HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bill Maher on Gen. Petrae...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:24 PM

Bill Maher on Gen. Petraeus...

On FB... Thoughts? I have doubts also...

Bill Maher

Unless he was fucking Mata Hari as well, I still don't see why General David Patraeus had to go.

18 replies, 2375 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 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bill Maher on Gen. Petraeus... (Original post)
babylonsister Nov 2012 OP
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #1
babylonsister Nov 2012 #2
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #6
amborin Nov 2012 #10
msongs Nov 2012 #4
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #9
notadmblnd Nov 2012 #3
GiaGiovanni Nov 2012 #12
notadmblnd Nov 2012 #14
GiaGiovanni Nov 2012 #17
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #5
marions ghost Nov 2012 #15
libdem4life Nov 2012 #7
notadmblnd Nov 2012 #8
unblock Nov 2012 #11
GiaGiovanni Nov 2012 #18
Thrill Nov 2012 #13
Carolina Nov 2012 #16

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:27 PM

1. well, honestly - if he can't keep his affairs secret how competent can the man be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:31 PM

2. He had nothing to do with the affairs being outed, but

we're talking 'affairs', not nat'l security.

Anyway, he's toast, but are we too concerned with other people's sex lives? This is blowing up; too bad people weren't equally disturbed by various wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:38 PM

6. really, I could give a shit but, other people do. just a joke. no intent to offend. and Yes,

the Wars do disturb me. Let us get our priorities straight here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:56 PM

10. for national security reasons, affairs are unacceptable; pave the way for blackmail, etc

and if the top guy gets away with a breach, all the underlings would have grounds for.....

plus, the main thing: P is BAD NEWS..wrong on Iran, wrong on Afghanistan, etc....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:34 PM

4. now that is funny nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:53 PM

9. pretty much, yeah

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:32 PM

3. I read this little diddy a while ago and wondered if Allen is a target too?

snip
So who would have an interest in getting rid of Petraeus? Here’s where the Cantor connection comes in. The tip by an anonymous “FBI employee” that wound up in Cantor’s office two weeks ago came through Rep. David Reichert, Republican of Washington state, who has a friend who knows the whistleblower. Cantor then spoke to the whistleblower directly, who put him in touch with FBI Director Mueller.

Cantor is a great friend of Israel, and Petraeus — not so much. The General was attacked, as you’ll recall, by partisans of the Lobby, including Abe Foxman, when he delivered testimony before Congress citing Israel as a strategic liability in the Middle East. As the executor of the new Obamaite policy of sidling up to Islamists, not only in Libya but also in Syria and Egypt, Petraeus was no doubt seen by the Israelis as an enemy to be neutralized.


snip

Will we ever know the full story? At this point, the story is so hot that it may burn the cover story — “it’s all about sex” — right off the wrapper. Because there’s more — a lot more — here than meets the eye. When Cantor pledged to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he and his fellow Republicans “will serve as a check on the administration” in regard to the President’s policy toward Israel, he was clearly aligning himself with a foreign leader against American interests as perceived by the White House. But would he really go this far — deliberately taking down a key figure, one beloved by Republicans, in order to keep his promise to Netanyahu?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/11/11/a-covert-affair-petraeus-caught-in-the-honeypot/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:17 PM

12. RTV says: Iran Hawk Petraeus Pushed Out for Warmongering

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiaGiovanni (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:25 PM

14. It just gets curiouser and curiouser

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:47 PM

17. Yes it does. It's hard to tell what the heck is going on.

 

The only thing that seems very clear is that a CIA director doesn't get fired for an average extra-marital affair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:36 PM

5. Well, I do. It has to do with judgment, ability to control your behavior....

things like that.

Having a short affair or fling is one thing. But to have a drawn out affair with someone so VISIBLE (she was on the Daily Show, gave speeches and interviews, etc.) and obviously screwy (pardon the pun) is bizarre. Broadwell was sending threatening (sort of) emails to another woman who apparently wasn't even having an affair with Petraeus.

Messy, distracting. Could he really focus on his high level security job with all that nutso stuff going on?

Still, if he had stayed, I'd have been okay with that. I don't know the ins and outs (pardon the second pun) of the CIA. As I heard on TV, he certainly couldn't be blackmailed at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:43 PM

15. "Could he really focus on his high level security job with all that nutso stuff going on?"

That's more my take on it.

The security risk of affairs is something the military has zero tolerance for. I understand why they do that. It's all about discipline and duty to protect the country. OK.

But I find myself more thinking, OMG--they really can NOT be performing on the job very well. Incompetence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:42 PM

7. The "girls" are first generation Lebanese. They are no friends of Israel. Indeed, there is more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:48 PM

8. I understand Mrs. Kelly is. However, look at Broadwell and her connections.

it could explain why Kelly (who is no angel and had no intimate relationship with Petraeus) got harassed by Broadwell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:02 PM

11. because he was head of an agency that asks all its employees if they've ever had an affair.

i may be slightly overstating the case as i'm not sure *all* cia employees have clearances and i'm not sure *everyone*who gets a clearance gets asked that question.

i do know that *i* once had a secret clearance and i *was* asked that question.
had the polygraph reader felt i was lying, i would have been denied my clearance and i would have immediately lost my job because i was working on a secret project and was of no use to my employer without a secret clearance.

you can't credibly run the show at a place like that if you fail the test that you insist every low-level employee take and pass.



just to note, the correct answer is to tell the truth, whatever it is. they're not there to particularly judge your morality, they're only there to determine your vulnerability to blackmail. so an answer such as "yes i did and i immediately posted it on facebook and i'd do it again" is fine as long as it's the truth. in any event it appears patreus failed on all accounts as he not only had an affair but also tried to keep it secret, which made him officially vulnerable to blackmail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:49 PM

18. Rachel talked about this last night: heads of CIA need only inform that they are having an affair

 

They apparently don't get fired as they would in the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:23 PM

13. Everyone knows there is more to it than him just banging a couple chicks on the side

I think those emails tell the story of a shady General

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:45 PM

16. Bill needs an education on Betrayus.... eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread