Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Petraeus Resigns from the CIA

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

  • Squirrel
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/23/po...us-sentencing/

    So, that's it? Manning is still in, right?
    And all is right in the world... Selah, Selah....

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/23/po...us-sentencing/

    So, that's it? Manning is still in, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • JRT
    replied
    Below is a recent item from the Washignton Post, interesting if true.


    Fox News chief’s failed attempt to enlist Petraeus as presidential candidate

    By Bob Woodward
    Dec 03, 2012
    The Washington Post

    Roger Ailes, the longtime Republican media guru, founder of Fox News and its current chairman, had some advice last year for then-Gen. David H. Petraeus.

    So in spring 2011, Ailes asked a Fox News analyst headed to Afghanistan to pass on his thoughts to Petraeus, who was then the commander of U.S. and coalition forces there. Petraeus, Ailes advised, should turn down an expected offer from President Obama to become CIA director and accept nothing less than the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military post. If Obama did not offer the Joint Chiefs post, Petraeus should resign from the military and run for president, Ailes suggested.

    The Fox News chairman’s message was delivered to Petraeus by Kathleen T. McFarland, a Fox News national security analyst and former national security and Pentagon aide in three Republican administrations. She did so at the end of a 90-minute, unfiltered conversation with Petraeus that touched on the general’s future, his relationship with the media and his political aspirations — or lack thereof. The Washington Post has obtained a digital recording from the meeting, which took place in Petraeus’s office in Kabul.

    McFarland also said that Ailes — who had a decades-long career as a Republican political consultant, advising Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — might resign as head of Fox to run a Petraeus presidential campaign. At one point, McFarland and Petraeus spoke about the possibility that Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp., which owns Fox News, would “bankroll” the campaign.

    “Rupert’s after me as well,” Petraeus told McFarland.

    McFarland said she had spoken “directly” to the Fox News chairman and the “advice to you from Roger Ailes is. . . . He says that if you’re offered [JCS] chairman, take it. If you’re offered anything else, don’t take it; resign in six months and run for president.”

    Petraeus demurred, saying he would consider the CIA directorship if Obama offered it, as the president did several weeks later. Petraeus was confirmed and sworn in as director on Sept. 6, 2011. He resigned a year later, on Nov. 9, after the disclosure of an extramarital affair with his biographer.

    In a telephone interview Monday, the wily and sharp-tongued Ailes said he did indeed ask McFarland to make the pitch to Petraeus. “It was more of a joke, a wiseass way I have,” he said. “I thought the Republican field [in the primaries] needed to be shaken up and Petraeus might be a good candidate.”

    Ailes added, “It sounds like she thought she was on a secret mission in the Reagan administration. . . . She was way out of line. . . . It’s someone’s fantasy to make me a kingmaker. It’s not my job.” He said that McFarland was not an employee of Fox but a contributor paid less than $75,000 a year.

    Petraeus, Murdoch and McFarland did not respond to calls and messages requesting comment.

    When McFarland first said she had a message directly from Ailes, Petraeus said, “With no one else in the room, I hope?”

    Later she said, “I’m only reporting this back to Roger. And that’s our deal.”

    Petraeus said it was okay to relay his response to Ailes, adding “that has to be off the record.”

    “His deal with me was that I was only supposed to talk to you,” McFarland said. “And he is a little paranoid, so believe me, he doesn’t have anybody in that room.”

    At the meeting, some 18 months ago, Petraeus told McFarland that he thought the CIA was “a treasure. . . . I think that organization is full of just heroes. Unsung heroes.” He went on to say, “We’re going to be retrenching militarily.” In contrast, the CIA and the intelligence agencies, “I think, are going to be a growth industry,” Petraeus said.

    While rejecting Ailes’ advice, Petraeus said, “I love Roger. . . . He’s a brilliant guy.”

    Petraeus said he “would love to see” Ailes on his next trip to New York, where Ailes has his office.

    “Tell him if I ever ran,” Petraeus said, and then laughed, “but I won’t . . . but if I ever ran, I’d take him up on his offer. . . . He said he would quit Fox . . . and bankroll it.”

    “Bankroll it?” asked McFarland, who served as a senior aide to Henry Kissinger and later as a Pentagon spokeswoman in the Reagan administration.

    “Or maybe I’m confusing that with Rupert,” Petraeus said.

    “I know Roger, he’s done okay,” McFarland replied, “but . . . no, I think the one who’s bankrolling it is the big boss.”

    “That might be it,” Petraeus said.

    “Okay,” McFarland said, “the big boss is bankrolling it. Roger’s going to run it. And the rest of us are going to be your in-house.”

    “Yeah, right, okay,“ Petraeus said.

    “We’re all set.”

    “It’s never going to happen,” Petraeus said. “You know it’s never going to happen. It really isn’t.

    “My wife would divorce me,” he added. “And I love my wife. . . . We have a beautiful house.” Both Petraeus and McFarland laughed. “With his-and-hers bathrooms, believe it or not. I just want to live in it. I’ve never spent a night in it.”

    * * *

    The digital recording also provides a glimpse into the close relationship Petraeus had with the news media, especially Fox News. At one point, McFarland declared that “everybody at Fox loves you,” adding that Ailes had directed her to ask Petraeus whether “there [is] anything Fox is doing, right or wrong, that you want to tell us to do differently?”

    Petraeus didn’t hesitate. “The editorial policy of Fox had shifted,” he said. “It was almost as if, because they’re going after Obama, they had to go after Obama’s war as well.” He said he had discussed this with Bret Baier, a key Fox anchor.

    “Papers and news outlets have editorial policies,” Petraeus said. “They know sort of how their bosses feel about things . . . and it causes a certain shading,” Petraeus continued.

    One example, according to Petraeus: “Off the record, the New York Times was never going to give Bush or Iraq a break. I don’t care what happened.

    “In fact, one time Thom Shanker [a Times military correspondent], who I think very highly of, wrote a piece. And it was on me, before I was going to testify one time, and they had — a pretty good piece, I mean, factual, in other words. Again, all we want is the truth. We’re not out to spin. But then it had this sort of really odd thing inserted in it. And it was something that had been proven unfounded, but it sort of bounced around on the MoveOn.org kind of Webs. And I said, ‘Thom, where did that come from?’ He said, ‘Oh, that was added by the editors.’ ”

    Both journalists had different recollections. Baier said he recalled no such conversation with Petraeus. “That’s B.S.,” he said. “We cover the war the same way no matter what administration is in power.”

    Shanker also said he did not remember saying anything resembling what Petraeus asserted. “I don’t blame the editors for what appears under my byline,” he said. “It undermines your own credibility.”

    In the meeting with McFarland, Petraeus gave his standard line about the Afghanistan war, saying there had been significant progress, but “that progress remains fragile and reversible.”

    McFarland mentioned her conversation with Petraeus in a FoxNews.com piece on April 27, 2011. “Our discussion was off the record, and to respect that I will not quote the general,” she wrote. By that time, it was clear that Petraeus would be nominated as CIA director. “I can’t help thinking that the Obama administration has done something a bit underhanded but politically shrewd by tapping Petraeus for the CIA,” she added, because it would remove him as a “potential rival” in the presidential contest.

    On Monday, Ailes, 72, said there was “zero chance” he would leave Fox to reenter politics for Petraeus or anyone else. “The money is too good,” he said, declining to say how much he earned, although reliable reports have pegged the amount at roughly $20 million per year under a new four-year contract.

    “I left politics in 1988 because I hated it,” Ailes said. “My main interest is seeing my 12-year-old’s basketball games.”

    Evelyn M. Duffy contributed to this report.

    .

    Leave a comment:


  • Chunder
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    I
    Former SecDef Bill Gates has offered some thoughts on this. His observations of senior generals was that they formed the sort of social elite who read like something out of a Tom Wolfe novel (actually, a lot of this does) and may well have become detached from good judgement as a result. I'm wondering about the 'elite within an elite' aspect of all this myself. The article also delves into the Ward scandal & explicitly links the two.

    Petraeus scandal puts four-star general lifestyle under scrutiny - The Washington Post

    Do as the organisation says and not as I do... It reminds me of the gigs I've done for the "sociale elite", the upper crust of respectable society - steal a lot more than the average pleb. Rules and norms do not apply, unless of course the norm is justified.

    *sigh*

    No wonder I'm more interested in work, keeping to myself and gardening.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackboard79
    replied
    Originally posted by McFire View Post
    Petraeus...a respected name thrown in as a possible future GOP candidate for President or VP.

    Kelley...a proven opportunist (who has been to the White House three times this year). Political affiliation? ... Whomever can improve her image.

    Broadwell...political affiliations not advertised (none that I've read anyway).

    FBI agent...doing the job he is paid for (nothing more).


    The FBI had been investigating the e-mails most of this year. It's protocol for the President to be notified that key members of his cabinet are being investigated by the FBI (this from an FBI spokeman). Why wait until after the election for the "resignation" (aka firing) of Petraeus? The scandal is a great smoke screen to take the focus off of the White House for the Benghazi fiasco. Couple it with a Presidential trip to Myanmar (really? ... Myanmar?) and public memory will fade of the four deaths and the bizarre goings-on at the American Consulate/diplomatic facility in Benghazi and the myriad of stories/excuses from the WH on their role in the deaths of the four Americans. The FBI spent more time in Broadwell's house investigating her than they spent at the Benghazi facility. Even now, over two months later, key Libyan security people and witnesses have yet to be questioned in the matter (Libya's investigation of Benghazi consulate attack in limbo - Tampa Bay Times )

    Had Petraeus been a loyal democrat Obama appointee, do you really think you would have heard anything more than: Petraeus resigned suddenly for "personal" reasons?

    Again, The General is Republican, Kelly was at the Republican National Convention, Broadwell almost ran for Senate as a Republican in North Carolina, FBI agent leak the investigation to Republicans thinking like yourself, somehow the investigation was being hidden because of the elections. Sadly, everyone involved is Republican. . It amazes me that Cantor a Republican knew about it but we didn't hear anything before the election(why didn't he say anything?) but again lets blame Obama, the Justice Department even said they told the Pres. nothing. I do understand, we're not suppose to deal with fact here.

    Leave a comment:


  • McFire
    replied
    Originally posted by blackboard79 View Post
    General Petraeus "Republican" Check
    Jill Kelly "Republican" Check
    Paula Broadwell " Republican" Check
    FBI agent " Republican" Check, This is the guy who took the emails to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS

    LOL, so let me get this straight, everyone involved is Republican, the person who went to congress is Republican but it's Obama fault or should I say some conspiracy smokescreen created lol :bang:


    Then consider taking off your blinders, I honestly mean no disrespect but this is hilarious. I thought I heard it all from listening to coast 2 coast am but this takes the cake. This is a republican mess, started by republicans. It's one thing to disagree with Obama because of policies, this man could find the cure to cancer and you will find a way to hand pick something negative about it, it's so obvious. I also call things how I see it.

    Petraeus...a respected name thrown in as a possible future GOP candidate for President or VP.

    Kelley...a proven opportunist (who has been to the White House three times this year). Political affiliation? ... Whomever can improve her image.

    Broadwell...political affiliations not advertised (none that I've read anyway).

    FBI agent...doing the job he is paid for (nothing more).


    The FBI had been investigating the e-mails most of this year. It's protocol for the President to be notified that key members of his cabinet are being investigated by the FBI (this from an FBI spokeman). Why wait until after the election for the "resignation" (aka firing) of Petraeus? The scandal is a great smoke screen to take the focus off of the White House for the Benghazi fiasco. Couple it with a Presidential trip to Myanmar (really? ... Myanmar?) and public memory will fade of the four deaths and the bizarre goings-on at the American Consulate/diplomatic facility in Benghazi and the myriad of stories/excuses from the WH on their role in the deaths of the four Americans. The FBI spent more time in Broadwell's house investigating her than they spent at the Benghazi facility. Even now, over two months later, key Libyan security people and witnesses have yet to be questioned in the matter (Libya's investigation of Benghazi consulate attack in limbo - Tampa Bay Times )

    Had Petraeus been a loyal democrat Obama appointee, do you really think you would have heard anything more than: Petraeus resigned suddenly for "personal" reasons?

    Leave a comment:


  • blackboard79
    replied
    Originally posted by McFire View Post
    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.
    General Petraeus "Republican" Check
    Jill Kelly "Republican" Check
    Paula Broadwell " Republican" Check
    FBI agent " Republican" Check, This is the guy who took the emails to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS

    LOL, so let me get this straight, everyone involved is Republican, the person who went to congress is Republican but it's Obama fault or should I say some conspiracy smokescreen created lol :bang:
    Originally posted by McFire View Post

    I call it like I see it.
    Then consider taking off your blinders, I honestly mean no disrespect but this is hilarious. I thought I heard it all from listening to coast 2 coast am but this takes the cake. This is a republican mess, started by republicans. It's one thing to disagree with Obama because of policies, this man could find the cure to cancer and you will find a way to hand pick something negative about it, it's so obvious. I also call things how I see it.
    Last edited by blackboard79; 22 Nov 12,, 15:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • troung
    replied
    'Cult of David Petraeus': Did media perpetuate a myth?
    Members of the Pentagon press are shaking their heads in the wake of the David Petraeus scandal. Some think Petraeus's savvy and personable style led them to be too soft on him.
    By Anna Mulrine | Christian Science Monitor – Tue, Nov 20, 2012

    Email
    'Cult of David Petraeus': Did media perpetuate a myth? - Yahoo! News




    The case of former CIA Director David Petraeus has not only caused head-scratching in the halls of the Pentagon and within the intelligence community. It has also inspired journalists to do a bit of soul-searching within their own ranks. The questions tend to go something like this: Were we too easy on him?

    The now-retired four-star general, who ran the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was routinely called the greatest strategic military mind of his generation. While an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, has no direct connection to Mr. Petraeus's military achievements, it does take the glow off the cult of personality that had developed around him. And defense reporters are now acknowledging they played no small part in burnishing that once-shining image.

    Are you smarter than a US Marine? Take the recruitment quiz.

    Why did the press corps – usually so hard-bitten and cynical – come under Petraeus's sway? He was indisputably a genius at cultivating the press.

    He promptly answered journalist e-mails and had an impressive command of journalistic lingo – like off-the-record, background, and deep background – that remains a bit foggy to the general public, and even many reporters.

    “His ability to talk to a reporter for 45 minutes, to flow on-the-record to background or off-the-record and back, and to say meaningful things and not get outside the lane too much – it was the best I’ve ever seen,” recalls retired Col. Pete Mansoor, Petraeus’s executive officer in Iraq, in a piece by Wired defense reporter Spencer Ackerman.

    RECOMMENDED: Did anything illegal happen in the Petraeus scandal? Five questions so far.

    Writing for the magazine’s Danger Room blog, Mr. Ackerman wrestled with a blunt and brave notion: “How I was drawn into the cult of David Petraeus.” Petraeus understood how access could help soften the media's rough edges. The general routinely invited reporters for morning jogs, giving them a sense of being part of the action. “It’s embarrassing to remember that that felt pretty good,” Ackerman recalls.

    Vernon Loeb – the Washington Post reporter who ghost-wrote Ms. Broadwell’s book, “The Education of David Petraeus” – also partook in runs with the general.

    “The commander of the war in Afghanistan and I ran side by side, talking about great world events,” Mr. Loeb recalls in a post-scandal piece. “I could scarcely believe I was getting this kind of access.”

    Loeb was also embedded with the 101st Airborne Division when it was under the general’s command in 2003. “Petraeus granted me unfettered access to his command headquarters,” he writes, adding that he “found the general – and what he’d accomplished – impressive and inspiring.” Some of the criticism, like Ackerman’s, is self-reflective. Other reporters point with some anger to the “media-military industrial complex,” in which reporters become fellows at defense industry-backed think tanks, sharing office space “with retired generals whom they’d regularly quote in their stories,” notes Michael Hastings (who wrote the Rolling Stone article that led to Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s resignation as the commander of US forces in Afghanistan), in a blog for Buzzfeed.

    The stories produced by this relationship served to build up “an unrealistic and superhuman myth around the general that, in the end, did not do Petraeus or the public any favors,” Mr. Hastings writes.

    They also helped to deflect tough questions. Though Petraeus provided tremendous access, few real revelations tended to come of it. In other words, the stories tended largely to reinforce Petraeus’s point of view. Even when reporters disagreed with Petraeus, they still used his language.

    For example, Petraeus would often say progress on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan was “fragile and reversible.” When reporters quoted him on this line, however, they were still using the word “progress.” Petraeus’s downfall reveals “that some of us who egotistically thought our coverage of Petraeus and counterinsurgency was so sophisticated were perpetuating myths without fully realizing it,” Ackerman argues. He recalls an interview he conducted on a morning run with the general as “he calmly parried my wheezed questions.” It was only afterward that he realized “I didn’t gain any useful or insightful answers, just a crazy workout story that I strained to transform into a metaphor for the war.”

    The result was a quote from Petraeus noting that war, like running, is exhausting but requires perseverance. Ackerman shakes his head at his own reporting. “Ugh,” he writes. The verdict among defense reporters digesting the Petraeus fallout, in other words, is that access can be intoxicating. It also can be overrated.

    Leave a comment:


  • McFire
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    I guess our units were very different indeed. I stand by my statement. I honestly can't think of one instance.

    You've got to define "on the prowl." Hanging out at the club and flirting happens. Far rarer was taking it any further.

    Besides, the wives' groups had better intel than the CIA and MOSSAD combined. The word on a cheating spouse gets out... it's just a matter of time.


    I spent twenty years as a USAF firefighter, so I literally lived with my coworkers. When not deployed, I spent as much time with my coworkers as I did with my family (work schedule was 24 hours on/24 off, with a three day break every two weeks). When deployed, the work schedule was 24 on/24 off, or 12/12 (and no days off). Single guys are single guys...I always expect them to be on the prowl. For the most part, the married guys behaved themselves, but there was always one or two who would become "geographical bachelors." In three cases, the NCOICs were the ones cheating on their spouses, and yes it killed morale and subordinate confidence in their leadership abilities...afterall, if they can so easily betray their spouse, why would we not expect them to do it to us as well. On a one year remote tour, my fire chief (E-8) was diddling a young E-4 for the entire year he was there. On that same tour, a married E-5 got VD from his girlfriend (and his wife found out too).

    Living with your coworkers opens up a lot more information than the eight hour snippets of normal jobs. And those deployments can be real eye-opening opinion changers when it comes to the people you depend on. When it comes to soap opera drama, the military world is just as bad as the civilian world, you just don't hear about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    B.F. Reply

    The semantics of slurs seem at question here. I'll steer clear insisting, instead, to disdain the cheap and tawdry nature of Tampa's social milieu. I'd read the WAPO article after my comments so I'm hardly the only soul disturbed by the impropriety displayed. I find it all rather sad and trashy. Still, it's speculative stuff. These senior generals DO have a lot on their plates and the tools at their disposal often are warranted. I'm certain going forward that a naturally careful group of men (and women) shall become even more so-at least for awhile.

    Enough said from me.

    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.
    I have to say that the more I read about this the less explicable McFire's language appears. I haven't heard any allegations of promiscuity or sexual impropriety in relation to Ms Kelley. Just rampant social climbing. Absent that he is just employing the term as a way to abuse a woman he doesn't like - even less excusable. Still, she is first generation lebanese, so......

    There is no doubt that Kelley was an extremely ambitious, one might even say grasping, social climber in a place with a relatively closed social elite. The military appears to have been her way to 'leapfrog' over the barriers that elite put in place to gain prestige, influence & perhaps even money (she apparently tried to get it). As you point out, the real failure here was that the people she targetted did not draw big black lines & enforce them. You hint at the reason why below.....

    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.
    Former SecDef Bill Gates has offered some thoughts on this. His observations of senior generals was that they formed the sort of social elite who read like something out of a Tom Wolfe novel (actually, a lot of this does) and may well have become detached from good judgement as a result. I'm wondering about the 'elite within an elite' aspect of all this myself. The article also delves into the Ward scandal & explicitly links the two.

    The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir.

    The elite regional commanders who preside over large swaths of the planet don’t have to settle for Gulfstream V jets. They each have a C-40, the military equivalent of a Boeing 737, some of which are configured with beds.

    Since Petraeus’s resignation, many have strained to understand how such a celebrated general could have behaved so badly. Some have speculated that an exhausting decade of war impaired his judgment. Others wondered if Petraeus was never the Boy Scout he appeared to be. But Gates, who still possesses a modest Kansan’s bemusement at Washington excess, has floated another theory.

    “There is something about a sense of entitlement and of having great power that skews people’s judgment,” Gates said last week.

    Among the Army’s general officer corps, however, there is little support for Gates’s hypothesis. “I love the man. I am his biggest supporter. But I strongly disagree,” said retired Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who served as Gates’s senior military assistant. “I find it concerning that he and others are not focusing on the effect on our guys of fighting wars for 11 years. No one was at it longer than Petraeus.”

    Other veteran commanders concurred with Gates. David Barno, a retired three-star general who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan, warned in an interview that the environment in which the top brass lives has the potential “to become corrosive over time upon how they live their life.”

    “You can become completely disconnected from the way people live in the regular world — and even from the modest lifestyle of others in the military,” Barno said. “When that happens, it’s not necessarily healthy either for the military or the country.”
    Being a four-star commander in a combat theater is like being a combination of Bill Gates and Jay-Z — with enormous firepower added,” said Thomas E. Ricks, the author of “The Generals,” a recently published history of American commanders since World War II.

    Petraeus scandal puts four-star general lifestyle under scrutiny - The Washington Post

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by McFire View Post
    To ease your political correctness malady, I'll be nice and merely call her a groupie (although other names readily come to mind).
    Nothing original or interesting in the rest of the post. The fact you think objecting to the use of the word 'slut' is indicative of some 'malady' is as telling and concise a summation of your presence here as I could ever attempt. No need to waste any further time on this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by McFire View Post
    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.
    I guess our units were very different indeed. I stand by my statement. I honestly can't think of one instance.

    You've got to define "on the prowl." Hanging out at the club and flirting happens. Far rarer was taking it any further.

    Besides, the wives' groups had better intel than the CIA and MOSSAD combined. The word on a cheating spouse gets out... it's just a matter of time.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    "...Good to know that the ports around the world are not filled with brothels as was depicted to me in the 70's."

    Don't know about that. Ports the world over probably DO have brothels. Especially if they're active with commercial shipping. I do know I been on over a dozen deployments and am aware of only one married officer and two N.C.O.s that dallied. Single guys? Different story...and that's unsurprising.

    Leave a comment:


  • bonehead
    replied
    Originally posted by McFire View Post
    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.
    Thanks for the reply people. Good to know that the ports around the world are not filled with brothels as was depicted to me in the 70's.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X