have covered it up? You're not real consistent.Just throwing it out there. Funny how something can come out about a CIA Director when it's just not at all likely that something like this would ever see the light of day unless someone wanted it too. The source of all of this information has been the FBI which is completely internally controlled and if someone is protected, it never sees the light of day. Somehow this did.
Over the last 9 years, Patraeus has gone from commanding the 101st Airborne Division, to running Central Command, to running the CIA. And he's currently 60 years old. If he quit the job he only got 14 months ago and never held a government job again, you think people wouldn't question that?
The problem is that there is no 'should' but what would probably happen in that case. You think i'm taking someones side when i'm just trying to read between the lines. I'm not prescient enough to know what exactly happened as some would put forth (ahem), but interjecting that a man that serves at the pleasure of his President does not just retire quietly and that's that, forgoes the fact in which that is not how it ended.So you think the Obama administration should have covered it up? You're not real consistent.
Over the last 9 years, Patraeus has gone from commanding the 101st Airborne Division, to running Central Command, to running the CIA. And he's currently 60 years old. If he quit the job he only got 14 months ago and never held a government job again, you think people wouldn't question that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
