Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Petraeus Resigns from the CIA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • McFire
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    On the dozens of deployments I went on, yes, the single guys were on the prowl, but I cannot think of ONE case where I knew for a fact a married man cheated on his wife, and if he was heavily flirting while stupid drunk, we tended to steer him clear.

    And indeed, once in a blue moon there'd be a case of infidelity within a unit, and it tears the unit apart. Unbelievably destructive.

    I went on a dozen deployments and the married guys were on the prowl more than the single guys. It was a rare deployment where at least one of the married guys wasn't cheating on his spouse.

    Leave a comment:


  • McFire
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    What a class act. Fuelled by the worst the conservative entertainment complex has to offer you first convince yourself that Obama is going to lose, then when he doesn't you spew forth pretty much any consipiracy theories they shove into you head. You do realise that Petraeus testifying sinks a bunch of your little theories, don't you?....OK, you probably don't. Silly me. Not happy with making a fool of yourself you now sink to abusing strangers. I can think of a few four letter words that nicely describe people like you, but my mother brought me up well enough not to use them. You seem seem determined to provide an example of why the GOP not only lost the election, but continues to trail the female vote by double digits.

    Yada, yada, yada. I seldom read the vitriolic dreg that you write. :Zzzzzz:


    I call it like I see it. Holding extramarital affairs/sexual dalliances over a politician's head for future blackmail or ruination has been around since politics began. This situation didn't merely just happen the day after the election, the investigation had been on-going most of this year. The President would be notified within hours if one of his top advisors is being investigated for improprieties by the FBI; either by head of the FBI and/or the Attorney General (protocol). This "affair" is a great smokescreen when obama's role in the Benghazi fiasco comes under scrutiny.

    As for Jill Kelley, she is a "groupie"...of high ranking military people, rather than rock stars. She's a first generation Lebanese from Philly who married a successful surgeon, and they live far beyond their means. She tried to become a member of Tampa "society" by purchasing a house in rich south Tampa and throwing lavish parties (to the point of financial irresponsibility), but was seen for what she is, a wannabe. She then fixated on the military, even though neither she nor her husband have any ties to the military. She then hob-nobbed with the generals, dropping their names trying to advance her social standing, to the point where the military people were losing tolerance of her. To ease your political correctness malady, I'll be nice and merely call her a groupie (although other names readily come to mind).

    Jill Kelley seen as a wanna-be in South Tampa society - Tampa Bay Times


    As for conspiracy theories...for what purposes did Jill Kelley go to the White House THREE times this year? Surely you don't believe it was purely innocent and this was all just ill-timed happenstance?

    Jill Kelley visited the White House three times this year | The Daily Caller

    And for the record, I have NO sympathy for the generals involved. They put themselves in the situation they are in for thinking with the wrong head.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post

    The "What goes on" motto applies to getting drunk and relaxing a bit/fraternizing around/with your junior Marines (something that you will never do back in the States). Not being unfaithful to your wife.
    Very true. The general goal is to cut up and be stupid, not to get laid. On the dozens of deployments I went on, yes, the single guys were on the prowl, but I cannot think of ONE case where I knew for a fact a married man cheated on his wife, and if he was heavily flirting while stupid drunk, we tended to steer him clear.

    And indeed, once in a blue moon there'd be a case of infidelity within a unit, and it tears the unit apart. Unbelievably destructive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chunder
    replied
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    "...now what strikes me is.... these two and that includes Petraus have obviously sidestepped time @ the farm..."

    I daresay the moral/theoretical standards to which those general officers have been long-exposed differ not at all by content or expectation from that of CIA officers. Military officers have generally served the C.I.A. well in either second careers or as seconded assignments. Personally I believe that, within select circles, these men have been exalted as rock stars and have consequently lost sight of their personal obligations and professional responsibilities.

    It is inexcusable.
    About that (Professional Responsibilities) Sex gets special attention in CIA screening - one of the most difficult and personally invasive screenings are the interviews done, as well as education, revolving around sexual attraction/compromise. For the titular head of the CIA, rock stars or not - I would have expected it to be paramount in their minds. Maybe the reason why he wasted no time in handing in his resignation?

    David Petraus should be aware of the power of ego - at least we were always told he was a non-assuming quiet achiever... so it would follow that expecting him to assume himself as a metaphorical rock star as an explanation for a grievous short coming may take attention away from the need to examine the take - for - granted nature of exposure to what I'd assume first year (or month) CIA schooling?
    I'd feel uncomfortable in assuming such a thing.

    Speaking as such... where's that Roccor bloke? isn't he formerly state department?

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    Chunder Reply

    "...now what strikes me is.... these two and that includes Petraus have obviously sidestepped time @ the farm..."

    I daresay the moral/theoretical standards to which those general officers have been long-exposed differ not at all by content or expectation from that of CIA officers. Military officers have generally served the C.I.A. well in either second careers or as seconded assignments. Personally I believe that, within select circles, these men have been exalted as rock stars and have consequently lost sight of their personal obligations and professional responsibilities.

    It is inexcusable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chunder
    replied
    You know, I bought a book this year called Spy the Lie, written by people who have spent their entire careers specifically training others to uphold the moral/theoretical standards required to hold positions at the
    CIA... now what strikes me is.... these two and that includes Petraus have obviously sidestepped time @ the farm - I wonder whether in regards to the General if that is because of the way he was appointed... Anyway, just a musing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    Pete,

    Use those words if deserved. Still, regardless of McFire's conspiracy swill he's not far from my perception of Jill Kelley. Her ambitions would be excusable, though, were the targets of her adoration not so receptive.

    I absolutely reject as incomprehesible the levels of access to a war-fighting command afforded this woman.
    You know me mate, even when it gets willing I try to maintain some sort of standards. ;) I have no problem with excoriating some of those involved. They clearly deserve it. This seems to have lifted the lid on a fascinating & incestuous world that I suspect few even within the military knew much about. There may well be more careers damaged by this. There certainly seem to be some serious & frankly remarkable lapses in judgement by people trained for decades in the finest institutions to do a damned site better. Shit be gettin' weird.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    Bigfella Reply

    Pete,

    Use those words if deserved. Still, regardless of McFire's conspiracy swill he's not far from my perception of Jill Kelley. Her ambitions would be excusable, though, were the targets of her adoration not so receptive.

    I absolutely reject as incomprehesible the levels of access to a war-fighting command afforded this woman.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by McFire View Post
    And today's latest on the Tampa socialite slut :
    What a class act. Fuelled by the worst the conservative entertainment complex has to offer you first convince yourself that Obama is going to lose, then when he doesn't you spew forth pretty much any consipiracy theories they shove into you head. You do realise that Petraeus testifying sinks a bunch of your little theories, don't you?....OK, you probably don't. Silly me. Not happy with making a fool of yourself you now sink to abusing strangers. I can think of a few four letter words that nicely describe people like you, but my mother brought me up well enough not to use them. You seem seem determined to provide an example of why the GOP not only lost the election, but continues to trail the female vote by double digits.

    Leave a comment:


  • McFire
    replied
    From the Washington Guardian:

    President told within 72 hours Benghazi attack linked to al-Qaida extremists | WashingtonGuardian


    And today's latest on the Tampa socialite slut :

    Jill Kelley's world: White House visits, meals with generals, and name-dropping emails to Tampa mayor - Tampa Bay Times

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    "“He (General Petreus) now clearly believes that it [the Sept. 11 attacks] did not arise out of a demonstration, that it was not spontaneous and it was clear terrorist involvement,” King said."

    Petraeus testifies at closed-door Benghazi hearings, does not discuss affair details - The Washington Post

    So much Rose Garden equivocation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    I think that was cool, but my brain is still trying to digest it all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pedicabby
    replied
    http://www.someonewritethisdown.com/...HART_LARGE.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Originally posted by bonehead View Post
    Quick question (too all who care to respond).

    From talks with my family members and others it has been clear to me that at least for enlisted and minor ranking officers, a pretty good percentage are looking for some on the side while away from home. Is this not correct? and if it is at what point is this behavior at odds with career advancement?
    For the junior enlisted, that may be so, but not as prevalent as you think. Most of the married guys that were looking for a little adventure on deployment already had marriage issues at home.
    And on every deployment I've made it was heavily frowned upon. The E-3 that is cheating on his wife on deployment will never be a Corporal with leadership responsibility.


    The "What goes on" motto applies to getting drunk and relaxing a bit/fraternizing around/with your junior Marines (something that you will never do back in the States). Not being unfaithful to your wife.

    Leave a comment:


  • bonehead
    replied
    Originally posted by dalem View Post
    Well gee whizz, good thing it wasn't the President then. Think how bad that would be.

    -dale
    Quick question (too all who care to respond).

    From talks with my family members and others it has been clear to me that at least for enlisted and minor ranking officers, a pretty good percentage are looking for some on the side while away from home. Is this not correct? and if it is at what point is this behavior at odds with career advancement?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X