HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Funny how the sexually at...

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:08 AM

Funny how the sexually attractive woman is the villain of the piece

Last edited Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:56 AM - Edit history (9)

In terms of what is currently out there, Paula Broadwell is a conservative Republican who thinks Fox is reliable, who was unfaithful to her husband, and is probably a power-groupie. She also writes nasty emails to people.

She sounds like a lousy person, but how did she end up being the villain of the piece? She is certainly not the victim—there doesn't seem to be a victim—but I'm not sure why she is the bad guy in a play where, near as I can see, everyone is a villain.

Maybe she is, but a bunch of stories sourced to "friends of Petreus" ought not be taken at face value.

We have two (male) people who work for the government apparently abusing the hell out of their positions—a wing-nut FBI agent trying to use the agency to manufacture a Pre-election scandal, and a CIA director sending thousands of pleading sex-emails to Broadwell after she broke off the relationship, and probably mishandling classified information.

Oh... and we have another General in Afghanistan doing things like making subordinate women blow him or else he will kill their families.

I have little doubt that Paula Broadwell is an unstable wing-nut and a lousy wife, and her breasts are probably implants.

But it is fishy how the hot woman tends to end up as Eve, tempting the helpless man who happens to be one of the most powerful people in the world.

Why was there an FBI investigation? Because she was a stalker sending threatening emails to romantic rivals. That is what we were told, right?

Except there doesn't seem to have been a legitimate pretext for an FBI investigation since the emails were not threats

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/12/exclusive-paula-broadwell-s-emails-revealed.html

...and they were not "reported" to the FBI. They were described by Ms. Kelley to an FBI agent who was trying to bed Ms. Kelley. (Pictured here with Mrs. Petreus.)



(Amusing side note—the "threatening" emails included catty comments telling 'unpaid social liason' Kelley to wear some damn clothes on base, which is funny in light of this innovative use of a négligée as a cocktail dress at a military reception.)

The first side to tell the story gets to frame the story, but I am not seeing much support for that initial framing. The initial framing sounds like what a man tells his wife. (I wouldn't be surprised if a friend fo Mrs. Petreus was a source.)

Broadwell had non-classified documents on her computer that appeared to come from Petreus. Okay? And...? Why would a biographer not have non-classified documents on her computer provided by the subject of the bio?

I am not seeing a substansial allegation of a crime on her part, while seeing five-alarm fire indications that the investigation of her may well have been a politically motivated crime.

We know that Petreus is probably lying, so why accept his camp's characterization of events? Broadwell was embeded with Petreus for a year in Afghanistan, but he told friends the affair started only after he took over the CIA? (And as a civilian where adultery was not criminal.) Sure. Whatever.

Anonymous source says he broke it off. Other anonymous source say she broke it off and that he then bombarded her with 1000s of pleading sex-mails. I wasn't there, but I don't know that we should assume that the woman must be the stalker. In Hollywood she would be. In real life, men are more typically the stalkers.

The FBI has Petreus' emails to her, so we will probably know who was stalking whom.

We have the conspiracy about her "revealing" that the Banghazi complex was a CIA prison. Except it wasn't... I know of no evidence that it was aside from a Fox news unsourced hit-piece that Broadwell, being a wing-nut, doubtless believed and repeated.

The whole story as presented to us through anonymous sources sounds a LOT like what a caught husband tells his wife... it was a brief affair, she broke it off, she was obssessed, I'm the victim.

We shall see.

Broadwell is surely a lousy person, but I am not seeing a lot of substance to the spin that she is the big problem in the scenario.

94 replies, 13913 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 94 replies Author Time Post
Reply Funny how the sexually attractive woman is the villain of the piece (Original post)
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 OP
Lucinda Nov 2012 #1
JVS Nov 2012 #5
seabeyond Nov 2012 #7
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #26
seabeyond Nov 2012 #31
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #42
seabeyond Nov 2012 #45
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #54
seabeyond Nov 2012 #62
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #67
seabeyond Nov 2012 #69
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #72
seabeyond Nov 2012 #73
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #74
ismnotwasm Nov 2012 #84
seabeyond Nov 2012 #86
ismnotwasm Nov 2012 #88
Chan790 Nov 2012 #57
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #30
LisaL Nov 2012 #36
seabeyond Nov 2012 #40
seabeyond Nov 2012 #38
flamingdem Nov 2012 #53
LisaL Nov 2012 #58
Bake Nov 2012 #92
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #16
LisaL Nov 2012 #27
nichomachus Nov 2012 #76
Lucinda Nov 2012 #80
nichomachus Nov 2012 #83
seabeyond Nov 2012 #2
JohnnyLib2 Nov 2012 #10
seabeyond Nov 2012 #19
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #28
seabeyond Nov 2012 #44
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #47
seabeyond Nov 2012 #49
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #50
seabeyond Nov 2012 #61
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #66
Kaleva Nov 2012 #91
JVS Nov 2012 #3
MineralMan Nov 2012 #4
ananda Nov 2012 #9
LiberalLoner Nov 2012 #11
seabeyond Nov 2012 #13
MineralMan Nov 2012 #65
seabeyond Nov 2012 #71
MineralMan Nov 2012 #77
seabeyond Nov 2012 #79
Carolina Nov 2012 #89
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #82
HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #41
MineralMan Nov 2012 #68
HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #81
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #78
Avalux Nov 2012 #6
rzemanfl Nov 2012 #12
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #29
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #8
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #22
BeyondGeography Nov 2012 #14
Whisp Nov 2012 #15
The Straight Story Nov 2012 #17
bobthedrummer Nov 2012 #18
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #20
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #23
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #93
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #21
seabeyond Nov 2012 #24
LisaL Nov 2012 #25
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #32
Ganja Ninja Nov 2012 #33
bongbong Nov 2012 #34
seabeyond Nov 2012 #48
Avalux Nov 2012 #52
bongbong Nov 2012 #70
kelliekat44 Nov 2012 #35
Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #37
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #39
Marr Nov 2012 #43
LisaL Nov 2012 #46
Marr Nov 2012 #51
LisaL Nov 2012 #55
Marr Nov 2012 #59
LisaL Nov 2012 #60
gang Nov 2012 #56
deurbano Nov 2012 #63
Springslips Nov 2012 #64
stevenleser Nov 2012 #75
Carolina Nov 2012 #85
seabeyond Nov 2012 #87
Carolina Nov 2012 #90
LadyHawkAZ Nov 2012 #94

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:11 AM

1. If she broke it off with Petraeus, why was she threatening the other woman... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:14 AM

5. Cock blocking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:15 AM

7. ya. i figure she was too much for the general and he broke it off.

probably seeing the shit he got himself into. she was playing. thru out. look at the pictures, the video with stewart and now all we are hearing.

will be interesting.

but, she was a player, and not in a subservient role.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:28 AM

26. So you're saying she was the villain?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:33 AM

31. no. you are saying that. i do not see it anywhere in my post. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #31)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:40 AM

42. No, I asked you to clarify your position

 

that is different.

You said she was a " she was a player, and not in a subservient role".

Which would mean she orchestrated this mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #42)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:43 AM

45. yes. she is a player. and no, she is not in a subservient role. the whole villian thing is

bullshit. two adults making their choices to use each other for their reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #45)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:50 AM

54. So they're both villains then?

 

Also given the vast power disparity between him and her due to A) his position and B) his being a man in the dreaded Patriarchy how could consent possibly be given here?

And without consent sex is . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #54)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:57 AM

62. again... villian is all yours. as i clearly said villian is bullshit. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #62)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:04 AM

67. What are your thoughts on consent given the vast power disparity

 

I discussed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #67)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:06 AM

69. i really have no interest discussing my opinion with you. you do things like misrepresent

and ignore what i say. i do not see a fair exchange happening with you. hence, my only replies to you are consistently point out your wrong, and leaving it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #69)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:09 AM

72. I've done nothing of the sort but if you feel you can't

 

argue your point in a rational and coherent manner in an open discussion where dissent is not immediately silenced I understand.

hence, my only replies to you are consistently point out your wrong, and leaving it at that.


Since you've become the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong you may want to consider using proper capitalization and grammar.

Also "you're". As in "you are".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #72)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:10 AM

73. ah. a perfect example why i have no interest what so ever having a conversation with you. thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #73)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:12 AM

74. I think it's because you are not entirely clear on what a conversation is

 

it isn't simply multiple people all agreeing with each other over and over and over again.

Occasionally differences of opinion may sneak in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #73)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:53 PM

84. Heh

That was interesting. Another fan? You've been a reasonable voice, pointing out the behavior of all involved was less than exemplary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #84)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:56 PM

86. ya....

a few. i have just a few. some though, are little yappy dogs, nipping at the heel. constantly. i visualize trying to shake that thing off, thru out particular threads.

lol




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #86)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:59 PM

88. Nice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #45)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:53 AM

57. This is my POV as well. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:32 AM

30. Your sexism knows no bounds, Seabeyond

I am joking, but it is fun to get to call you sexist for once.

Everything I have read says that she broke off the relationship (she has a husband and two children) and Petreus sent her thousands of messages after she broke it off, ranging from pleading to raunchy.

So it is sexist to assume that the crazy lady got to be too much trouble for the hapless general.

This story has been spun hard by people sympathetic to Patreus, hitting us first blush as FATAL ATTRACTION II where a crazy woman stalks a celebrity.

But the one who won't take no for an answer and sends thousands of messages to a woman who broke up with him is usually the one we call the stalker, in the real world.

I initially accepted that this was a story about her because that it what was being leaked, but I am starting to think that she was being succubusized by Patreus partisans. (Most unarmed CIA sources will tend to take his side, for the PR good of the agency if not out of personal loyalty)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:35 AM

36. Have you got any links to support that idea?

I haven't seen anything about these supposed thousands of messages.
There were supposedly thousands of messages but from another man to another woman.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57548836/details-of-petraeus-affair-emerge-as-scandal-engulfs-gen-john-allen/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #36)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:40 AM

40. thanks. lol. so will still sit back and wait, until we actually know. i thought it was still

a guessing game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:39 AM

38. no. it isnt about sexism.

but, i would get your giggle on that point. i am finding a lot of places to roll my eyes thru out this whole thing.

thanks.

i really let this go after the first day, of getting info. so much. then a couple days not reading any threads. until i started seeing mistress pop up. that brought me back into the story because of the absurdity.

i was more interested in that last part of your post. i am interested in the reason and her role being played, and the others involved. cantor. ect....

i really did not read about the emails and who sent what to who. all i saw was a thread about 20k-30k emails.

now.... this is an interesting piece of info that it was patreus that sent them, and now you say we are in the KNOW that it was she that broke it off.

all i got was the timeline the break up was in july. and oct they find his stuff on her computer.

i did hear a piece where someone said it was not her sending threatening emails, so have let that go until that is for sure. but it is really not the affair i care about.

thanks.

will sit back again, and watch what develops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:50 AM

53. Did you read Petraeus sent her thousands of messages?

Wow, plot thickens, that's a book to throw at him if he was the one who stalked her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #53)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:54 AM

58. I don't think that info is accurate.

In fact, what was reported is that Petraeus and Broadwell weren't even sending e-mails to each other. They were sharing an e-mail account and saving drafts. That is supposedly an old spy trick to not leave a trail.
So Petraeus did not send her thousands of e-mails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:22 PM

92. Too much for the General? Or maybe psycho-crazy?

Given the emails, I'm going with the latter ...

Yeah, she's a villain. So is Petraeus. So are all of 'em in this sordid affair.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:19 AM

16. My 2 cents: she actually felt protective of Petraeus.

It looks like this Kelley has a screw loose. First, she chose to move to Florida. That is a big red flag right there. And she looks goofy.

I think the threatening emails were a way to scare this woman off of Patraus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:28 AM

27. How do we know who broke up with who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:29 AM

76. Big mistake

Assuming that what the official story says is true.

The story line says she sent the emails to the other woman, but all that is certain is that they were sent from her computer. Who sent them is just a guess.

Remember that we're dealing with people who engage in black ops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #76)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:43 AM

80. Yep. I don't assume we have any real clue how this will all shake out,

if it ever does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #80)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:47 PM

83. I can tell you exactly how it will shake out

There will be several months of kerfuffle. Lives and families will be torn apart. Careers will be ruined. The American public, whipped into a frenzy by the corporatist media, will have its eyes glued to the scandal. Then, one day, it will all suddenly disappear. The smoke will clear. And Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will be gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:13 AM

2. what i am seeing, that i find fascinating, is dismissing her to role of mistress. there is nothing

about her that fits that definition. but, the many posts that dismiss her sexual role but in the position of throw away, and all about the all important male sexuality.

surely, by this time, we would not be playing this game anymore.

but, here we are going back to a world of 1950's womans role serving the male sexuality.

she had an agenda. she used. he is an old man that got some attention. fucked his life up totally for a little stroke to the ego.

there is nothin in this woman and her life that reduces her to a mistress. no one was taking care of her. she wasnt in a subservient role.

this is what is surprising me, after a couple days of this crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:16 AM

10. Really, it's gender-equality in some tawdry way.


Wasted ability and opportunity on both sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyLib2 (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:20 AM

19. yes. and as i am typing these posts i am lmao that it is me

making these points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:31 AM

28. He was in the more powerful position

 

so she is presented as the one who seduced him for personal gain.

Typically when you seduce an underling the personal gain is pretty straight forward: you do it for the sex/companionship.

When you do it to someone many many times higher in position than you the assumption is that you're doing it to curry favors and gain power that way.

And that is how this story is being presented.

We can't really say this is sexist without looking at an actual woman in power who got hit with this sort of scandal involving a male inferior.

As is there are two possible variables: gender, but also a great disparity in power. You can't assume it all comes back to one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:42 AM

44. there is not a single damn thing that puts her in a mistress role. that simple. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #44)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:46 AM

47. Oh well if you say so

 



mistress (ˈmɪstrɪs)

— n
1. a woman who has a continuing extramarital sexual relationship with a man

Yeah, that's totally inaccurate. Nothing at all like that happened here.


/remember you can't shut down discussions out of you safe haven. People here are free to discuss ideas and even (gasp!) disagree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #47)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:47 AM

49. it would be a fact. not an opinion. so ya. look up mistress. by the very definition that is not

who the woman is.

facts do matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #49)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:49 AM

50. Mistress (def)

 


mistress (ˈmɪstrɪs)

— n
1. a woman who has a continuing extramarital sexual relationship with a man

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mistress

Now granted that's just the dictionary, which is at best an informal source. Really I should just ask you, the one and only acceptable citation for any fact on the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #50)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:56 AM

61. yes. games. then he would equally be a mastress, or a mister'ess. take your pick.

A mistress is a long-term female lover and companion who is not married to her partner; the term is used especially when her partner is married. The relationship generally is stable and at least semi-permanent; however, the couple does not live together openly. Also the relationship is usually, but not always, secret. There is an implication that a mistress may be "kept"—i.e., that the lover is paying for some of the woman's living expenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistress_(lover)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #61)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:03 AM

66. Sure, if that were a word he would be that.

 

A mistress is a long-term female lover and companion who is not married to her partner

...check.

the term is used especially when her partner is married

...check.

the relationship generally is stable and at least semi-permanent

...check.

however, the couple does not live together openly

...check

Also the relationship is usually, but not always, secret.

...until recently, check

There is an implication that a mistress may be "kept"—i.e., that the lover is paying for some of the woman's living expenses.

...unclear at this point. Given his power (and the fact that she made a lot of money by gaining access to details of his life) being his biographer may count in this regard. Either way this is an implication and popular usage rather than an explicit requirement.

So . . . were you trying to prove my point for me? Because that really isn't necessary.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:07 PM

91. If their positions were reversed, she would not be refered to as a "mistress".

If Petreus was a young, low ranking reserve officer and Broadwell was a retired 4 star general and head of the CIA, my guess is that some here would be refering to Petreus as a "boy toy" or something similiar and I highly doubt anyone would be refering to Broadwell as a "mistress".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:13 AM

3. Sure are a lot of conservatives sucking on the government teat in this story.

They're all the bad guy to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:13 AM

4. Not the villain at all, in my opinion.

It is the culture of the DC area that is the villain. It all goes back to the frat boy days these people participated in during their college years. After leaving college, they just continued the same sleazy behaviors and "frat brother" nonsense into their adult lives. Paula Broadwell is just one of the sorority girls they want to boink, and the circle goes around and around, over and over again.

The entire DC area is full of the sons and daughters of privilege. They believe they are different and better and can do as they please. Why? Because they've always felt that way and have been reinforced in that belief by everyone around them, since everyone around them shares the same background.

It's ugly and dysfunctional and harms the nation. It has been the story of our history, frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:15 AM

9. Well, Bush was a party frat guy too..

..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:16 AM

11. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:17 AM

13. that is crap MM. she has a career, education, connection, and knows what she wants. she is not

some weak little woman being taken advantage of. she is not just some girl they boys are boinking. she is not a mistress. she is not young and naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:03 AM

65. They're all the villains.

They're all from the same mold. I have zero respect for any of them, as far as their behavior is concerned. The behavior is stupid and sophomoric, and is typical of people of privilege. That it becomes part of the political picture and involves others is the only villainy. In that, they all are participants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #65)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:07 AM

71. again, i dont catagorize it as villians. but, i do not see a victim. or one playing a subservient,

naive, inexperienced role.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #71)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:32 AM

77. Of course not. They're all competent adults, professionally.

They're superannuated adolescents, emotionally. I question their character, in general.

These people, and I mean all of them, believe that their personal lives have nothing to do with their character. They think that nothing they do has any effect on their work. They are incorrect. Poor character involves every aspect of a person, including their professional lives. That is my belief, and it is one I have always held. It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with trustworthiness. If a person cannot keep a commitment as basic as marriage, why on Earth should I trust that person with anything else? In fact, I do not trust such people. It is good that Petraeus is now unemployed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #77)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:38 AM

79. and THIS you and i agree totally on, is the bottomline and you said very well. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #65)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:00 PM

89. Thank you, Mineral Man

As I say downthread, Paula is one of several villains in this story. And villains (repukes as well) they are... for all the reasons you cited and likely more that are yet to be revealed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:50 AM

82. Living a short time within the Beltway, it was the only

Place I know where at parties women spoke openly about their most important criterion for lathering up some male: Power and position. Money, looks, even celebrity were rarely mentioned. Strange culture, but boring, banal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:40 AM

41. That 'at all' bothers me...is it ok to threaten people by email?

Do we really have to give a pass to the elite who can't avoid corruption of the evil culture that the elite MUST conform to?

Rather than do that I'd rather say in re this scandal, depending on which way you happen look at it this turd it has many different bumps to show us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #41)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:04 AM

68. They're all villains to one degree or another.

The whole thing is just a big ugly mess, and they all got caught in their sophomoric crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #68)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:49 AM

81. It's at least an ugly, and very public, mess n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #41)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:37 AM

78. The "threats" don't appear to have been threats

Bear in mind, that was the claimed pretext for an FBI investigation that may well have been politically motivated. But the link in the OP suggests the emails were not threatening. More just rude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:15 AM

6. Let's take gender out of it completely.

What we have here are power hungry not-so-nice people who feel entitled to behave however they wish.

All are culpable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalux (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:17 AM

12. Well said and the whole thing in a nutshell. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalux (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:32 AM

29. Pretty much

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:15 AM

8. She was the one making the THREATS. The THREATS.



Leave her boobs out of it. It's the crazy that's getting the attention.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:23 AM

22. Have we seen these threats? (serious question)

I am not stating that you are wrong, I am stating that I have not seen any indication that you are right, except in how the story was initially framed.

Since the entire investigation may well have been a rogue wing-nut FBI agent ginning up an investigation I do not know that we have reason to think there was anything demanding investigation.

The email excerpts I have seen were not threats.

There may well be published examples that I have not seen, but it is sounding more like the FBI guy was pretending they rose to the level of threats as the predicate to 1) a political investigation, and 2) getting into the 'threatened' party's pants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:17 AM

14. Who cares?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:18 AM

15. what do you mean, is this new info about that Allen guy?

 

Oh... and we have another General in Afghanistan doing things like making subordinate women blow him or else he will kill their families.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:19 AM

17. All this time I thought it was the general, maybe we read different news sources (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:20 AM

18. You haven't a clue about what is in play here, do you? cthulu2016, there's a lot going on Full

Spectrum Dominance-domestically-- for instance.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:22 AM

20. First

I wouldn't exactly describe Broadwell as "hot" aesthetically speaking. "Attractive" is a matter of taste, but then when you have a blackened conservative soul, you get serious negative modifiers in my book.

Palin is consider "hot" or "attractive" is some quarters, but I cannot get past her rank stupidity, which is revolting in my book.

Second, this is the media narrative in some places, but not my household. I view Patreaus as equally guilty and should be subject to public scorn.

Third, I would view that matter as private and none of my business, except that the usual hypocrisy is at play, and classified information appears to have been bandied about like baseball cards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #20)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:24 AM

23. In media terms she is hot. In media terms Katherine Harris was hot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:00 PM

93. Gosh, this explains why I don't read/watch much

in the way of the American media.

My definition of "hot" tends toward Eve Myles, John Barrowman, Elisabeth Sladen, Aisha Tyler, Felicia Day, Jewel Staite, Mayim Bialik, David Tennant, Dawn French, Catherine Tate, Bennedict Cummerbatch, etc.

Intelligence and nerd cred are my aphrodisiac.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:22 AM

21. Probably because she comes off as...not right. The day this

story broke and I saw her photo, I remembered her appearance on the Daily Show, and how weird she was. She is frankly kind of scary and the sort who would threaten another woman. Petraeus seems like a weak, pathetic, lovesick fool. Jill Kelley--who knows what is up with her and her husband and their forelosures and constant lawsuits and social climbing? Running to the FBI, hiring defense lawyers and PR managers. Does anybody know anybody like this? I sure don't. The emails with the general in Afghanistan--now that is an interesting twist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:26 AM

24. i am going along the same lines as you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:27 AM

25. How did you came up with this?

It is my understanding that thousands of e-mails were not from Petraeus to Broadwell, but from another man to another woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:33 AM

32. There are multiple villains in this sordid tale. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:33 AM

33. OK Here's what I think was going on.

The self described "social liaison" was arranging sex parties that Broadwell and Petraeus attended a time or two. I don't see either of them as villains. The only villains in all of this are the FBI agent that contacted Eric Cantor and Eric Cantor for not being forthcoming to the intelligence committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:33 AM

34. Don't agree that she was a victim

 

I agree with the replies so far on this thread that make the point that Broadwell was not some naif.

Maybe she started boinking him to get killer exclusive(s) for her book. The calculus of power-mad (and what repig isn't power-mad?) people in the DC world is another level of repig-alternate-reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #34)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:46 AM

48. i agree with you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #34)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:50 AM

52. She did publicly state her goal was to become National Security Advisor.

Maybe she thought an affair with Petraeus was the way to get there, who knows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalux (Reply #52)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:06 AM

70. That's another interesting brick in the conspiracy tower

 

> She did publicly state her goal was to become National Security Advisor.

Now I'm thinking it wasn't boinking to get juicy tidbits for her book. Maybe it was boinking to create a blackmail-able event!



The reason I think it is more likely to set up a blackmail situation than to ensure loyalty is that repigs know that they themselves are slimy snakes with no loyalty whatsoever!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:34 AM

35. No she is not. She is the villaness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:36 AM

37. Um, that's utterly predictable. See, History of Western Culture for the last several thousand years

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:39 AM

39. Watch current

Spitzer, he's a lawyer for god sakes, took the legal angle last night with a JAG retired officer.

Inappropriate yes, criminal, no...and that is even when he was still commander if ISAF.

My take, the powerful want it to go away.

Oh and Cantor called the FBI. The one doing something Illegal, was the FBI agent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:42 AM

43. I don't really see what she did wrong-- apart from the affair.

And Petraeus is more guilty on that count, seeing as he's the one who was married. In either case, those are a couple of adults capable of making their own decisions and I'm not going to judge them.

The villains in the story, in my opinion, are the loony, Limbotomized FBI agent, and the Linda Trip-esque busy-body who reported her suspicions to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #43)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:45 AM

46. Both of them are married.

She is married with two young children. So why would you give her a pass on that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #46)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:49 AM

51. I didn't know she was married. Yes, that's pretty low-- however,

no worse than Petraeus' own offense, and he seems to be painted as the 'poor, fallen, Great Man, tempted by a harlot'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #51)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:51 AM

55. At least his kids are grown.

Hers are still young.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #55)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:55 AM

59. I don't see how that makes a difference.

A promise is a promise, and they both broke the same promise of (I'm assuming) fidelity. Sometimes people do that. It might make them weak, or selfish, or arrogant, or incapable of controlling their impulses, or whatever, but I don't think it makes them national villains. The villains here are, in my opinion, that right-wing FBI agent and Linda Tripp Part II.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:56 AM

60. Really?

Well, if there is a divorce, you don't need to worry about custody of adult children. Whereas you have to about custody of young children. So when somebody is cheating and they have young children, in my view that makes it worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:52 AM

56. that's good

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:58 AM

63. She was just another tool in the Petraeus myth making machine...

Not a victim (IMHO), but definitely a tool, and the REAL crimes-- the devastating results of that myth making-- have nothing to do with infidelity.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/11/12/not-a-private-affair/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:58 AM

64. Hey people, life is not a movie!

And neither should journalism be like a movie or TV show. There is no villain role, nor hero anti-hero roles; what we have here is just a bunch of powerful people being idiots. That's all.

Of course the media has to frame events into narratives using well known tropes; they are framing this into some kind of fatal attraction set in the spook world. Would make a good movie.

Color me in the minority here, but I see nothing that makes this an important story. The media just salivating on it because of sex, like they always do.

Call me if something important turns up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:21 AM

75. I think she is 'a' villain, not 'the' villain. There are potentially a lot of villains here.

If you send threatening emails to someone in order to try and control their behavior, you are doing something seriously wrong in my book.

Many in the rest of the cast of characters also lied and cheated and various other stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:56 PM

85. "She is certainly not the victim—there doesn't seem to be a victim..."

I beg to differ. The victims are:
Mrs. Petraeus
Collective war casualties (of the 'surge' especially)

And Paula is one of the several villains!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carolina (Reply #85)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:58 PM

87. not to mention

her husband and two young boys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #87)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:03 PM

90. exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 04:24 PM

94. It's not funny at all

It fits a narrative: normal women don't like casual sex and don't have sex for pleasure outside marriage. Therefore any woman involved in a sex story is an abnormal woman and must either fit the victim or villain mold. She made threats to another woman, so she can't be shoved into the victim mold; she has to be the villain.

It goes right over the average head that they might have each just found the other person sexy. Only men find women sexy, so Petraeus was just "acting like a normal man". Women don't find men sexy (outside marriage) so Broadwell had to have another motive.

Can I offer you a sip of monogamy kool-aid? I'm told it's delicious.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread