Feet of Clay
Paula Broadwell speaking at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on October 26, 2012.
‘Other Woman’ Named in Petraeus Affair. [Be careful when you do a web search]
How I Was Drawn Into the Cult of David Petraeus — Spencer Ackerman.
The old adage from the Watergate days is that “it’s not the crime it’s the cover up”. But what exactly constitutes the crime can itself be a matter of some doubt. What was the crime in Benghazi? Was it doing stuff that shouldn’t be done? Was it being surprised by the enemy? Was it not reinforcing men who were dying under fire? Was it telling tales out of school? Or just tales that were different from the tales told by the boss. Because Benghazi was terrorism from the first, didn’t Candy Crowley say? She sure put Willard right there.
Or was it sending threatening emails to some lady in the State Department? And what was she doing anyway? Was it believing in the integrity of a general? Faith is the deadliest sin in the journalistic profession. Or was it having an extra-marital affair? If you’re going to fess up, what are you going to fess up to?
In other news Jesse Jackson, Jr. is reportedly negotiating a plea deal likely to include resignation and jail time for “alleged misuse of campaign funds to decorate his house and purchase a $40,000 Rolex watch for a female friend.”
But was it that really? Had it nothing to do with attempting to buy a certain Senate Seat from a certain Governor now languishing in jail? Of course not. That would involve more than a little jail time.
Back in the bad old days of the Soviet Union everyone who was anyone had a crime to confess to. It might be plotting with Trotsky or being a capitalist roader, or an economic saboteur, or an opportunist or a wrecker. It was astounding to see how many crimes a person could have been concealing all of his life. Maybe the ultimate sign that one has arrived at the pinnacle of power is that you get to choose from a cafeteria of raps. Perhaps the more clever ones had a couple of lesser offenses in reserve against the day when they had to plead guilty to something.
Pity the man who’s done nothing but one big bad thing. He can’t proclaim his innocence, since nobody believes in innocence any more, and he hasn’t got anything lesser to bargain down to. As Clint Eastwood proclaimed in a movie, “we’ve all got it coming”. You never want to have nothing to plead guilty to.
Perhaps the moral of the story is that all of us who can’t remember a $40,000 Rolex we gave to a mistress are some kind of failures. If all you’ve got at the end of your life is a few unpaid parking tickets and a bottle of hootch in the kitchen cupboard then you missed a turning somewhere. We forgot to learn life’s lesson: the only crime is to lose.
To fall from the heights, like a star at creation’s beginnings, that were noble indeed. It means you were a player.
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99
Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe
wretchard, I salute your continued application of rationality to the situation, but the gestalt of the Obamanation was never rationality – oh, perhaps the neo-liberal *claim* to rationality, but the pieces never fit.
we’re down for some chaos, is what it is.
as the poet said:
Johnny’s in the basement
Mixing up the medicine
I’m on the pavement
Thinking about the government
The man in the trench coat
Badge out, laid off
Says he’s got a bad cough
Wants to get it paid off
Look out kid
It’s somethin’ you did
God knows when
But you’re doin’ it again
You better duck down the alley way
Lookin’ for a new friend
The man in the coon-skin cap
By the big pen
Wants eleven dollar bills
You only got ten
Maggie comes fleet foot
Face full of black soot
Talkin’ that the heat put
Plants in the bed but
The phone’s tapped anyway
Maggie says that many say
They must bust in early May
Orders from the D.A.
Look out kid
Don’t matter what you did
Walk on your tiptoes
Don’t try “No-Doz”
Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don’t need a weatherman
To know which way the wind blows
Get sick, get well
Hang around a ink well
Ring bell, hard to tell
If anything is goin’ to sell
Try hard, get barred
Get back, write braille
Get jailed, jump bail
Join the army, if you fail
Look out kid
You’re gonna get hit
But users, cheaters
Six-time losers
Hang around the theaters
Girl by the whirlpool
Lookin’ for a new fool
Don’t follow leaders
Watch the parkin’ meters
Ah get born, keep warm
Short pants, romance, learn to dance
Get dressed, get blessed
Try to be a success
Please her, please him, buy gifts
Don’t steal, don’t lift
Twenty years of schoolin’
And they put you on the day shift
Look out kid
They keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle
Don’t wear sandals
Try to avoid the scandals
Don’t wanna be a bum
You better chew gum
The pump don’t work
’Cause the vandals took the handles
“You don’t understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it. It was you, Charley.”
- Marlon Brando as Terry, “On The Waterfront”
A lady said to me yesterday wasn’t it terrible that the Director of Central Intelligence should provide such a poor moral model for the CIA.
“Wouldn’t you think,” I said, “that an agency whose business is to spy, steal, cheat, lie and probably kill dozens of people each month would be somewhat less than shocked at something like marital infidelity. That how curious it was that an agency like the FBI should find the time to investigate threatening emails? How passingly strange it is that the FBI should authorize any kind of investigation of its rival the CIA unless it was a big deal?”
“I already know someone is guilty. What I want to know is: what was the crime? You don’t suppose,” I said, “that investigation was a way of happening upon the emails as a way of explaining why they were happened upon in the first place?”
Maybe the bottom line question is: why should we care? Perhaps these matters are too deep for; and better left to the sagacity of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They will do the right thing after all, correct?
And that is exactly the presumption that the revelation of Feet of Clay undermines. If Petraeus is human, fallible and venal then aren’t they all?
A friend emailed me that he heard Mrs. Broadwell speak at the Korbel School (Univ. Denver, she’s an alum). She made a point of addressing the females in the audience to tell them that it was important that women enter the national security field … but they need a mentor … someone like General Petraeus.
I suppose Holly Petraeus will escape being questioned about her “true evidence that years of volunteering can actually translate into a paid job,” because her current gig came about through the good offices [pun intended] of Elizabeth Warren, the Senate’s new token Cherokee:
“Late last year [2010], Petraeus went to talk to White House adviser Elizabeth Warren, who is setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They talked about what the bureau should be doing for military families. It wasn’t a job interview, but Warren said she was so impressed, she knew immediately that Petraeus should head the Office of Servicemember Affairs.
Others agree.
‘They have the right person in the right place, in terms of having Mrs. Petraeus,’ says Katie Savant, who does government relations for the National Military Family Association.
Savant says it’s still not entirely clear what the new office is going to do. There are already numerous other programs out there designed to help military families navigate financial pitfalls and report rip-offs, she says.
‘I think there are some redundant programs that are out there now,’ Savant says. ‘We hope that this new office will not be a redundant program, and that it will actually kind of provide one centralized place for the information.’”
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/25/135540594/holly-petraeus-an-army-wife-takes-command
Meanwhile, Wretchard says: We forgot to learn life’s lesson: the only crime is to lose.
Judging from some of the snarky comments over at Althouse and other blogs, the major crime for a woman is to lose her youth. In the opinion of some, David Petraeus had the “right” to betray his wife for a younger woman. Now if only he could take the rap for betraying her for a younger man, say someone like Bradley Manning.
The downfall of David Petraeus is due to two elements: professional envy and vengeance.
The situation in Iraq was bad and getting worse. Those there had not the foggiest idea of what to do. In fact the incumbents were busy building a gigantic Dien Bien Phu. General Petraeus came in and gave us a victory. Some of those who could not have done it have wanted him taken down a peg ever since then. This is unfortunately a normal part of human relations.
Then there were those who had given themselves a vested interest in an American defeat in Iraq. They could feel their moment of glory coming, they were about to have a ball gloating over the rest of us. General Petraeus denied them their gratification. These have been out for his head ever since.
Allegations of improper emails gave both groups the opening they needed.
Was the FBI investigation on the up and up or was it pre-planned scandal-mongering? Cannot say at this time. However, forcing David Petraeus to resign was a highly desired result in some quarters.
Okay, now about all that extra-marital sex: Had somebody provided me with a personality profile of the two parties (no names, just profiles); pointed out that they had developed a close personal and professional relationship; and that said relationship took place under wartime conditions not to exclude a certain amount of personal danger; and then asked me what were the chances of their becoming lovers; I would have said that the odds started at 85% and went straight up from there.
In fact I would be concerned if they had not gotten in the sack together. Their rather irresistible urges stemmed from basic instinct vital to human survival. Each will have to make their peace with their respective spouses. The rest of us need to mind our own business and then hunt down those responsible for the expose. They are our enemies.
Ever notice how some pols never seem to take a punch? Why are some so deft, so nimble, that nothing ever sticks? Maybe they have feet of clay. Cassius Clay that is.
To float like a butterfly
Sting like a bee
One needs feet of Clay
The nimble just don’t know why
Others can’t see
We’re just born that way
No matter we steal and lie
No blame on me
I’ve got feet of Clay
They simply want the man GONE. An they will get their way. And Patraeus is simply too moral not to play along.
It’s all very troubling. I don’t know about you, but today is the first time I heard that the CIA was holding prisoners over in Libya. And, lo and behold, Petraeus lover got up to speak at the University of Denver on Oct 26th and told the room. And with uncanny authority. (“We” knew this, “We” knew that, “We” did XYZ). Why didn’t this news about the prisoners come out until now?
Do you mean to tell me that Barack Obama was using the CIA to hold prisoners and on foreign soil? In lieu of everything that has transpired on this topic in regard to these things and rendition and so forth, isn’t this a very shocking revelation? As if anybody can be shocked anymore, that is?
The whole Benghazi affair is so strange, so very, very strange, and it keeps getting weirder by the minute.
Something’s rotten in Denmark, or so it goes.
W @3: “Wouldn’t you think,” I said, “that an agency whose business is to spy, steal, cheat, lie and probably kill dozens of people each month would be somewhat less than shocked at something like marital infidelity. That how curious it was that an agency like the FBI should find the time to investigate threatening emails? How passingly strange it is that the FBI should authorize any kind of investigation of its rival the CIA unless it was a big deal?”
I couldn’t give a damn about the moral implications of his affair from a marital fidelity perspective. It’s his complete cluelessness that bothers me.
First, in a career as long as his, he was bound to make a few enemies. And those enemies were surely looking for something, anything they could use as leverage against him. If the rumors are true, and Broadwell was just one in a string of other affairs, then the general was a bigger fool than any of us could have possibly reckoned in that he left himself open to manipulation and/or blackmail by many different people. That is what gets me about the whole thing. It’s not about the sex, it’s about someone who is supposed to be a top leader of our nation risking it all on a couple of women and a Gmail account.
Second, I personally know many soldiers and officers who would have gladly taken a bullet in the chest for Petraeus, such was their respect for him when he was a general. And he p*ssed all that away. Sure, it’s lonely at the top; I understand that. But it was his own naked ambition that led him to the top to begin with. It’s not as if it was thrust upon him. Can’t handle the pressure? Then get out. No, he did what he did not because he was lonely, but because his ego knew no bounds. Otherwise, if it had been a simple case of loneliness on his part, I’m sure that he could have found someone besides his own biographer to keep his bed warm.
Lastly, who cares if Petraeus got, as they say, “done dirty” by the Obama machine? All of us here at BC have known for years that Obama and his underlings are playing dirty pool, so why is it that our nation’s spy chief couldn’t figure it out?
Petraeus ultimately has no one but himself to blame for his downfall. He chose to run with the big dogs, and unless he’s playing some deeper game we’re not aware of, he got burned because his own foolishness. While we should rightfully question the extremely troubling manner in which Petraeus was brought down, I for one will not be losing any sleep over his tarnished reputation.
In some Buddhist countries where the many faithful believe it wrong to shed blood, serious criminals are placed behind a sheet of cloth marked with a bull’s-eye and a firing squad fires on the white sheet. It incidentally kills the condemned man, but only incidentally. There’s the superficial and there’s the fundamental. The sheet is the superficial. The dead man behind it is the substantive.
Petraeus commited an offense to be sure; but is it the relevant offense? He has certainly demonstrated an unfitness yet was it for that shortcoming that he was fired? Petraeus may by deserving of removal for the affair but my guess is that he is leaving for reasons of state.
The ‘affair’ may be a cover story so that no further questions are asked. After all, isn’t it sufficient reason to fire him? Need we go further? But I think people’s suspicions are aroused. They have been lied to once many a time. Maybe Broadwell bears the same relation to the Petraeus resignation as the Mohammed video did to the Benghazi consulate assault.
People are not in a trusting mood. So if that were the suspicion one might still offer Petraeus sympathy on the same grounds that you would offer a cigarette to one of many robbery suspects; not because you like him but because you want him to talk. Because you want to split him off. If you take the line that he deserves it — well he does — then toss him in the cooler and forget the rest.
So it depends on whether you believe there is more to this. If so, DP is the key. I wrote a couple of posts back that anyone who wanted to peek inside the administration had to be prepared to shelter its defectors. If you leave that job to the GOP you will wait a long time, they’re so busy proving what nice British gentlemen they are, they can’t really devote much effort to coddling whistleblowers and people caught in the act.
The counterargument for not doing this is that it is unpatriotic to uncover the secret plots of the President because you believe he is really working for the national interest. You would forbear out of trust. Ultimately it comes to this: do you trust the Obama administration? If you do, then you are bound to trust him and accept the guilt of DP on the basis of his flaw in character. It is a sufficient reason to go that far and no further.
If you don’t, and you feel like you’ve been taken for a ride and want to get off then the hell with DP’s character. Because you’re not really interested in whether he’s a scoundrel if agrees to be our scoundrel. Just so long as he tells us what this is really all about.
My guess is that Axelrod is in full control of the media and we are being fed scripted items about Benghazi.
There is much more under the surface. If 0bama and the CIA had a secret jail in Benghazi then there must have been plenty of guards, arms, contingency crews and air assets in the area.
There must have been an aggressive agenda to kill top al-Qaeda leaders – probably in time for the “October” election surprise.
Further, there must have been plenty of local spies on both sides. Sadly, we now know that these spies reported to higher-ups in the al-Qaeda chain and destroyed 0bama’s ability to attack said high level al-Qaeda operatives – the tables were turned and “our eyes got poked out” in this operation. And, there must have been considerable collaboration on the ground to conduct such an attack.
The FBI did not know about the affair until after the election? Get off my foot! Petraeus and the video maker from Cyprus California will be the fall guys. I don’t expect to hear much from either of them with 0bama controlling the show.
Last, I think the battle in Benghazi may have killed or wounded a number of high level targets yet the locals hid their bodies, helped the wounded to escape or otherwise help dispose of them. The locals must surely know who was wounded or killed on the terrorist’s side.
There is a lot more to this story than is being told. But, with 0bama firmly in control of the media those facts will probably never see the light of day.
dave@6: ” The situation in Iraq was bad and getting worse. Those there had not the foggiest idea of what to do. In fact the incumbents were busy building a gigantic Dien Bien Phu. General Petraeus came in and gave us a victory. Some of those who could not have done it have wanted him taken down a peg ever since then. This is unfortunately a normal part of human relations.
From dark, murky corners, the best as I can determine is that General Jack Keane was the father of the Iraqi surge. Gen. Petraeus successfully led the surge, but it isn’t at all clear what role he played in its conception, timing and implementation.
My feeble understanding is that Keane was the godfather of the surge — selling it to Bush and DP. Thereafter, DP ran the whole show — with a substantial staff of unusual brainiacs providing wise counsel all the way along.
His brain trust was one of the decisive elements that the US Army had not really used before. DP was ‘reaching out’ to a crew of geniuses that he’d picked up along his life road.
Broadwell, BTW, would’ve meshed perfectly within his brain trust crew. That’s probably how they ever got hooked up to begin with. She was already traveling in those circles.
DP was hugely involved in the al Anbar ‘Awakening’ connection. IIRC, he was the first heavy hitter to seriously pursue that gambit. It ended up being pivotal for the whole enterprise. It, more than anything else, created the DP aura.
———–
As for stopping bullets: DP already stopped a bullet — which Senator Frist, MD had to remove — all of this years before he became Republican majority leader of the Senate.
Pure speculation: In order to prevent the exposure of a secret facility (maybe one which utilized extraordinary interrogation techniques) be sufficient justification to order CIA personnel to stand down rather go to aid the Ambassador and staff? Once the CIA operatives disregarded those orders and rescued the staff did they inadvertantly reveal the location of the facility?
An old joke form the USSR:
A man gets thrown into prison. The other prisioners ask the new guy how long he is in for.
“Twenty years.” he replies.
What did you do to get thrown in here?” they ask.
“Nothing, absolutely nothing!” replies the new prisoner.
“Oh come on now!” the others say. “You only get ten years for that!”
Meanwhile, in the current USA it seems that we have progressed from the truth being protected by Churchill’s “bodyguard of lies” to a Firing Squad of Lies.
One of the more shocking things I discovered in my USAF career is that you collect enemies just from being successful. Not successful in the sense of attaining rank, either, just successful in doing your job well and explaining to others why they are not. And when success becomes a negative it’s time to look elsewhere.
W -
Petraeus is not going to talk, no matter how many Marlboros you figuratively throw his way. Let’s say that Petraeus does have some kind of bombshell to drop on the Obama administration regarding Benghazi. At this point, why would he not want to testify? The only logical reasons I can think of are that, a. the information he has is so damning that it could rock the country to its foundations and jeopardize ongoing operations, so he is obliged to keep his mouth shut, b. those that forced his hand regarding the affair have something even MORE damaging dangling over his head, or c. some combination of the two.
Additionally, I think there is plenty of reason to distrust both Petraeus AND Obama. None of us should assume Petraeus is one of the “good” guys. I suspect that Petraeus had been trying to work multiple sides to his political advantage for the past few years. Even if you could get him to talk, there’s no guarantee of the truth from him anyway.
Lastly, I’m reminded of a conversation I had recently with my husband’s Polish grandfather. We were discussing the many conspiracy theories surrounding the Smolensk air crash that killed the Polish president and most of his cabinet a few years back. I asked him what he thought would happen if someone could produce incontrovertible proof that the Russians were responsible for the crash. He shrugged and said, “probably nothing.” Because who is going to stick their neck out to avenge the Poles? Putin has simply become too powerful for anyone to oppose. And that’s where we probably stand with Obama and Benghazi. Even if Petraeus spills his guts, who in this country has the ability and will to hold Obama accountable?
7. Walt:
“Cassius Clay” reveals your racial prejudice and hostility.
Your poetic talents are now rendered a futility.
We’re just born that way
No matter we steal and lie
No blame on me
I’ve got feet of Clay
Petraeus ultimately has no one but himself to blame for his downfall…. I…will not be losing any sleep over his tarnished reputation.
OK. But the man is an American hero.
Woe is a nation that treats its heroes so shabbily.
Woe is a country that does not know gratitude.
And woe is a people with a short memory.
The problem—a problem—is, of course, the timing of it all. None of us knows the whole story; but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (I hope, for everyone’s sake, that this is the case here.)
Two of the people that General David Viagrus Petreaus was screwing and one that the good general was dicking
Deuce displays a graphic photo w/a hat tip to Rufus.
I post a comment regarding a future contribution I hope to make to the Belmont Club.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/03/us-china-politics-crash-idUSBRE88206J20120903
The first thing I though of when I heard of Petraus quitting was that is was very similar to how the ruling party was getting rid of people in China. The other thing was how quickly Petraus resigned. Why is it if you are director of the CIA and you have an affair with an woman you quickly resign but if you are the President and a young intern smokes your cigar AND you lie about it, it is a decision between you and your wife?
I’m put in mind of a book called “Red Mandarin Dress”
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1145989.Red_Mandarin_Dress
The woman’s Mandarin (Qipao cheongsam) dress became politically incorrect during the Mao Chinese communist period though it is making a comeback on the Mainland.
There is a sub theme about the Chinese history of how men of high station are brought low by affairs with “inappropriate” women, and the wonderment of how the woman gets blamed and often punished for it.
I’ve notice a certain desire on the parts of many to put the bullet behind Broadwell’s ear.
I questioned the surge then – and I question the surge now. Patreus is assumed to be such a stalwart in that regard, but was it ever even true that it represented success in the context of the Wot? Our entire footing in the so-called WoT is WRONG, including its name.
To believe the surge actually worked in the context of the WoT, one must believe that bribing a group of terrorists with tens of billions of dollars and promises of government plums is a success. We will rue the day. We have only reinforced that extreme terror and shakedowns work.
The entire metric of the WoT is insane. When a trillion can be pumped into the House of Islam while leaving the roof and walls and foundation of that house intact, we have lost. The premise of all the roads we paid for, all the hospitals, all the telephones and electrical plants, all the schools etc. was and remains “winning hearts and minds”. BS. That trillion and those six thousand dead can be doubled, trippled, or times ten. It will only go to reinforce the entire premise of Islam while subverting our own premise. A pastor in FL can light a koran on fire and ruin everything we delude oureselves into imaging we have accomplished. The Muslims in charge of Islam can gin up the hatred of the Muslim masses to any extent they desire. They still have their hands firmly on the knob which controls the volume of the hatred and the terror. No hearts were actually won – no Muslim hearts can be won — and it is folly to strive for it. We don’t owe the heinous world of Islam a damn thing. We don’t need to “earn their trust” – we need to subvert Islam before we bankrupt ourselves trying to make them like us enough to stop terrorizing us.
The world is rapidly becoming a hideous place because our leaders of all stripes are utterly failing us.mwe,have not yet begun to fight because we have not yet faced the true nature of our foe.
I agree with Wretchard that Patraeus is the key to untying the knot of a scandal as agency he headed would have had a role in all 3 phases of the Benghazi attack (pre-attack, attack, and post-attack explanation)
Two interesting points:
First is the most obvious and that involves both Petraeus’ resignation and the reaction to it. The fact that one of the greatest post-WW II military heroes was forced to resign in disgrace in that narrow period of time between an election and impending testimony before Congress regarding a terrorist assault on American sovereign soil – yet the focus by the most highly educated journalists in US history is on the sex scandal and not the timing is the true scandal
Second, the above point leads to another hypothesis – that Petraeus is not only important because he stands astride all aspects of Benghazi but because he stands on the various fault lines of the Washington establishment as the country heads toward disaster. There is the most ethically challenged administration which has been given a clean bill of health by the supposed watch dog media and is abetted by an incompetent Republican opposition. Each of these aspects is present in Benghazi, in fact Benghazi is a microcosm of the dysfunctional nature of Washington in general.
For that reason Petraeus must be destroyed.
Also keep in mind that Petraeus is a realtive Washington newbie. Sure he is politically astute to climb the ranks and did the requisite tour(s) at the Pentagon but he also spent alot of time as a general with alot of people kissing his behind and in the military where a general is god there is no higher deity than a 4-star one; what can be done safely on base becomes in Washington lethal ammo for one’s enemies. When Petraeus came to the CIA he not only was a newbie but he had an independence based on his resume that must have been threatening to others. It would be naive to think that the Administration didn’t know of the affair long before the FBI did
One final thought… I think the Administration is looking at replaying Fast and Furious here. That was a 2 year long scandal with ATF whistleblowers, gun running to Mexican drug lords, and hundreds of dead civilians. There was even an IG report that leads to only 1 of 2 conclusions that the chief law enforcement officer int he country is either gravely incompetent or a liar who is deeply complicit in hundreds of deaths. Yet after all of that there are no indictments, no more stories in the papers, and the only people who were fired was the US Attorney for Arizona those who blew the whistle
Fast and Furious showed that even the biggest scandals can be swept under the rug through some rope-a-dope, Republican incompetence, and a corrupted media. Expect an attempted replay here though what the whole Petraeus affair should show to the opposition is that the schwerpunkt of its efforts should be directed at the good general yet the administration is so arrogant that it believes that it has nothing to fear.
They got Al Capone for income tax evasion, not racketeering.
BTW, Kay Summersby could not be reached for comment.
Here’s hoping there was a good Veterans Day had for all.
anonymous mike @ 24: “what can be done safely on base becomes in Washington lethal ammo for one’s enemies.”
Two quick points:
1) It was the GF that became unsafe, by being needy and paranoid and emailing the GF-in-training. This is of course always a risk with GFs, but if she had played her role properly, none of this would have come to light.
2) How the f*** could he ever have been nominated, never mind confirmed, as D/CIA with something like this that everybody either knew or suspected? He MUST have had at a minimum background check 1a, if not #1 itself, and I have always thought that the guys doing these particular anal exams were top-flight.
Another illusion shot down.
@22 “I’ve notice a certain desire on the parts of many to put the bullet behind Broadwell’s ear.”
Yep, and it’s BS. Women like Broadwell are a dime a dozen in the military. You find both female service members and civilians at every echelon of command looking to nail themselves a CSM, O-6, or general officer in order to further their careers. They’re easy to spot and easy to avoid if you’ve got anything on the ball. Can’t really blame her for exploiting an opportunity.
KWB @ 21: “Why is it if you are director of the CIA and you have an affair with an woman you quickly resign but if you are the President and a young intern smokes your cigar AND you lie about it, it is a decision between you and your wife?”
The POTUS is (so-far temporary) Maximum Leader, among his other roles, and the Maximum Leader ALWAYS gets to do that stuff. In fact (and maybe especially) in a polity where women have a voice, it is a resume-builder.
The D/CIA is an employee whose value is contingent on being able to handle classified information. This value is negated if you are a married man with an affinity for psycho-babes, and I would have fired him myself if I were POTUS, as would all of the other occupants of the office.
The interesting part is that I, and all my predecessors except for BHO would have fired him the day I knew. Curious that BHO found holding this over his head useful.
Everyone remember how two days after taking office, Barack Obama made a big show of signing an executive order closing down all of the secret CIA prisons?
Looks like either he or Paula Broadwell was or is lying.
I’m wondering if this was a major reason for the coverup. This was a big promise to his base, and was a major “kept promise” to them. If it was a lie, that might have significantly harmed base turnout. As usual, all the information was there, but conveniently discovered by the right a week after the election.
Spencer Ackerman is in the direct pipeline from the administration’s character assassination squad. There are several other pipelines, of course, but if you want the nitty gritty of the admin’s assassination plan you can always get it from Ackerman.
The Soviets used Pravda to erase pictures of the currently disfavored. We have Ackerman.
For Josh:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/sy-187835137/bob_dylan_subterranean_homesick_blues_official_music_video/
(sorry about the add)
“If Petraeus is human, fallible and venal then aren’t they all?”
Of course we are. Although we are not all demigods or idols, we all have feet of clay.
I’m certain that Obama held this particular file (the Broadwell Affair) on Petraeus, just as he holds files on everyone else.
He keeps an ace in the hole.
E2, Morton D., RWE: Thanks for your astute comments and insightful observations. You guys rock. I’m learning a lot from you.
I do not care about the general’s sex life. It looks like he was set up by the administration, but I believe he’s a big boy with lots of connections and can take care of himself. Y’all know what payback is.
What I’m concerned about are the dead in Benghazi. I want to know why they were abandoned to die. What is the administration covering up that warranted their deaths? It must be pretty damn bad, and we owe it to them to expose it.
Sorry for unrelated link, but I would like to read your assessment on how likely the proposals articulated at http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/09/taxing-big-blue/ the Rep. Congress with its present speaker will implement or even look at? And is it possible somehow to force them “just do it”?
jms @ 30: “Everyone remember how two days after taking office, Barack Obama made a big show of signing an executive order closing down all of the secret CIA prisons?”
That’s a very astute remembrance, jms. Now a woman implies that Soetero defied his own executive order by having a secret prison in Libya. And women never lie, as the Lefties keep on telling us.
The investigation into Fast & Furious got nowhere (in terms of political effect) because all those Red Lefties in the media don’t give a damn about a few hundred dead Mexicans in Mexico. If the Institutional Republicans really want an investigation into the ‘Alamo at Bengazhi’ to be effective, the key would be to focus on some aspect that drives a wedge between Soetero’s Band of Leaders and their mislead followers — that would turn the Left’s control of the media against themselves. Jms’s observation might provide such a wedge.
Of course, as our host points out, the Institutionals are too busy trying to be cricket-playing British Gentlemen to employ any political ju-jitsu.
md @ 23: I questioned the surge then – and I question the surge now. Patreus is assumed to be such a stalwart in that regard, but was it ever even true that it represented success in the context of the Wot? Our entire footing in the so-called WoT is WRONG, including its name.
Exactly. Petraeus (per the myth) did three things: got the troops out into the areas, holding territory instead of yielding it every evening, changing the ROE to something less delicate and more goal-oriented, and increasing troop levels modestly. The thing is, the base state was INCOMPETENT. Petraeus moved up the command level to BARELY COMPETENT. Then along came the Sunni Awakening, and finally the tide turned. OK, thanks Dave, but it’s a pretty minor cause for celebration. But then, mere mediocrity is often a difficult accomplishment, I don’t want to under-appreciate it, either. You ask me (with no real credentials in any relevant area), an optimal strategy would have been far more, y’know, “kinetic”. Much less little things like actually naming the enemy, that Petraeus never quite got around to, and in fact gave some sickening evidence of having quite wrong. Above his pay grade? Well. But when such critical things are above your pay grade, I’m not sure where that leaves a commander. Chasing skirt, perhaps.
rwe @ 16: One of the more shocking things I discovered in my USAF career is that you collect enemies just from being successful. Not successful in the sense of attaining rank, either, just successful in doing your job well and explaining to others why they are not.
Just occupying the desk is your first sin, and there are elements who wanted that desk for their buddies or their Furbies or vacant so they have a better view towards the window. Such is life in the bureaucracy, or out of it. Call it “dynamic”.
pb @ 31: Spencer Ackerman is in the direct pipeline from the administration’s character assassination squad.
Nah. Ackerman’s only interest is Ackerman, he got caught out saying nice things about Petraeus before, and now Ackerman is just trying to cover his own ass, like Michael Barone about forecasting the pro-Romney landslide.
If you click up Ackerman’s previous columns, you see he’s of that cut that is shocked every time the US military hits an innocent civilian in Afghanistan, or blows up some poor innocent villager’s house. Afghanistan, the land of innocence, and the US military that exists only to blow things up, how dare they. That’s the light he brought to appreciating Petraeus, up until now. That the general has feet of clay dirties the perfect world of Ackerman’s visions. Ewww, clay.
==
And for the next act on my poetic doom tour:
Thus at her felt approach, and secret might,
Art after art goes out, and all is night.
See skulking Truth to her old cavern fled,
Mountains of casuistry heap’d o’er her head!
Philosophy, that lean’d on heaven before,
Shrinks to her second cause, and is no more.
Physic of Metaphysic begs defence,
And Metaphysic calls for aid on Sense!
See Mystery to Mathematics fly!
In vain! they gaze, turn giddy, rave, and die.
Religion, blushing, veils her sacred fires,
And unawares Morality expires.
Nor public flame, nor private, dares to shine;
Nor human spark is left, nor glimpse divine!
Lo! thy dread empire, Chaos! is restored;
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall;
And universal darkness buries all.
It seems “shortsighted” and foolish to detain a couple of bad guys at the Benghazi facilities.
8 cellac, 11 wretchard: but it was not enough for him to be GONE. his testimony had to be discredited. so now he is. scoundrel or not, nothing he says now under oath is to be believed. and that was surely the point.
but again: GMAIL accounts? really? not even a anonymizer or site that doesn’t keep everything forever??? am i supposed to believe that, so as to not only discredit him, but the entire culture of security that the Army supposedly fostered and the CIA needs? is this just another piece of Operation Demoralize?
never underestimate the KGB.
Well, I’ll give Petraeus some props for Iraq. In war mediocrity, successfully applied, is the wellspring of victory. Mediocrity plus luck can overcome a lot of friction (in the Clausewitzian sense). Clausewitz implied that this was the case when he observed that “in war all things are simple, but even the simplest things are difficult” (or words to that effect; the translation from German is, as one might expect, problematic). I mean, consider the German blitzkrieg in France in May 1940. The “brilliant” actions of German panzer division generals essentially entailed hurling their tanks into gaps in the French line and telling the tank commanders to keep moving until something stopped them. Well, duh: that’s War 101 from time immemorial. And when nothing materialized to stop the German panzers after they made the initial breakthroughs, the German generals were as surprised as anyone: “Holy shit, there’s nothing beyond the front line, keep moving until reach the channel!” It’s not so much a question of seizing the opportunity, but of letting the opportunity seize you. That’s what Petraus did, sort of, in Iraq. Kudos to him for that.
Wouldn’t it be funny if Benghazi indeed ends up revealing not just willingness of the CIC to 1) refuse security 2) let people die and 3) cover the whole mess up with a raft of obvious lies? What will happen if we discover that illegal rendition, torture, and illegal arms exchanges are involved…and absolutely no serious repercussions result?
Is there anybody who doubts at this point that Obama will get away with anything and everything by virtue of his skin color and his being the apotheosis of the academic?
DP sex life. Yawn.
DP resigning…under whatever pressure other than Honor. Yawn.
DP, within the limits of his requirement to keep quiet about classified stuff, coming clean. Now that would be worth blogging about.
Now, DP where are your real loyalties; Duty, Honor, Country or political shuck and jive?
We await, not too breathlessly.
ta
This whole affair, resignation, secret prisons, death of ambassador etc, reminds me of the purges in the Soviet Union during the thirtys. It is said that many of those condemmed, with their last breath praised Stalin. The entirety of Obama presidency has and is taking on the stench of that horrible evil period. Will we ever emerge from this morass of intrigue in government? Probably not in my lifetime.
“The Sovereign Can Do No Wrong”. It was Nixon’s theory, Bush II’s theory, and now BO’s. Evidence from a hostile witness:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/11/hoisted-from-the-archives-is-there-hope-for-the-rule-of-law-in-america.html
mh@45: “Now, DP where are your real loyalties; Duty, Honor, Country or political shuck and jive?”
Your question implies that DP is in no way culpable. With Major Broadwell’s recent comments about the possibility of prisoners being kept in Benghazi, it would seem to implicate DP at least as far as speaking out of school.
24. Anonymous Mike
Other than method, there is not much difference between Obama and Holder plotting Fast and Furious in DC and Osama plotting 911 in Afganistan.
Greifer @ 40 -
but it was not enough for him to be GONE. his testimony had to be discredited. so now he is. scoundrel or not, nothing he says now under oath is to be believed. and that was surely the point.
This was the motive behind the FBI criminally charging Kurt Mix (the BP engineer) with “obstruction of justice”, the only person to be criminally charged in the BP oil spill. They need to discredit his testimony in the public mind so the media will dismiss anything he says. http://tinyurl.com/ac42pj5
Now Mix has truth on his side as he was the guy who killed the well, while Obama et al were crafting and imposing an illegal drilling moratorium. Even a dumb-bunny Obama voter can figure out that a guy who delivered the desired result, no more oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, is more believeable than government officials proclaiming that the well would not be killed until the relief well was completed.
http://tinyurl.com/34mdpr4
And the New York Times has the smoking gun.
Kurt Mix told Chu they could kill the well in May 2010 and Chu would not allow him to do then what he ultimately did in August, kill the well.
CHU LIED, DOLPHINS DIED!
Patreus is not a hero for anything he did in Iraq. Iraq was a total kluster frack and we can see the result in Iraq today. What changed besides players? Patreus was a hearts and minds warrior, that being the STUPIDEST strategic vision ever. Is there anyone who thinks an invading army could win over our American hearts and minds? A total waste of lives and treasure. It could have been very different if Bush had been willing to risk being disliked – and really, he will forever be the face of evil for the left regardless. Imagine if we had fully invaded Iraq, moving purposely and methodically across the entire country, CLEARING TOWNS instaed of racing to Bhagdad. I was there and saw numerous cars and trucks loaded to limit with the fighters in civilian dress moving to the rear to rearm and regroup. I.saw.it.firsthand. We lost a relative few during the first push, we lost significantly more when we allowed them to raid weapons caches for the munitions which became IEDs. I would have also taken the oil fields to pay for the war. Blood for oil? Well we gave the blood,may as well get the oil. I can’t talk about it without becoming infuriated. Just because we claimed victory doesn’t make it one. It most certainly was not. And Gen.Patreus was no mastermind- a mastermind would have Islam in decline, not ascending.
MSO@46 Major Broadwell is a drilling reservist. She is also an intell specialist. She has all the clearences needed. Did she ever do an Active Duty for Training stint with DP? (if you say no, I say, yeah, right).
So, she is not a security risk in and of herself.
He wanted some semi-hot jockette booty. She wanted to be next to power. They both are part of a bigger drama.
So, I say again, DP when are you going to tell all?
48. MachiasPrivateer:
How was it stopped?
My question should have been: How did Chu believe it could be stopped other than the way it was, by capping it and then plugging it for good with concrete?
mh@50: “Major Broadwell is a drilling reservist. She is also an intell specialist. She has all the clearences needed.”
My understanding is that a security clearance is secondary to a need to know. There is no public information that Major Broadwell ever served or was associated with the US operations in Libya.
If it is true that prisoners were held in Benghazi, then her knowledge of that fact would indicate a security breach has occurred. Perhaps Major Broadwell came upon that information from a source other than DP, but that would seem to be unlikely.
doug@52: “My question should have been: How did Chu believe it could be stopped other than the way it was, by capping it and then plugging it for good with concrete?”
My impression at the time was that Chu was concerned that the top kill might extensively damage the sea floor itself leading to more leakage from more oil reservoirs over a wider area than would occur through the pipe of the well. The alternative would be to simply allow the well to exhaust itself over time.
MSO: Need to know tops clearance every time. As a NCO in army field comm centers, I have on numerous occassions told field grade officers, majors and up, that they could not see traffic that was not addressed to their office. Some graciously accepted that, a few got all huffy about it, and on one occasion the officer complained to the the division G-3. The officer got an a** chewing and I got an atta boy.
Warrantless wiretaps, Gitmo still in operation, drone killings of US citizens, SF troops in Uganda, the US arming Mexican drug lords, the direct representative of the President getting buggered and murdered and now rumors of rendition. The girls over at “The Nation” must be going nuts because they hate all that stuff! I mean, these events aren’t as serious as a hotel break in or anything, but still.
Doug @ 51 & 52 et al – The details are complicated, but a brief summary is that the well had a tube (the production casing) that fit inside the drilled hole that was mostly lined by the well casing. There was a doughnut shaped flow path (the annulus) between them and a circular flow path up inside the production casing (the shoe track). At the depth of the oil formation, the two paths were both supposed to be filled with cement. Clearly, there was a failure, but was the flow up the annulus or the shoe track?
The two choices to stop the flow were to push heavy drilling mud downward from the blowout preventer at the sea bed (about 5000 feet) in a “top kill’ or drill down almost 18,000 feet and intersect the wild well and them pump mud down the “relief” well and then turn back upward through the production casing. The relief well option was projected to take at least 3-4 months. The top kill operation began about five weeks after the blowout.
Lacking any practical understanding of the dynamics of an oil well, Chu worried about non-existent threats, instead of applying Occam’s Razor. The forensic examination of the well that took place after the relief well was in place proved that the flow was up inside the production casing via the shoe track. So with a metal tube containing the mud there was no likelihood that the well would undergo a “subsea blowout”, in effect the pressure would hydraulically fracture (i.e. “frack”) the sea floor. So Chu chickened out prematurely and caused oil to flow for another seven weeks.
Practically everything you have read about the matter is wrong. For example, one big red herring was the number of centralizers used. They are installed in the annular speace and there was no flow up through the annulus. So the number of centralizers made no practical difference.
One dramatic fact is that because there was a drill pipe exteneding down to about 8,300 feet pumping in sea water, the hydrostatic pressure at the shoe track was due to 8,300 feet of sea water and about 10,000 feet of mud. At the bottom of the annulus, the presure was due to 5,000 feet of sea water and 13,000 feet of mud. So the downhole pressure in the shoe track was 1000 psi less than the pressure outside the shoe track in the annular space due to the density of the extra 3,300 feet of heavy drilling mud in the annulus. The net result is that the annulus was NEVER “underbalanced” whereas the shoe track was underbalanced by 999 psi. Obviously the well would blow out via the path of least resistance through the shoe track, exactly what the forensic examination later proved. There was no problem of an undersea blowout, so raising the pressure of the top kill enough to overcome the flow would have succeeded in MAY.
You can find confirmation of this in the research conducted by the President’s Oil Spill Commisssion in the Tyagi Report http://tinyurl.com/84weoxx and the forensic info in the Chief Counsel’s Report http://tinyurl.com/4mmtygm