Breaking: Petraeus Resigns

[LongBlade]

Interesting questions that need some answers. http://video.foxnews.com/v/1961392548001/

[Longdan]

Pretty inflammatory rhetoric but important none the less.

[LongBlade]

Pretty inflammatory rhetoric but important none the less.

Yeah, some tough language. But there are some tough inconsistencies around this whole thing, not helped by a news blackout by most organizations before the election.

[LongBlade]

It would appear as though one of the women involved in this scandal has attempted to secede from it.

The South Tampa woman connected to the Gen. David Petraeus scandal has called police to her home several times in the last few days, and at least once tried to invoke "diplomatic protection."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/13/jill-kelley-requested-diplomatic-protection-in-911-call/

[bayonetbrant]

This actually ran on a TV station in Denver

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a85V_Sqt8Yo

someone is soooooooo in trouble.

[bayonetbrant]

Here's an interesting tie-in with a NY Times ethics column back in July...

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

[eyebiter]

If you subscribe to the 'politics of distraction' theory of governance, what is the Petraeus scandal being used to hide? 

Bengazi incident? 
Voter fraud during last week's election? 
Austerity protests in Europe?

[LongBlade]

If you subscribe to the 'politics of distraction' theory of governance, what is the Petraeus scandal being used to hide? 

Bengazi incident? 
Voter fraud during last week's election? 
Austerity protests in Europe?

It doesn't have to be a deliberate distraction. There is some substance to it.

But we should not let it distract us (however inadvertent it might be) from Benghazi.

There have been isolated reports of voter fraud, but so far nothing to suggest the results of the election were impacted - one way or the other.

Austerity protests in Europe take a back seat to big US domestic issues. I don't think this is anything new.

[steve58]

Glad to see that he will be testifying...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/14/petraeus-agrees-to-testify-on-libya-before-congressional-committees/

[LongBlade]

Apparently not everyone believes he's the genius he's cracked up to be.

MacGregor has posted a blistering (and long) op/ed piece on Petraeus. I will quote just a sample, but it's worth the time to read through all of it.

Directing air strikes, raids and patrols from the safety of the Green Zone, a place that compares favorably with any number of elaborate shopping malls and motels in the United States, is not waging war. Suppressing hostile Muslim populations that resent Western occupation is not the same as confronting the Waffen SS in the Ardennes or hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops on the Korean Peninsula.  In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no opposing armies, air forces or air defenses.

In truth, only a fraction of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who deploy, are ever under fire. Their courage and devotion are never in question, but confusing them with generals is tantamount to equating senators and Wall Street Bankers with American citizens struggling to survive the economic meltdown.  In such an artificial war environment, sacred cows like Petraeus are never slain, they simply vanish.

In addition, Petraeus made a common mistake that is all too common in the Army's four star ranks. He concluded he was the smartest guy in the room and he made sure everyone in the room knew it.  Petraeus was always one of those guys who wanted to be a general for the sake of being a general and he was prepared to do anything to secure the stars,[xv] the product of extreme careerism coupled with the façade of false humility.  President Bush and the Neocons in his administration needed a "hero," an alleged "great captain" to make the case for victory in Iraq when there was none.

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/14/epitaph-for-a-four-star/

[bayonetbrant]

Is Jill Kelley really just an foreign agent who happened to make all the right connections?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-one-of-the-women-in-the-petraeus-scandal-a-spy-youll-never-believe-whos-making-the-case/

[Gusington]

I find it really obnoxious that critics are jumping on Petraeus now that he's down. Oliver Stone did the same thing on the Piers Morgan show a few nights ago. That's low. It's not his generalship that is being questioned here, it's his ethics and his ability to keep a secret. Two different things.

[LongBlade]

I find it really obnoxious that critics are jumping on Petraeus now that he's down.

I'm not so sure it's in the same league as Michael Moore.

I was hearing rumblings even as Iraq was being "won" that all was not as it appeared.

Petraeus wasn't a bad guy, but he didn't walk on water as he was often portrayed. Apparently not by a long shot.

[Gusington]

^OK, but is now really the time for an opportunistic pile-on?

[LongBlade]

^OK, but is now really the time for an opportunistic pile-on?

Perhaps not the best timing, but it is important to understand that Iraq was not won. The wheels are coming off of that bus in a bad way.