≡ Menu

Military Men in High Places Who Fall

Today, news broke that David Petraeus, one of America’s most decorated generals and current head of the CIA, was resigning under a cloud as he admitted an affair with his biographer.  It’s simply unfathomable that someone with such a position would do such a thing.  But of course he, like all of us, is human.  At least he accepted responsibility for the error and resigned.

What I don’t understand, and what irks me is that in all the words of regret released by Petraeus and encomiums delivered about him by the president and others, not a word was offered about the woman with whom he had the affair, Paula Broadwell.  I’m not saying that she’s a victim, though perhaps she is.  But you’d think that Petraeus at least would’ve offered just a word about or to her in all this.  As it is, she’s been typically erased from the picture.

I don’t mean literally since of course her actual picture is plastered around the internet.  I mean that when powerful men overstep the bounds and take advantage of their office or prerogatives, the thought is always for them and those around them.  Hardly ever for the “other woman.”

uri sagi shelly yachimovich

Maj. Gen. (res.) Uri Sagi and Shelly Yachimovich in happier times (Roni Schutzer/Flash90)

Typical of this is the developing story of IDF Gen. Uri Sagi, 71, who resigned yesterday from the Labor Party primary race for the next Knesset.  Sagi is a former military intelligence chief, former chief negotiator with Syria during Barak’s prime ministership.  He was slated to be Labor’s security spokesperson if he won a Knesset seat.

In recent days, a former IDF subordinate met with Party chief Shelly Yachimovich to tell her of alleged sexual harassment to which she’d been subjected by him.  There was also a rumor that Sagi fathered a child out-of-wedlock with another female IDF subordinate in the 1980s.  Earlier today, yet a third woman came forward on Yachimovich’s Facebook page and accused Sagi of attempting to rape her while she served with him.  She claims that at the time her male supervisors encouraged her not to press charges.  Instead, they offered her a transfer, which she accepted.  Today, she says, she regrets she didn’t pursue the matter.

Rather strangely for someone in his circumstances, Sagi hardly put forth a vehement or vigorous denial.  Instead, he almost immediately announced he was resigning from the race for “health” and “personal reasons.”  He treated the accusations as if they were annoying fleas buzzing around his head, instead of serious charges.  He did say that political enemies wanted his scalp, and this was the motive for the attack on him.  In Israel, this is certainly possible.  The Likud plays hardball and will use every lever to smear their opponents (and vice versa).  But it hardly responds to the actual acts of which he’s accused.  They somehow have disappeared from the scene.

As have the women.  They do this for different reasons in Israel.  There the male is top dog, especially a powerful one.  Women are appurtenances.  They are vessels into which men pour their egos and more.  When scorned or victimized, they aren’t treated with dignity or respect.  Their claims are scorned.  They’re viewed as wild-eyed harridans out for revenge (witness the treatment accorded to P. after she was raped by TV reporter Yoav Even).   The accused hire good lawyers, get gag orders and prevent the public from hearing about the crimes they may have committed.  The system works in mens’ favor.

This is the story of powerful men.  Especially military men.  Especially Israeli military men (though not just them of course, since this story is common to all Israeli men in positions of influence).  The perquisites of power are theirs.  Moral codes are banished, lines are blurred for the sake of male ego and id.

The same hubris that characterizes their sexual choices and their repercussions characterizes their judgment about military-strategic issues.  There is the same sense that Israel can do pretty much as it chooses.  That it can make decisions and execute them with little or no consideration for the aftermath.  That victims or enemies will bend over and take what they’ve got coming.  That by sheer dint of will they can dominate any situation.  This is the way the mind of the Israeli general (and prime minister) tends to work.

Bufferfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail
youtube

{ 71 comments… add one }

  • Clint November 10, 2012, 1:13 AM

    She clearly was not the victim…she was a typical career high-achiever prowler…why not feel sorry for her husband while you are at it?

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/10/article-2230782-15F1F3D9000005DC-9_634x450.jpg

    • Richard Silverstein November 11, 2012, 2:38 AM

      Of course I feel sorry for her husband. Both spouses are victims in this as are children of both marriages (but especially hers, since they are younger).

      I can’t believe reports that on Friday night she, her husband, and friends were celebrating her birthday at one of the most expensive restaurants in the U.S.

      • mary November 11, 2012, 4:03 AM

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/10/petraeus-scandal-media-military

        Before you all start tut-tutting and slut-shaming Ms. Broadwell a la Monica Lewinsky, you might want to read Glenn Greenwald’s excellent take on this whole sorry mess.

        Fascinating how the blowback is always against the woman, not the man, and in Petraeus’ case it’s even more pronounced.

        • Davey November 11, 2012, 10:01 AM

          Greenwald’s remarks are spot on. Of all the horrible things the military does, Petraeus’s own failures on the “battlefield” and the crimes of the associated CIA activities, it is this dismal sex scandal (adultery is not illegal!) that ends his career now eulogized by MSM.

  • Yaniv November 10, 2012, 3:10 AM

    It seem that the republican moral won the recent elections in the US.
    David Petraeus should not leave his duties for having an affair with his biographer. Unlike Uri Sagi’s case, Paula Broadwell was not under his direct or indirect command but unfortunately the US is still a puritan place managed as 18 century catholic country

    • The Mighty Cynic November 10, 2012, 7:07 PM

      Suffice it to say, it doesn’t pass the smell test and there must be ulterior factors to the resignation that are not being disclosed to a general public who doesn’t know ____ from ____.

    • Richard Silverstein November 11, 2012, 2:39 AM

      She was once a West Point cadet & U.S. Army major.

  • mary November 10, 2012, 4:08 AM

    This is not about Petraeus’ sexual indiscretion. He has obviously been made to fall on his sword after having been so outspoken about US policy towards Israel being the center of the “war on terror.” Who would think it is merely coincidental that he had resigned the morning after Obama won re-election?

    • Deïr Yassin November 10, 2012, 11:10 AM

      Ali Abunimah has an article on “When Former CIA Chief enraged the Israeli Lobby”:
      http://www.electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/when-former-cia-chief-david-petraeus-enraged-israel-lobby
      PS. I read somewhere that he might have leaked confidential stuff to his mistress. In this case the word ‘emBEDded’ takes all its flavour….

      • Alexno November 10, 2012, 12:37 PM

        The version that I saw was that she had gained access to his professional email. For her biography. Authorised or not, that is a leak of major proportions.

    • Miriam November 12, 2012, 12:01 PM

      Mary…..

      What is truly odd is that the President was not told any of what slime-ball House leader Eric Cantor knew for weeks, (until election eve).
      Perhaps you’ve not yet read about Cantor learning from the FBI so far ahead of the President being informed; thus it all came well OUTside of the chain of command.
      This is not ‘coincidence’ but rather illuminate several pertinent/suspicious relationships that must be investigated on their own, apart from Petraeus issue.
      Since Obama (allegedly) was not informed until Tuesday pm, (weeks after Cantor knew) but accepted Petraeus’ resignation Friday morning, it doesn’t seem as big a leap– in this context, imo.
      But there are numerous subtext issues that are being revealed/claimed/published… almost hourly…with more neocon/likudnik connections to come.

      whether or not you agree that Petraeus was sexually ‘indiscrete’ — a tit for tat (no pun intended) for his testimony to Senate armed service committee in 2010 about US policy towards Israel

  • Deïr Yassin November 10, 2012, 5:02 AM

    A major French journalist wrote an article on the sexual aspects of this, but many commenters mention the fact that Petraeus is scheduled on a hearing next week concerning the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, and the failure of the CIA to prevent the attack as well as the failure of communication towards the public afterwards, i.e. that the attack had nothing to do with the anti-Prophet film, I guess.
    It sounds a plausible explanation too.

    • mary November 10, 2012, 5:50 AM

      I would say it certainly is a plausible explanation, especially when bearing in mind that there is very little plausibility in the claim that Petraeus’ e-mails with his paramour in any way jeopardized national security. One would assume the Director of the CIA wouldn’t be so stupid as to share classified information with his girlfriend.

      • Fred Plester November 10, 2012, 8:11 AM

        You might assume that, but where the girlfriend is also the biographer, she might have had an awful lot of two and twos with which to make four.

        However, if he resigned, this probably means that he hadn’t been fully honest about the relationship when vetted for his post. The CIA reads an awful lot into the failure to answer a question, or a false answer, way beyond the importance of the question itself.

        They also believe that Polygraphs work and can reveal spies.

        Not only did the KGB and Stasi issue training manuals on how to defeat polygraphs by adopting a mental persona for whom the right answers are true: the whole cult of Scientology revolves around training initiates to manipulate a device which works exactly the same way as a polygraph, at will. But in CIA land, passing or failing a polygraph test trumps all other forms of evidence, well past the point of rationality.

        So, if the general failed to answer honestly all questions about his private life, or, worse, managed to fool a polygraph whilst doing so, that’s an offence against the CIA’s internal belief system rather than against the American national interest.

    • Tibor November 10, 2012, 10:06 AM

      If we look for exogenous explanations here is another one. At the onset of Obama`s first term when he flirted with the idea to press Israel on the settlements (still probably under the influence of his pre-presidency friend Professor Rashid Khalidi) he badly needed a high-position military man to provide a supportive “objective” opinion. And it was Patraeus who provided it, rehashing a favorite line by Israel`s detractors that the Palestinian issue is what prevents good relation of the US with the Arab world (when in reality it is a marginal factor and he was in the best position to know that). He was duly rewarded with this high post of his but what was acquired mischievously (if you believe in moral dictums) is lost likewise.

      • Deïr Yassin November 10, 2012, 11:21 AM

        @ Tibor
        “When in reality it is a marginal factor”
        You’re wrong: all polls in the Arab world show that the pro-Israeli stance of the American governments is a major topic for the anti-American feelings. You can spin all the hasbara you want but this is a fact. After the Cairo-speech, polls showed growing sympathy for the United States, but it soon changed. Not to talk about the Israeli lobby, pushing for the intervention in Iraq.

        • Tibor November 10, 2012, 1:50 PM

          OK, this is indeed a standard answer of polled people because the Israel issue is so old and they refer to it almost instinctively. What I am referring to is the reality of things. How long will people remember the Israel story once resolved if drones continue in Pakistan and Afghanistan remains a war-field, the nuclear-related conflict with Iran persists, the Syria war continues, US soldiers will remain in Saudi-Arabia and the Emirates (a prima facie quoted motive of Al- Queida), the upheaval in Sudan remains with the US supporting the new country there in the south, the Bahrain internal conflict persists with the US supporting the regime, the unresolved conundrums in in Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Mali and other continue with the US being involved in all of them? What I am trying to say is that the applause to the US will be IN REALITY short-lived and the other issues will soon bury all memories of the “Israel issue”. And I am also sure that the general, from his high-command position, was fully aware of that (as most in the US administration do – and that is why they don`t budge on it). It was an opportunistic move of his, gambling on Obama, and it soon brought him the trophies (and now such personal failings of his brought his downfall).

          • Davey November 10, 2012, 7:40 PM

            Sure — there are a host of current issues always changing, taking new shapes and forms but coming back again to matter of American imperial economic reach and policies which support conservative even regressive traditional regimes. But Israel, the Zionist state, is the continuing, lingering thorn in the side of the Arab world, and this thorn is no doubt seen as just a facet of American power and arrogance which Israel latches oto to survive. The “villa in the jungle” is the lightning rod for everything that is wrong with American policies and practices at this point. I don’t doubt that Arab grievances can be easily traced to Zionism anyway though I haven’t tried the exercise.

          • mary November 11, 2012, 12:17 AM

            Everyone in Egypt till remembers the 6th of October war, Tibor. There’s even a bridge in Cairo named “the 6th of October Bridge” and a neighborhood bearing the same name. Israel’s history is hardly “marginal” in the region. As long as the occupation of Palestine continues, and such incidents as the killing of 7 civilians in Gaza by Israeli tank fire (one of these deaths includes a 10 year old boy), Israel is going to continue to be the single most important factor here. Millions of Palestinian refugees worldwide are also not about to forget.

          • Tibor November 11, 2012, 5:26 AM

            @Davey
            Your lightning rod argument is quite correct. Israel has become a symbol and an instrument for people with anti-American grievances. Paradoxically, it has also become a symbol for people on the other side of the divide, who see it through a heroic prism. Taken together it explains the bigger-than-life world-stage role that has befallen, for better or worse, to Israel.

          • mary November 11, 2012, 6:12 AM

            Heroic prism? Who possibly sees Israel through a heroic prism?

            No, the US is not responsible for Israel’s recklessness, although it certainly condones and supports it.

            It is truly a bizarre thought process indeed to think that Israel’s murderousness will be forgotten if the US drops enough bombs on Pakistan. As always, Tibor, you astonish me.

            Six million Palestinians around the world, the BDS movement and the solidarity movement will not allow the “Israel issue” to be buried.

  • Gene Schulman November 10, 2012, 7:15 AM

    “How many time in its history has the Times run on page 1 a picture of politician’s mistress?
    Not many, I would guess. And then to have her holding a book with the title, “All In: The Education of David Petraeus”
    Scenes from The Onion? The Daily Show? Even if she did write the book, it makes it sound like a trailer for a porn movie.
    Plus why is the Times biting on the affair story, and leaving aside that the FBI, Obama’s secret police, is trashing the director of the CIA? What was King David going to say in the Libyan hearings? How will the CIA respond to their boss getting humiliated? Not kindly, I would imagine. How long did the Times sit on the story before the election? You can bet it was for a while, because a story like this doesn’t stay hushed up in a manila folder.
    Enjoy as this unfolds.”

    I did not write the above, but it does express my sentiments. Why do you all bow to the NYT propaganda? Seems only Mary grasped the reason for Petraeus’ resignation.

  • Bill J. November 10, 2012, 7:41 AM

    Petraeus’ fling with his biographer is in no way comparable to Sagi’s alleged attempted rape of his subordinate so I’m not sure what the point is here. Broadwell is not a child and engaged in the affair with both eyes wide open, she is not a victim whereas Sagi’s subordinates clearly were.

    • Richard Silverstein November 11, 2012, 2:38 AM

      I’m not claiming she’s a victim. In fact, she seems a bit odd. But she was an Army major and he a general. The preponderance of power was his, not hers.

      • PersianAdvocate November 11, 2012, 10:46 AM

        Officially, sure. But, their affinity, her writing his biography and “embedding” with him, his indiscretion in allowing her to dip her bread in affairs that should never be accessed or open for her to access, and the extra-marital nature of their sex connection gives me the impression that Petraeus succumbed emotionally to seduction. Thus, the power of the situation is an equation not dictated by title and authority, but who “wears the pants” in the relationship. This was not a one-time meeting for hanky-panky, or even a pattern that suggests sexual harassment from a superior, but rather, a long-term relationship granted by mutual consent.

        Don’t call me Netanyahu, but to draw an analogy, I am going to reference, “The Book of Esther”. Who had the power in that dynamic? The Shah or Esther?

        Powerful men are often found submitting to petite women ;)

  • Strelnikov November 10, 2012, 9:53 AM

    I think David Petraeus’ story is a smokescreen; possibly there is something bigger than the Benghazi story or something huge that could be uncovered by investigating the Benghazi incident and the general doesn’t want to be around when that bomb goes off.

    • JADEZ November 11, 2012, 7:45 AM

      sure so he started an affair a few years ago just to make sure he had an excuse because the tarot cards he uses told him the republicans were going to try and create a fake outrage over a killing 2 years in the future and he wanted a way to get out of being questioned about it.

      sheesh

  • David November 10, 2012, 11:19 AM

    I have no idea what the truth behind the Sagi so called scandel is, but is seems a bit crazy that a complaint from decades ago should force him out of politics. The same goes for Petraeus – who cares if he has or had a lover ? The only question is : is he a good CIA director or not.

  • Abraham A. November 10, 2012, 12:23 PM

    Amir Oren hints that PB was an Israeli agent:

    http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/world/1.1860894

    The motive was probably to control the too independent CIA or destroy a top official who dared to say that Israel is not a strategic asset.

    • Yossi November 11, 2012, 11:03 PM

      It’s a brilliant move to use a biographer as a seducer. In addition to using her sexuality she can constantly massage the target’s ego. This is an irresistable combination.

      We know that the Mossad employed in the past legions of seducers and probably continues but there is little public info on them. This case may give us a hint why. If the aim was to destroy the general it was done faultlessly. The agent sent threats to a woman who probably was not very friendly with the general, otherwise she would have told him and he would instruct her to keep quiet. The other woman contacted the FBI and they found that the threats were sent from the general’s email account. bingo.

      • Yossi November 11, 2012, 11:14 PM

        Note that the other woman got threats apparently sent from the general’s email account. If she were to talk with him he would be able to persuade her to keep quiet. It seems the other woman was not yet another lover or even a friend.

        The agent got access to the general’s email account and used it to destroy him instead of passing the info to her superiors. This indicates she was not after info but after his head.

        • mary November 12, 2012, 2:26 AM

          I haven’t seen anything specifically claiming any threats were sent directly from Petraeus’ email accounts. That, I would assume, would definitely be a crime.

          • Yossi November 12, 2012, 5:28 AM

            NYT says the threats were sent from PB’s email account. Now there are two possibilities:

            1) PB used the general’s computer to access her email account and send the threats
            2) PB didn’t

            In the second case there was no reason to check the general’s computer even if the investigators found his love letters in her computer. Note that formerly it was said the investigators checked the general’s computer because they suspected it was hacked.

            In the first case there is still no legal reason to harrass the general. He would tell the investigators he let PB use his computer because hers wasn’t available for some reason and that would be the end of it. It’s a short and simple investigation.

            The claim that PB sent the threats from her email account doesn’t seem to make much sense but if we assume the threats were sent from the general’s account everything becomes clear. If threats are sent from the CIA chief email account without his knowledge this must be investigated until resolved and he may be charged with not taking suitable measures to prevent it. The investigation may lead to an accusation of a security breach.

            It’s possible there is now some cover up going on to save face for the CIA and NYT is an unknowing partner.

          • Yossi November 12, 2012, 8:46 AM

            I seem to remember something written in Haaretz (in Hebrew) about PB getting access to the general’s email account. In a superficial check I didn’t find it but I found two media pieces that could inspire such a report:

            * WSJ says PB or someone close to her tried to access the general’s email acount:
            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324073504578109252422213868.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

            * NBC says PB improperly tried to access the general’s email:
            http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/09/15056607-petraeus-biographer-paula-broadwell-under-fbi-investigation-over-access-to-his-email-law-enforcement-officials-say?lite

            They don’t say she succeeded in getting access.

          • Yossi November 15, 2012, 3:37 AM

            The trick PB and the general used to exchange emails without actually sending them could explain some of the confusion regarding the email accounts used by the pair. A joint email account blurs the distinction between his account and hers:

            http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=VOlvNjF4
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12/heres-the-e-mail-trick-petraeus-and-broadwell-used-to-communicate/

      • Yossi November 14, 2012, 9:05 PM

        PB said in a university of Denver lecture something that if true could be a piece of secret info leaked to her by Petraeus thus escalating the general’s fault from an extramarital affair to a severe security breach. It’s interesting PB possible indiscretion was discovered and published by an Israeli news agency – Arutz 7. Could it be that someone there wanted to verify the political death of an arch-enemy?

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578115081454748210.html
        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161964#.UKCUf4eHKSp

        PB’s self declared dream was to become a National Security Advicer like Condi. This could make her vulnerable to politicians and lobbists who hoped at the time to replace the Obama administration. Another vulnerability could be wanting to take revenage against the man she loved after their affair has ended. It’s sad if this brilliant woman had became a pawn in the hands of other people.

  • Fred Plester November 10, 2012, 12:39 PM

    One of those “none of the above” moments I am afraid:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9669532/Spy-chief-Gen-David-Petraeus-his-embedded-biographer-and-the-FBI-email-trawl-that-exposed-their-affair.html

    The mistress became an ex-mistress and sent “harassing” e-mails to people the General knew, the FBI actually investigated this (ie: try getting action out of them if you are not rich and famous) and stumbled upon evidence of the affair.

    Resignation would be necessary if the FBI was planning to charge the ex-Mistress with an offence, so they probably do so intend. If not, it’s hard to see why he should have to resign, or even why the Bureau should have to make the matter public.

    • mary November 11, 2012, 4:24 AM

      Excellent points, and you may be right. There was ostensibly no reason this had to become public unless an arrest is coming. I assume Petraeus’ resignation was to preserve the integrity of the CIA and silence critics who would see the affair as an unacceptable breach of security, among other things. Someone’s head is on the block, and I’m sure there is an arrest forthcoming.

      • JADEZ November 11, 2012, 7:47 AM

        i believe this affair IS considered a breach of national security for a man at his level and resignation mandatory.

      • Fred Plester November 11, 2012, 7:49 AM

        Perhaps if people with political power have had a brush with what may well be cyber-stalking, it’ll open their eyes a bit to how nasty this can be and how little remedy the ordinary citizen has for this.

        So far as I know, the world’s only serious research effort into the issue is here:

        http://www.beds.ac.uk/research/irac/nccr

      • Fred Plester November 12, 2012, 9:22 AM

        She’s studying for a Phd in London, apparently.

        This means that she could be charged (or has been?) with “sending a threatening communication” but not, as the US likes to believe, in an American court.

        The post-Blair policy is to try every internet crime committed from a UK location, in the appropriate bit of the UK.

        If there’s one thing the US Government gets the screaming hab-dabs about, it’s American officers being asked questions in courts which America does not control.

        This episode may be an exercise in the CIA and Pentagon learning to be a lot less high handed and arrogant than hitherto.

        It’s also possible that if a court in London decided on a treatment order rather than a fine or jail sentence, it would issue an injunction against publicity that would affect her treatment and well-being. She could already be in a Medium Secure Unit, therefore.

        This doesn’t explain why FBI agents felt free to discuss the matter with Republican politicians, of course.

  • The Mighty Cynic November 10, 2012, 6:58 PM

    Petraeus was General who famously shocked CENTCOM with a 45 minute Powerpoint deck on how Israel is a liability to our troops and interests (a euphemism for a parasitic relationship wherein Israel is more like an entrenched hostile enemy).

    This is why it is important to regard who will be replacing him. After all, it was Steve Rosen and AIPAC that promised Jane Harman a quid pro quo for her taking the heat off their spying for Israel. Harman is a neoconservative, blue dog Democrat with a strong penchant for Zioni$t military adventurism. She was placed on the House Intelligence Committee and completely ignored the obvious flaws in the evidence presented before her prior to approving wholeheartedly Bush’s illegal foray into Iraq for the New World Order (Bush Oligarchy)/Zioni$t (fundamentalist bankers, and their brainwashed supporters, bent on acting out some weird real life play-outs of villains from Ian Fleming novels) factions.

    Many other generals fell from the ranks and others were moved aside. They were militarists and uninterested in America over something far more malicious to humanity. One thing is for certain, Zionism is dangerous to American interests – not just incompatible – and certain individuals feel no problem using the machinery and apparatus of the United States to do the bidding of a foreign country. These individuals include people like Jane Harman, and the Obama Administration should do whatever is within its means – for the national security of this country – to keep her out of the seat of such penultimate power.

    • Davey November 10, 2012, 7:47 PM

      Could it be that Petraeus’s “scandal” is driven by a Zionist reaction to the election, that it is a message of some kind to Obama suggesting the power and reach of the Zionist machine? It would make sense: Netanyahu is certainly asking himself how dedicated is Obama to Israel anyway, and more so now that his bid to take sides and come out nicely, has come to nothing but much embarrassment Zionist interests would certainly want to send a strong message before Obama stumbles into the future maybe doing something really effective on the IP thing.

      • The Mighty Cynic November 10, 2012, 9:08 PM

        Well, it would also be pretty uncharacteristic for a faction that has gotten so powerful to neglect to build plans for the strong possibility that Barack Obama would win the re-election. In fact, not only do they build plans for every potential iteration, they adapt, consistently hit below the belt, pretend to be the opposition so they can control it, and more. In the case of this election, to assume that Netanyahu would eat his humble pie after a Romney loss is like hoping you can reach the Sun by simply jumping.

        There was definitely some urgency to dispose of Petraeus. For the FBI to have a CIA director under surveillance, it requires a Tier-3 search warrant, which is very difficult to obtain. For the FBI to take any action on the matter, it would have to rise above that which the media presents it: the extra-marital affair of a powerful public figure (“join the club”). Likely, there was some liability here at play.

        There could be numerous reasons, also, that the administration removed Petraeus intentionally (or “allowed it to happen”). For instance, while his presentation of Israel’s liability to US troops seems to square him outside of a Zionist faction, it does not preclude him from partaking in the Bush oligarchy’s schemes (NWO built via the military industrial congressional complex). While it may be argued Petraeus was a man built on his own merits and achievements, it was W. Bush that gave him rise to the top echelons after 2000. In only the 90s, Petraeus was a relative nobody – before the American public at least. In this vein, it is noteworthy that he was scheduled to testify about Benghazi next week. Many military and intelligence officials staunchly and firmly claim they have clear indication that Benghazi was a treasonous “October Surprise” created by splinter government factions, the NWO (Bush Oligarchy), and Zionists (Netanyahu et. al., the spokesman for the bankers) to help Romney’s election chances.

        As you may have noticed, a lot of people in military ranks have been recently removed or re-assigned (like Admiral Gaouette, unceremoniously removed from leading the Navy’s MIDEAST Operation). But, a CIA director being outed and confessing openly to his extra-marital marriage for a resignation does not pass the smell test. Indeed, the media is reporting something other than the truth on this one in the first place: this has nothing to do with adultery. I believe the media, controlled by Zionists undoubtedly, gives indication thus that this was a coordinated tit-for-tat against the Administration (you remove one of ours, we’ll remove your CIA director). It may even be possible that President Obama s misinformed on the matter purposely so that the Fox News media can now run a campaign of a President hiding some sort of a Benghazi scandal created by the same people selling the papers.

        • mary November 11, 2012, 12:23 AM

          “Many military and intelligence officials staunchly and firmly claim they have clear indication that Benghazi was a treasonous “October Surprise” created by splinter government factions, the NWO (Bush Oligarchy), and Zionists (Netanyahu et. al., the spokesman for the bankers) to help Romney’s election chances.”

          @Mighty Cynic, you cannot be allowed to make this claim without something to back it up. Links?

          • The Mighty Cynic November 11, 2012, 9:03 AM

            With all due respect to you as a civilian, your judgment of the information is irrelevant and/or insignificant. Your pure reliance on internet sources (never mind the amateur belief that such information would be freely broadcast for strangers to classified matters like “Mary” to peruse) is telling of this fact. Next time Richard sources you information, ask him for a link to that. Besides, right above in this thread you make your own speculative point and this likely is just a regurgitation of what you have found on the internet.

            My friendly suggestion is that unless you have spoken to or have access to military and intelligence officials, that you refrain from thinking you can moderate thought on this subject or advance your own speculation as fact while taking real information and subjecting it to your meaningless and false sense of scrutiny.

          • Richard Silverstein November 11, 2012, 6:00 PM

            Down boy! If you can’t show respect at least show civility. If you can’t muster that, then perhaps you ought to reconsider publishing your comment.

          • mary November 11, 2012, 10:08 AM

            Oh really? Before you showed me what a smartass you are, you might have read the comment rules which state clearly that if you make a claim, be prepared to back it up. I’m still waiting for that link, James Bond, unless your top secret source is located somewhere inside your secret decoder ring.

          • PersianAdvocate November 11, 2012, 10:27 AM

            Mary, I think the template is quite telling. The “October Surprise” framework for Benghazi, supplemented by Operation Wide Receiver (“catch, Barack!”) –> Operation Fast and Furious were clearly implants from the previous administration designed to return power to the ranks of the Bush oligarchy. Benghazi is an act of treason in line with HW Bush making a deal with Iran’s government to keep the embassy hostages 2-3 months longer in 1979 so that Carter would lose the election. He put ambassadors in harms way, got caught, and then somehow became President of this country after that treason. WOW – sure taught him a lesson! ;) Operation Fast and Furious is a gun smuggling operation straight out of the Iran-Contra Affairs framework built and designed by HW Bush (again, caught committing treason red-handedly without accountability in that case — then becoming President!)

            This also came a week exactly after Romney’s “47% speech” leaked and Netanyahu made a disastrous move on 9/11 declaring Americans had “no moral right” to stop Fuhrer Netanyahu from committing his wanted Iranian holocaust utilizing his favorite pushovers, “the American people” (his statements, not mine — check Google).

            Who would have known of the ambassador’s location? Definitely not random insurgents.

            It’s also telling how the administration, through Haaretz, seems to have blamed the entire thing on a Youtube released by an Israeli director. It forced Jeffrey Goldberg, Kahanist, to get all over the airwaves to try to change the story (it was an interview by Israel’s oldest newspaper!) “Israel has no records of this individual.” Perhaps, they were redirecting the objectives of the “October Surprise”.

            Judging by President Obama’s brilliant performance in the second debate re: Benghazi, it is quite clear: President Obama did not allow them to use the incident as an October Surprise. In fact, he used it to show the world two things: 1- Americans are not responsible for Israeli misbehavior (via the Youtube reasoning) and 2- it’s stupid to shoot from the hip when it comes to these issues, as the Republicans who set the whole thing up will claim the administration did.

          • Richard Silverstein November 11, 2012, 7:16 PM

            This is incredibly far off topic & conspiratorial with absolutely no basis in fact. Respect the comment rules.

          • The Mighty Cynic November 11, 2012, 12:07 PM

            I think you’re not reading what I am writing to you, Mary. Ask Richard for links to his unnamed sources. Your reasoning is absurd.

            What I told you is that your opinion or scrutiny is superficial and doesn’t matter because you’re so far from the feeding chain that you think you can be “linked” to such information on public pages.

            Good day.

          • PersianAdvocate November 11, 2012, 12:54 PM

            Mary, what are your counterarguments to Mighty’s assertions? Do you have any?

        • Richard Silverstein November 11, 2012, 6:05 PM

          On consideration, I’ve decided to ban you. My comment rules clearly prohibit precisely the sort of rank speculation in which you’ve engaged. There’s only a hop, skip & jump from your nonsense to rank anti-Semitism, though admittedly, you hadn’t gotten there yet.

          This comment goes WAY over the line. Not to mention that it’s nonsensical, boring, hysterically conspiratorial & off-topic.

          This is NOT the place for such useless, baseless speculation. As Mary correctly noted, if you want to make things up or copy & paste from David Duke or other such screeds, you’ll do it elsewhere.

          If you write to me that you’ve read, understand & respect the comment rules, I will reinstate you.

          • mary November 11, 2012, 11:15 PM

            @Persian Advocate, how can I argue against someone’s baseless assertions, especially done so arrogantly? If Mighty Cynic wants to portray himself here as some sort of insider with information the rest of us don’t have, he cannot do that without showing where he gets his information from.

            Of course, it is now revealed in the MSM that the alleged recipient of the harassing emails is a woman who works as a laison between military families and various social service agencies. How she managed to get the FBI to investigate her complaint is another interesting question. I’d love to see those emails.

    • Richard Silverstein November 11, 2012, 2:48 AM

      Harman is rumored to be one among many possible candidates to replace him (at least by CNN)! But she’s a very long shot I think, given that she consorts with Israeli agents.

      • The Mighty Cynic November 11, 2012, 12:11 PM

        There’s a few more moves on this chess board as well. The Harman replacement would require executive appointment by President Obama. In any case, watching who replaces the seat will be far more important than who just was removed from it. We focus too often on political assassinations or eliminations and never scrutinize their replacements (usually the primary suspects/accomplices).

  • Some things are a given November 10, 2012, 8:40 PM

    It is a given that powerful men do not resign merely because they have affairs.
    If that were the case then there wouldn’t be any men left in positions of power.

    So there has got to be another reason behind Petraeus’ resignation, though I will freely admit that I don’t know what that something is.

    I know what it ISN’T, as in:
    1) It isn’t because he was having it off with a junior officer
    2) It isn’t because this “affair” was in any way forced

    At a guess – and I’m only guessing – it’s because Petraeus’ affair led him to reveal classified information to Broadwell, and for that reason He Had To Fall On His Sword.

    Time will tell, but the current claim that he resigned merely because he couldn’t keep his dick in his pants is, honestly, not very credible.

  • Miriam November 10, 2012, 8:56 PM

    Having watched and rewatched Paula Broadwell book interview on Jon Stewart, Jan 25 2012 and later on Charlie Rose Feb 2012 I was struck with a sense that something is not ‘right’ about this very accomplished woman. Her appearance struck me as odd in both cases presenting a very sharp cookie, “Ironman/tri-athlete” whose physicality even inspired her to challenge to desk bound Stewart to push ups.
    I more interested in learning about Victor Loeb, her ‘co-author’ who’s a long time journalist for Philly Inquirer and now Washington Post…and I understand that both of them have worked for Petraeus’ agency. Interestingly, Victor Loeb covered the Iraq war From Israel. There’s more that needs to be told.

    • Miriam November 11, 2012, 12:27 PM

      since writing my comment above yesterday evening, i’ve read an excellent analysis by Robert Parry @Consortium which cites Petraeus’ near Canossa email moment to (neocon) Max Boot claiming that his presentation was misinterpreted, was not intended to criticize Israel, heaven forfend! To further ensure Boot understood the depth of DP’s neocon credentials he informed MB of his forthcoming Keynote at the 65th holocaust memorial with Weisel -in case there was any doubt.

      Broadwell, a Westpoint grad and retired Lieutenant Colonel (reserve) may have been ‘junior’ but by all observers she was predatory; she went after/threatened unidentified nongovt female and thereby unwittingly exposed the extramarital relationship to FBI & more importantly, her access to DPs email.
      She has absolutely no excuse; just feel sorry for her spouse who ‘watched the whole thing’ from the sidelines.

      • mary November 11, 2012, 11:19 PM

        Of course the “predatory female” is always the one who is to blame. Ask yourself what sense it makes, then, for her to be threatening a so-called family friend, and not Petraeus or his wife?

        • Miriam November 12, 2012, 9:04 AM

          Mary…
          As ever, you’ve raise a thoughtful rational point, but none of this is about the ‘thoughtful, rational’ part of Paula’s excellent brain, rather this is very primal human behavior… as in : warding off a “perceived rival”.
          Rational or not –it is what it is. (my background was in behavioral sciences)..and of course Broadwell is not the sole blame –Petraeus owns this and, I doubt this was his first rodeo.

          What I labeled as ‘predatory’ is better understood as “primal” — as in “warding off her perceived ‘rival’.
          Although we do not know for certain, yet, my guess is that Jill Kelley is perceived by Broadwell as a competitor for Petraeus’ attention.
          Pretty sordid family scenario that this accomplished educated woman has made herself “a national issue” in this drama which is both mysterious and fascinating, which is perhaps why so many are discussing, analyzing or wanting to understand it.
          Use of the word predatory might seem harsh, but what other term could connote such a range of attributes ?

          • mary November 12, 2012, 11:23 AM

            Precisely why it makes no sense, Miriam. Unless there is a pending arrest.

  • Joel November 10, 2012, 9:25 PM

    A Victor Loeb conspiracy theory. Zionist controlled media conspiracy theories. A post-election Zionist conspiracy theory. Benghazi Consulate conspiracy theory (and we know who was behind that attack).

    Richard. Your reader’s fevered imaginations are working overtime.

    • PersianAdvocate November 11, 2012, 9:09 AM

      What are your counterarguments?

      Who was behind the Benghazi attacks? Several US government officials are awaiting your breaking intelligence. Don’t tell me, you sourced an “anonymous current Israeli prime minister”?

      It was Hezbollah! No, no — Iran! AL QAEDA! …Iran supplied 300 Persian cats to Hezbollah, which incidentally were bartered for mortar cannons, purchased by invoice through Bin Laden Inc., and now in the hands of AL QAEDA! WE MUST BOMB GAZA!!!!!

      • Davey November 11, 2012, 10:14 AM

        Yeah? Explain how those cats ended up falling on Sderot!?

        • PersianAdvocate November 11, 2012, 10:32 AM

          More cats will fall on Sderot!!!! It all depends on if Nut&Yahoo is leading or losing in his re-election bid. ;)

    • The Mighty Cynic November 11, 2012, 9:12 AM

      Our imaginations or the same absurd, deplorably cowardly, morally depraved acts, patterns and behavior from the usual suspects? How has pretending no one has Google worked out for you over the last 10 years?

  • Benjamin November 10, 2012, 10:15 PM

    Richard, IMHO, focusing on consensual (at least in the case of Petraeus) extra-marital affairs misses the main point, which is what organizations like the CIA are up to. Don’t you think?

  • dickerson3870 November 10, 2012, 10:18 PM

    RE: “There is the same sense that Israel can do pretty much as it chooses. That it can make decisions and execute them with little or no consideration for the aftermath. That victims or enemies will bend over and take what they’ve got coming. That by sheer dint of will they can dominate any situation. This is the way the mind of the Israeli general (and prime minister) tends to work.” ~ R.S.

    MY COMMENT: Israelis might be even more narcissistic than are Americans (if that’s actually possible).

    SEE: “Is There a Way Beyond Israeli Madness?” [Will the Chosen People and the Exceptional People Go Down Together?] ~ by John Grant, Counterpunch, 8/31/12

    [EXCERPTS]
    “The patient, by the name of Israel, walks into the room and instantly bursts into a tirade of arguments conclusively proving his credentials, and says that he is better than everyone else.” ~ Ofer Grosbard, ‘Israel On The Couch: The Psychology of the Peace Process’

    Americans have an Israel problem. . .
    . . . The problem Americans have with Israel is that the region it exists in is in the midst of a major political sea change, while Israel is frozen in time and holding on to its militarist, right-wing policies of extending settlements in the West Bank. It’s a policy that harks back to the ideas of the British-trained militarist Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall [SEE WIKIPEDIA - J.L.D.], which is based on the idea a live-and-let-live policy between Jews and Arabs is impossible and, thus, Jews must militarily control and repress Palestinians . . .

    . . . How does a people turn back a racially-oriented demonization program with roots that extend back many decades? How do you ratchet down a nation’s narcissism so people are able to simply see the other as a human being? . . .
    . . . On our part, Americans and the United States need to stop being a permissive yes-man [i.e. a habitual "enabler" ~ J.L.D.] and begin to show Israel some tough love. We need more US criticism of Israel. No doubt this approach will be received with gales of cynical laughter from hardliners . . . but so what?
    In my mind, the Israeli narcissistic and arrogant mindset would benefit from a little Buddhist detachment, more of the posture that sees the world not of separate individual selves and egos but of human beings as part of a larger flow of life. The Buddhists call the self-obsessed, separatist state-of-mind [i.e. the "pale" of Israel surrounded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall - J.L.D.] that Israel thrives on and defends with weapons as “the illusory self.”
    “Once one identifies with a permanent self-concept, the pride and craving adhering to this become the pivot from which an egocentric world arises,” writes Gay Watson, a psychotherapist attuned to Buddhism.

    David Loy puts it this way: “To become completely groundless is also to become completely grounded, not in some particular, but in the whole network of interdependent relations that constitute the world.”
    I’m not suggesting Israel become a Buddhist nation. The point is for Israelis, and more important Americans, to figure a way out of the worsening condition of “us versus them” to avoid the need to obliterate them and set off a war that no one really wants. The point is to re-shape our minds to make “the other” less threatening to permit talking.
    I’m not holding my breath that Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman are going to become peace activists. But I’m done as an American being a silent stooge while Israeli militarist madness fuels hatred and sets the stage for war.

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/31/is-there-a-way-beyond-israeli-madness/795200

  • free man November 11, 2012, 7:35 AM

    Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

    • Richard Silverstein November 11, 2012, 5:56 PM

      You’re excellent at moralizing when Israel’s ox is being gored. The only log I see is in Uri Sagi’s eye.

Leave a Comment