HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Gloria Allred slams ‘doub...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:35 AM

Gloria Allred slams ‘double standard,’ ‘unfair’ media coverage of women in Petraeus scandal

Feminist lawyer Gloria Allred, known for representing women in high-profile cases, spokes exclusively with The Daily Caller on Wednesday about the sex scandal that brought the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus.

Allred told TheDC that she believes the media coverage has been unfair to Petraeus’ former mistress Paula Broadwell and whistle-blower Jill Kelley, whose “flirtatious” communications with Marine General John Allen are also under investigation.

“y personal feeling on this matter is that women are being depicted in a negative and stereotypical manner which appears to be very unfair to all of them,” Allred wrote in an email to TheDC.

...“I do believe there is a double standard in the media coverage and I hope that one day all of the women will be able to speak and give a fuller and more positive statement about who they really are and what their role was in this matter,” she wrote.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/gloria-allred-slams-double-standard-unfair-media-coverage-of-women-in-petraeus-scandal/#ixzz2CUy0IfRZ


125 replies, 6155 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 125 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gloria Allred slams ‘double standard,’ ‘unfair’ media coverage of women in Petraeus scandal (Original post)
anobserver2 Nov 2012 OP
behindenemylins Nov 2012 #1
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #9
aletier_v Nov 2012 #2
Ruby the Liberal Nov 2012 #3
aletier_v Nov 2012 #10
Supersedeas Nov 2012 #64
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #4
aletier_v Nov 2012 #7
Lucinda Nov 2012 #8
MADem Nov 2012 #111
Lucinda Nov 2012 #121
riverwalker Nov 2012 #30
aletier_v Nov 2012 #33
boston bean Nov 2012 #88
Confusious Nov 2012 #69
ljm2002 Nov 2012 #116
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #117
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #122
cali Nov 2012 #5
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #6
MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #12
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #65
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #13
TorchTheWitch Nov 2012 #24
MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #11
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #76
Evergreen Emerald Nov 2012 #14
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #15
aletier_v Nov 2012 #16
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #17
peacebird Nov 2012 #19
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #21
aletier_v Nov 2012 #23
TorchTheWitch Nov 2012 #25
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #27
sandyshoes17 Nov 2012 #29
aletier_v Nov 2012 #32
sandyshoes17 Nov 2012 #37
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #68
MADem Nov 2012 #87
MADem Nov 2012 #85
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #28
MADem Nov 2012 #89
aletier_v Nov 2012 #22
MADem Nov 2012 #82
aletier_v Nov 2012 #83
MADem Nov 2012 #92
tammywammy Nov 2012 #94
flamingdem Nov 2012 #112
peacebird Nov 2012 #18
TorchTheWitch Nov 2012 #34
aletier_v Nov 2012 #35
Prometheus Bound Nov 2012 #53
TorchTheWitch Nov 2012 #71
aletier_v Nov 2012 #77
MADem Nov 2012 #93
flamingdem Nov 2012 #113
peacebird Nov 2012 #36
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #81
question everything Nov 2012 #20
seabeyond Nov 2012 #26
sufrommich Nov 2012 #31
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #38
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #39
aletier_v Nov 2012 #43
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #47
MADem Nov 2012 #95
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #99
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #101
MADem Nov 2012 #125
MADem Nov 2012 #103
DirkGently Nov 2012 #40
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #41
DirkGently Nov 2012 #42
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #46
aletier_v Nov 2012 #57
aletier_v Nov 2012 #66
aletier_v Nov 2012 #44
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #45
aletier_v Nov 2012 #54
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #56
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #62
MADem Nov 2012 #98
MADem Nov 2012 #96
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #48
aletier_v Nov 2012 #60
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #91
MADem Nov 2012 #97
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #49
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #50
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #52
MADem Nov 2012 #100
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #102
MADem Nov 2012 #107
sendero Nov 2012 #51
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #55
Confusious Nov 2012 #70
MADem Nov 2012 #105
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #58
aletier_v Nov 2012 #61
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #79
aletier_v Nov 2012 #86
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #90
customerserviceguy Nov 2012 #59
LeftInTX Nov 2012 #63
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #67
aletier_v Nov 2012 #80
leftlibdem420 Nov 2012 #72
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #74
MADem Nov 2012 #73
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #75
MADem Nov 2012 #78
Tippy Nov 2012 #109
aletier_v Nov 2012 #84
Tippy Nov 2012 #104
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #106
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #108
KoKo Nov 2012 #110
MADem Nov 2012 #114
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #115
MADem Nov 2012 #118
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #119
MADem Nov 2012 #120
anobserver2 Nov 2012 #123
MADem Nov 2012 #124

Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:38 AM

1. Just to entertain the fringe...

CT sites have sworn for years Allred is CIA. However, I wouldn't doubt for a second the agency is behind chucking their boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to behindenemylins (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:45 AM

9. Gloria Allred is as much of a CIA spook as Miley Cyrus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:39 AM

2. uh oh. Gloria Allred's involved. Now it's going to get sirius...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:40 AM

3. Who is preventing them from speaking?

They both lawyered up the weekend after the story broke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:47 AM

10. Kelley hires Monica Lewinsky's "crisis manager".

Yeah, well, I'm not sure I'd want to follow Monica's path but there ya go.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/11/david-petraeus-scandal-jill-kelley-owes-millions-hires-monica-lewinsky-crisis

"Jill has hired Monica Lewinsky’s crisis manager Judy Smith and disgraced former Senator John Edwards’ attorney Abbe Lowell to represent her"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:16 PM

64. Maybe Broadwell will have her ghost writer construct a statement for her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:41 AM

4. How would Paula Broadwell even know Jill Kelley?

How would Paula Broadwell even know Jill Kelley?
How would Paula Broadwell have Jill Kelley's email address?


I am sorry to say this, but this whole alleged affair to me is just a bunch of nonsense.

It seems to me more likely that Petraeus did something illegal, something insubordinate, something
that he should be fired for. Maybe he did have prisoners illegally; maybe it was something else. Who knows.

But, he can not take such punishment like getting fired for his wrongdoing. He faces no consequences for his conduct.

And, the President did not want to have to fire another general or put other CIA employees lives at risk by punishing the general.

So to create a NEW reason for the general's separation from his job, the life of Paula Broadwell had to be destroyed. And a non-existent affair alleged.

That it is what it looks like to me. I am sorry but that's what it looks like to me.

Again, I am sorry. But I have seen no evidence that Paula Broadwell even knows or saw Jill Kelley, let alone would know Jill Kelley's email address to send any emails.

And no evidence of an affair. Just a whole lot of media. It seems to me to be defamation and slander what is going on, unless there is evidence for starters that Paula Broadwell would even know how to contact Jill Kelley.

So, thank you Gloria Allred for speaking out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:45 AM

7. Kelley was in constant email contact with Patraeus and Allen

If Broadwell had access to his email, the address part is easy.

It may have been publicly available, too, a simple search on Kelly Jill Tampa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:45 AM

8. It's quite possible that Pretaeus spoke to Broadwell about his court support for one of the twins

divorce proceedings. There is no reason to think she wouldn't have been mentioned at some point in time...

That said, I don't think that we know the whole story about the way Broadwell and Kelley and the FBI guy all tie together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:10 PM

111. The huge party that Kelley threw for the Petraeus couple might have come to her attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #111)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:40 PM

121. Yep. That too! I didn't even think about that.

The surprise would be if she HADN'T heard of Kelley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:03 PM

30. Allen forwarded to Kelly an email

that he recieved from Broadwell warning him about the Kelley's.
Paula knew the Ho Ho's were Ding-Dong's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverwalker (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:21 PM

33. Paula knew the Ho Ho's were Ding-Dong's.

was this before or after she lost his twinkie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:29 AM

88. it was a ring ding (er) too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:21 AM

69. What?

Where are you getting all this about an "alleged" affair?

The FBI was investigating petreus for an affair. Everyone in Washington found about about it.
The wife is pissed off.

How do you get "alleged" affair to "destroy" a woman people had barely heard of before a week ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:54 PM

116. While I agree there is more to this story...

...and that quite possibly Petraeus has broken more than his marriage vows, I cannot understand why you would question the reality of the affair when by all accounts Paula Broadwell admitted to it when questioned by the FBI, as did Petraeus when he was questioned a few days later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #116)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:02 PM

117. I agree with Gloria Allred - let's see what Paula Broadwell has to say first

The FBI is not the private attorney of Paula Broadwell and is not Paula Broadwell.

I do not see any evidence of an affair. I realize an affair has been alleged. But that does not mean there was an affair.

And, why did David Petraeus need to mention an affair as part of his resignation? Saying he wants to "spend more time with his family"
would have been enough. Fine Good-bye.

The "reality" of an affair does not yet exist. Any real journalist would tell you the same thing. You have to get both sides of a story first.
Paula Broadwell has not yet spoken publicly. Though her father did, and said this affair was a "smokescreen." I think Paula Broadwell
probably spoke with her father in order for him to have said that.

But, again - if Paula Broadwell ever does state publicly that she had an affair with David Petraeus, I would believe it. Right now, through
her words and actions, I do not believe an affair happened or is likely to have happened.

I do think it is more likely she was trying to do what she thought was her patriotic duty and to
make a whistleblower complaint which she did not realize soon enough that no one in govt wanted her to make, but she felt it was
in the national interest to report illegal activity, even if by a four-star general. That story line seems a lot more likely to be true, IMO.
And, it is all being covered up with this "affair" media pollution propaganda. That is what it seems like to me. No one would ever
have reported "Monica Lewinsky says she had an affair with Bill Clinton so it must be true even though he has said nothing." I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #117)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:52 PM

122. If Petraeus admitted the affair and is quitting his post because of

it, there was most likely an affair. I haven't heard that Broadwell denied having the affair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:42 AM

5. "whistle blower, Jill Kelley"? Oh, please

yes, there's a double standard, but in this case the women involved here have exhibited such outrageous and public behavior that it's hardly surprising that they'd get more of the glare of the spotlight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:44 AM

6. She is totally right, and has been fighting for women for decades

Her firm does a huge amount of pro bono stuff for poor women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:00 PM

12. Such as?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:25 PM

65. Please do your homework before asking questions like this....

...it just makes you look unprepared and not very intelligent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:02 PM

13. Totally agree.

Too many talking heads think the men are victims of these women. poor wittle guys...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:20 PM

24. she is right

And it's all over DU as well. Meanwhile not hardly a whisper about what the generals were doing - the ones that actually had the higher responsibility here.

DU used to be good at ignoring the petty BS covering up focus of the media but now it's nothing but parroting the media.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:59 AM

11. I've been a feminist since I first became aware of the concept

 

And I don't see where Broadwell and Kelley didn't bring their problems all on themselves by their own actions.

If they're being portrayed in a negative and stereotypical manner, it's because that's exactly how they behaved, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:03 AM

76. Yes. "Poor wittle girls" indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:08 PM

14. I have been thinking the very same thing.

Petraeus is given accolades by everyone--including the President. And the women are vilified.

The media, including left wingers (like Randy Rhodes), and even professors and business people are coming out from under rocks to attack them.

And the women are not simply attacked for their part in this mess, but their looks, their family, their lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:14 PM

15. Women are the new "fall guy" - but in this case, it was a trap, it seems, for Broadwell by Petraeus

Exactly - Petraeus gets praise etc. The women, meanwhile, are mercilessly attacked.

It seems like a new version of "the fall guy." Now, we have evolved politically to the point where
the men who previously would be the "fall guy" have concluded: why not blame women? Why does the
"fall guy" have to be a "man" -?

From Wikipedia on origin of Fall Guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_guy

Four slightly different usages for "fall guy" arise. The origins of all four are probably different. The usages are:

Scapegoat (innocent).
"Betrayed confederate" (guilty scapegoat); here one criminal (willingly or unwillingly) is arrested and sacrificed, while the rest of the criminals go free.
Dupe, the fool; the butt of jokes.
"One who takes on the responsibilities or workload of other
s


...With criminal groups, the fall guy would often be the lowest 'ranking' member, who would take the fall (face arrest and criminal charges) so that the rest could go free. Whether or not the lowest member could rely on the rest for support once out of prison is debatable; in the political arena, the fall guy seems to function much the same:

The fall guy is as low-ranking a politico as possible.
Political rank should be high enough to ensure outraged partisans that 'justice' has been done, that a sufficient price had been paid.
Furthermore, the politico that falls must have been in a position of authority related to the scandal ..).
Most importantly, the key purpose of a fall guy (i.e. to protect the group from further inquiry), remains.


I think Paula Broadwell is the "fall guy" for whatever actual concealed wrongs Petraeus engaged in, and had hoped to
continue to conceal had Romney won the election.

But with a win by Obama, Petraeus seems to have concluded he had to go and
separate himself from employment. Now, how to do this? By using his "fall guy" Paula Broadwell.

It seems to me what may have begun innocently, as a sincere invitation from him to Paula Broadwell to
give her access to him for her studies, turned into something else, but what it turned into was his realization
that at some point down the road, for whatever reason, he might need a "cover" / fall guy as a false
reason to leave his job. So with that mind, he gave her more and more access. He was trying to make
an "affair" appear plausible to onlookers, in case he had to use this "fall guy."

But he was creating a trap for her, in reality. She was his "fall guy." She didn't know it.

Perhaps we have created a new phrase in our culture with what really happened. He set a trap for her.
Then he sprung it, when he falsely publicly announced an affair with her. She was his "fall guy" --
or, since she is a woman, the opposite. The "spring woman." Set the trap and then spring it on the
unsuspecting woman.

I do not like David Petraeus for doing this. Setting aside whatever his military record may be, he seems to
me to be a spineless coward for destroying the life of an innocent woman. Again, I am sorry. But that is
my opinion of what actually happened and what he actually is: a spineless coward. He is "too big to fail."

In the future, he will probably become president of Princeton University. Her life, meanwhile, is over.
She will probably go to jail on trumped up charged.

The lesson here is that the life of a woman is of far less value than the life of a man. Even if the man is
a liar and insubordinate; even if the woman's education and background is of such high quality that she
could have someday become a U.S. Presidential candidate.

Paula Broadwell is lucky she already has her kids and a husband. Had this happened when she was single,
she would not have even a family in her future.

Very sad to me, if I am correct. Very sad how low some people will go. Again, I am sorry. But I think
David Petraeus is not a macho guy for his alleged affair story. I think he is a spineless coward for
not taking consequences for whatever illegal actions he may have engaged in while head of the CIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:18 PM

16. " the fall guy would often be the lowest 'ranking' member"

I'm sorry but Broadwell & the twins are ranked well below "general".

So perhaps cause-n-effect are confused in a few minds.

You can argue that they're lower because they're women,
but they're getting blamed because they have lower status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:23 PM

17. Paula Broadwell had the highest possible security clearance

I think as a Lt Colonel, and a former intelligence offier, Paula Broadwell had the
highest possible security clearance -- and in fact had the clearance to possess whatever
documents she allegedly had on her computer, as I recall reading.

As for Jill Kelley, few media outlets have mentioned that both she and her twin sister
are in fact lawyers, and one of them was a lawyer for whistle blowers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:27 PM

19. But she kept those docs "in the clear", which is against all regs for classified materials

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:40 PM

21. Here's Petraeus on his way to head Princeton

From the Princeton student newspaper:

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2012/09/27/31289/

NEWS | Beyond the Bubble | Sept. 27
A Petraeus GS '87 presidency?
CIA director is interested in leading the University

By Teddy Schleifer
News Editor

David Petraeus GS ’87, the director of the CIA who earned his Ph.D. from the Wilson School 25 years ago, harbors a serious interest in one day serving as University president, according to multiple people familiar with Petraeus’ thinking, potentially placing him as a leading outside candidate to replace retiring University President Shirley Tilghman.

Petraeus, who has been an active University alumnus and who returned to campus as recently as this past spring, has publicly voiced interest in the Princeton presidency in the past, but seemingly as a joke used to deflect questions regarding his interest in the presidency of the United States. But sources close with Petraeus, who declined to comment at length for this article, indicate that his interest in University leadership is very real and that he is actively considering leading Nassau Hall.

The timing of Tilghman’s sudden retirement calls for the brand-new CIA director to decide immediately whether he wants to switch his career trajectory. ....



And from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/us/politics/petraeus-is-eyeing-princetons-top-job-paper-says.html?_r=0

Petraeus Eyes Presidency of Princeton, Article Says
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — Might David H. Petraeus, the most prominent military leader of his generation, leave his job as director of the Central Intelligence Agency to become the president of Princeton University?

That possibility was raised by an intriguing article on Thursday in the university newspaper, The Daily Princetonian. In response, the C.I.A. director issued a noncommittal statement that did not deny an interest...


Published: September 27, 2012

--------

As for Paula Broadwell, I don't know the rules about what she can and can not have on her home computer, but I know I did read in several news articles that her own security clearance was high enough for whatever documents she allegedly had.

I predict her future will resemble a Monica Lewinsky -- no future.


'She needs the money': Why Monica Lewinsky is writing tell-all book as friends reveal her shattered dreams of 'losing 30 pounds, moving to the country and having a family'

Former White House intern 'will detail encounters in new $12 million book'
It 'will include her never-before-seen love letters to the president, his desire for threesomes and his ridiculing of Hillary'
Friends say the book would be for much-needed cash rather than revenge
Doubts over how much interest - and money - book has actually garnered

By Lydia Warren and George Rush

PUBLISHED: 07:21 EST, 20 September 2012 | UPDATED: 14:44 EST, 20 September 2012
Monica Lewinsky is writing a tell-all book about her affair with Bill Clinton after the scandal left her hard up, unable to get a job and with her dreams dashed, friends have claimed.

The former White House intern, 39, is reportedly penning the book - including her intimate love letters to the ex-president and how he desired threesomes - for revenge on her former flame.

But friends say it could simply be a matter of cash for Lewinsky, who was left with massive legal debts and could never achieve her dream of 'losing 30 lbs, finding a boy, moving to Westchester County and having a family' after revelations of her Oval Office trysts with Clinton surfaced....



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206057/Monica-Lewinsky-writing-tell-memoir-needs-money.html#ixzz2CVTN5Qdn
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:46 PM

23. That's a pre-scandal article (Sept 27th).

Patraeus will have a problem moving to Princeton now.

Perhaps if it had only been about Broadwell & sex
but it's moved into too many other areas now.

I'm kind of wondering how the twins will fare
without names to drop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:50 PM

25. why?

The Kelley sisters have little to do with anything. One of them just complained about the emails Broadwell was sending her, and the other didn't have shit in shinola to do with anything with this issue. So, why the focus on them? Oh that's right... by focusing on all manner of pettiness concerning them everybody forgets to ask what the GENERALS were up to and THEIR responsibility.

The real issues behind all this aren't about an alleged affair between Broadwell and Petreaus... it's about what Petreaus was doing concerning the CIA, national security, Benghazi and why on earth would Broadwell have publicly announced in a speech that the reason for the attack was because the CIA was holding prisoners there which is illegally and which she sourced to Petreaus. Why is nobody even here delving into THAT instead of gossiping about Jill Kelley and her sister schmoozing the generals that THE GENERALS allowed and encouraged?

Once again the media is shouting "Squirrel!" and running pell mell after it and DU is just barking and following along.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:58 PM

27. I agree

it's about what Petreaus was doing concerning the CIA, national security, Benghazi and why on earth would Broadwell have publicly announced in a speech that the reason for the attack was because the CIA was holding prisoners there which is illegally and which she sourced to Petreaus. Why is nobody even here delving into THAT instead of gossiping about Jill Kelley and her sister schmoozing the generals that THE GENERALS allowed and encouraged?

I agree. This is about something else. At least that is what it seems to me, too.

But, politically, what does it benefit the Democrat leaders to treat Paula Broadwell with
respect and fairness? She might really have someday become a U.S. presidential candidate. And she would certainly have qualifications that tower over the last GOP woman who ran for national office, Ms. Palin. So, Democrat leaders might not mind that Broadwell's life is over.

And, politically, what does it benefit the Republican leaders to look beyond any alleged "affair" -- when Petraeus was one of their own? Do they want to find out if Petraeus committed some act that would actually be insubordinate, or treason, or something like that? What if Petraeus held prisoners illegally, and was waterboarding? That might be A-OK with Republican leaders. Whatever.

Because it benefits neither the right nor left political leaders to seek the truth, the public is submerged in this pollution in the media of allegations of an affair, with no evidence to back it up. An "affair." That's all the explanation the sheeple need or will receive.

There are so many holes and questions in what is becoming the "official" version.

How did Jill Kelley ever meet any general in the first place? She claimed she has known Petraeus since "2007" - "for at least five years" from "MacDill." But all the talk in the media of the "Friends of MacDill Program" claims that program, giving Jill Kelley unescorted access to the base, began in "2010." So no one has explained how exactly Jill Kelley knew any generals for "at least five years."

And I am not aware of Paula Broadwell having access to the Petraeus email account. Did she? Really? And that is how she knew Jill Kelley's name and Jill's email address?

This is like a poorly written farce what is being dumped on the public. I am sorry, but that is what it seems to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:03 PM

29. I thought it was just me

The media is so blatantly obvious. Throwing out a bunch of shiny objects. Not once covering substance. Actually I noticed the story switched to the sisters when the pic of broadwell and rove came out. Which the MSM never picked up. I don't know what the story is but I do know it's not what we are "being led" to believe. They are working too hard in not taking this serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sandyshoes17 (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:16 PM

32. hahaha. This board must be pretty young.

Shiny objects are the nature of people.

As for Broadwell's UoD speech, nobody is talking about it because it's OLD NEWS now
it was already talked about, the Jill / White House stuff is brand new.

I've seen several situations like this. They are usually a weird mix
of unfathomable motives, each actor has different information, which
means their actions are often hard to understand, much less their motives.

I don't see that there's any spy stuff here now, just a bunch of
ambitious people engaged in different levels of games which came
to a head during the election, because part of it was driven by
the election... Kelleys hanging out in DC three times looking to
hook into the next administration. There's also a rumor that Broadwell
talked about running for office in NC and that's why Patreus stopped
the affair.

I have no doubt the public explosion of all this was managed
so as to come out after the election. I'm not sure who would have
been impacted worse, though, seeing as Patreaus is nominally a republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:57 PM

37. Not that young

I voted for Carter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:30 PM

68. Not that young...I voted for McGovern in 1972. The MSM has been throwing out misdirection crap....

...for as long as news has been reported....long before the US became a country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #68)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:25 AM

87. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:24 AM

85. The focus on Kelley and her sister is all down to Allen's fitness for command.

It's not 'about' them--it's about his shitty judgment in flirting and IMing like a teen ager with the 'socialite,' while he was supposed to be conducting a war. It's about HIS fitness for increased responsibility.

The focus of the investigators is ALLEN, not Kelley. The media may be stupid, but that's the media. They are stupid. Why does anyone find this surprising? Remember? Hello! They tried to tell us that a landslide was a horse race.

I don't think "DU" is "barking and following along." There's nothing wrong with commenting on reported stories--it doesn't mean people have bought the premise (or the paper). There are two tracks here, the Petraeus track and the Allen track; they intersect because of jealous pique, and the media is focusing on that because it's EASY, but the investigators have moved beyond that and I think, save a bit of snarking amusement, most people with half a brain see that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:59 PM

28. He may end up at Princeton yet

Maybe they'll say: Nothing illegal about having an affair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:30 AM

89. Highly unlikely that they'd have him. He's damaged goods. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:43 PM

22. hello, she's not a general. :)

None of them are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:14 AM

82. Bullshit. A CIA director was FIRED for mishandling classified material.

Feet were dragged in the investigation in order for the guy to be pardoned before a conviction was even thrown down (rather like Marc Rich, but everyone was so excited about him they didn't even notice this guy, I guess).

Rank is not a factor when it comes to who's "allowed" to throw that shit around, and in the world of DC, a LCOL is the one who MAKES the coffee, a bird colonel carries it.

How soon people forget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Deutch

Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996 and later that year it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials designated as unclassified. In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance. President Clinton pardoned Deutch on his last day in office.


Bottom line: classified material on your personal computer is ALWAYS a bozo no-no. It's not rocket science, it's OPSEC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #82)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:18 AM

83. there are different levels of classified

My guess is that Broadwell's material isn't very high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #83)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:34 AM

92. I've seen careers end for mishandling secret downgraded to CONF.

It doesn't have to be TS/SCI for there to be a "problem."

Apparently she had "a trove" of stuff at her house as well as on her computer--she's toast. Even if she can beg and plead her way out of jail time, and put the blame on Davey (and as the senior in the relationship, he does shoulder the blame), she's done for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #83)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:50 AM

94. Yes, there are different levels of classification

And it doesn't matter if it was confidential/secret/top secret, there are rules to handling classified material. I cannot just bring home any document I want and just plop it on my computer. There are rules and none of them include putting classified material on an unclassified system (i.e. home computer).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:19 PM

112. You are saying Petraeus aimed to leave in disgrace?

That seems far fetched. He could just step down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:25 PM

18. Positive statement "I had an affair with a married man, causing his disgrace and loss of his job"

How is that for coverage? Broadwell may have bigger concerns though if it is true that there was classified material on her computer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:26 PM

34. Excuse me, BROADWELL was the "cause"?

Fuck no! Petreaus was the one who set up Broadwell even being anywhere around him for his own self-interest and got involved in an affair with her. HE gave her those documents and HE caused his OWN downfall and disgrace.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:35 PM

35. Media says she chased him to Afghanistan

Really, you should keep up with the story if you're going to read a lot of other stuff into it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9671319/David-Petraeus-affair-with-Paula-Broadwell-timeline.html

"2010: Petraeus is put in charge of the war in Afghanistan and Broadwell would visit and observe him in Afghanistan."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-paula-broadwell-petraeus-20121110,0,2584783.story

CIA officers long had expressed concern about Broadwell's unprecedented access to the director. She frequently visited the spy agency's headquarters in Langley, Va., to meet Petraeus in his office, accompanied him on his punishing morning runs around the CIA grounds and often attended public functions as his guest, according to two former intelligence officials"

"Petraeus' staff in Afghanistan similarly had been concerned about the time Broadwell spent with their boss on her multiple reporting visits"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:11 PM

53. I missed the part where she "chased" him to Afghanistan.

She was writing a Petraeus biography, for which she had to interview him and his close associates. Where else would she do her research since Patraeus was in Afghanistan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:50 AM

71. what a pant load

Petreaus wanted her as his biographer for his own self-promotion. She didn't "chase" him anywhere - HE wanted HER around him to write and speak glowingly of him for his own self-promoting fat ego. Even if she did "chase" him, HE would have been the one throwing open the door and letting her in instead of saying thanks but no thanks, goodbye. Either way, it's STILL on him. Men don't just become a pile of brainless mush in the mere presence of a woman whether attractive or not. And if he was that utterly helpless in the presence of a female he has no business being ANYWHERE near national security... or anywhere near women.

Bottom line is that HE wanted a biographer glued to his side to feed self-promoting crap for the benefit of his own bloated ego, and HE chose HER to fill that role.

Your post is nothing but shear blame the woman sexist rubbish.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:06 AM

77. Believe what you like. I have no personal agenda other than humor.

PS you misspelled "shear".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:43 AM

93. I think they were screwing around while he was still in uniform--that's the unspoken piece.

Of course, if he admits that, that leaves him subject to recall and punishment for a number of UCMJ violations.

This is why they are so careful to INSIST that the "affair" started two months after he left the military. I don't think it did. That's just my opinion, though, that and a couple of bucks will buy you a coffee.

Now, if the "affair" started while he was still on active duty, he, as the senior officer, bears the lion's share of the "blame" and his punishment would exceed hers. However, she mishandled classified material, in a post 911 environment. Put it all together and here's the bottom line--her career is OVER. O.V.E.R. She will be lucky to exit the service without doing prison time. She'd be advised to hire the best possible legal team she can afford; one that is very familiar with the Uniform Code and OPSEC regs. I'd look to some of the jazzier DC firms that have partners that include former JAG Heads of the various services--these high profile lawyers are "fun," but they don't know their way around the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:21 PM

113. She semi-stalked the guy

and it looks like she couldn't separate her professional from personal, that's why she's being targeted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:43 PM

36. The cause was the affair. Both were equals in that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:13 AM

81. My god! Such a beam of light!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:32 PM

20. Lessee: the men are high ranked generals

who, at least at some point, risked their lives, demonstrated the ability to lead troops and for long period of times lived far from their families.

The other, at least Kelley, is a real "moocher" who is earning fame and fortune by attaching herself to others.

At least Broadwell is accepted by some institutions of higher learning as a scholar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:57 PM

26. One stereo type is that Broadwell is a mistress

Her role is no different than the general. There is no ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:11 PM

31. Totally unsurprised that the Daily Caller comments section to this article

is full of vile sexism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:44 PM

38. Are we a nation of the Rule of Law or te Rule of Men? I feel that is the underlying question here.

Because if indeed Petraeus was engaging in some type of illegal conduct prior to the attack
(and in doing so, provoked this attack somehow), then shouldn't he be subject to the Rule of Law
in this country? Otherwise, what good is it when Democrat voters elect a Democratic president
to enforce the Rule of Law?

It sounds like to me the Democratic leadership who knows about what really happened there, assuming
there are such people who found out whenever, they are reluctant to impose the Rule of Law on a general
like PEtraeus. He is a Big Hero. Untouchable. They would much rather have a bunch of photo ops with glowing
praise for him than have him tried in a court of law, if indeed that is what should really be happening.

It sometimes seems to me, and perhaps to others in this world, that the CIA operates with complete impunity and
disregard for any laws. And not prosecuting a CIA head, whomever it may, who may gave broken the law, is simply
not allowed, no matter who is president.

I don't know. It just seems to me the Democratic leadership would much prefer to hobob with generals, praise them,
take photos, than to prosecute one so that a woman like Paula Broadwell who may have had her life destroyed by
the lies of Patraeus has a chance at a life again. She doesn't. But he will go on to bigger and better things, of that I am sure.
But her life, professionally, is over. I am sure of that, too.

There is something wrong when we become a nation run by the Rule of Men instead of the Rule of Law. Something very wrong.

And I don't think Paula Broadwell can chase the head of the CIA anywhere unless he wants that to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:47 PM

39. Other countries do not recognize impunity for the USA's CIA

Italy CIA Rendition Trial: Court Upholds American Convictions
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/.../italy-cia-rendition_n_1898251.ht...
Sep 19, 2012 – ROME -- Italy's highest criminal court on Wednesday upheld the convictions of 23 Americans in the abduction of an Egyptian terror suspect from ...
Rendition Convictions of 23 Americans Upheld in Italy - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.com/.../rendition-convictions-of-23-americans-upheld-...
Sep 19, 2012 – If extradited, 22 C.I.A. employees and an Air Force colonel could face prison in the 2003 ... High Court in Italy Backs Convictions for Rendition ...

Italy court upholds "rendition" convictions on ex-CIA agents ...
articles.chicagotribune.com › Featured Articles › Human Rights
Sep 19, 2012 – ROME (Reuters) - Italy's highest court on Wednesday upheld guilty verdicts on 23 Americans for the kidnapping of an Egyptian Muslim cleric, ...
-----

It seems to me that the public needs to know if the CIA acts with impunity in all matters. Or not.

Had Paula Broadwell understood the CIA is immune from all laws, she might not have wanted to write about the head of the CIA,
recognizing such poses risks she might not know nor understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:49 PM

43. I don't see how Patraeus is untouchable.

I don't see the affair as a legal problem.

I actually don't see Broadwell's classified info as a problem per se, other than fixing it.

I'm a little concerned over how the Twins got involved with the Generals,
and what all is going on there. That seems a little sketchy but not spy-level sketchy, just ethic-wise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:32 PM

47. I don't see any "affair"

I see an "alleged" affair. That's all. And that's not much.

But, we'll see what happens. Someday her kids will be grown. They may speak about this, even if she
never does. They will have to deal with this, too.

Very sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #47)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:52 AM

95. They've both admitted to it. So, you can "see" it or not, but it's been acknowleged.

And it's been acknowledged by the two individuals involved. If that's "alleged" to you, well...whatever.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/09/3089773/petraeus-resigns-cia-after-admitting.html

“After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Petraeus said in a statement sent to the CIA workforce. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the president graciously accepted my resignation.”



In September, the FBI began to do a legal analysis to see if there were any charges that could be brought. They decided to interview Broadwell.
During her first interview, she admitted that she was having an affair with Petraeus and gave up her computer to the investigators.
On it, they found classified documents.

Petraeus was interviewed too, and he admitted to the affair as well. However, he said that he did not provide Broadwell with those classified documents. Broadwell echoed Petraeus' claims in her next interview with investigators in early November.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/classified-documents-paula-broadwell-2012-11#ixzz2CaOFXu2L

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #95)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:21 AM

99. Well, where is her statement?

You have posted a statement by him, and a claim by the FBI, with the FBI (the government) speaking for her.

I don't see any statement from her.

Look, if she ever publicly admits it, speaking freely and speaking for herself, then, I will believe her and I will believe
there was an affair.

But she has not done that. Thus, it is an alleged affair, alleged by him and by the government. But not by her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #99)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:23 AM

101. And this goes to the issue of due process and constitutional rights - and the Rule of Law

What exactly is her status that only the FBI can speak for her? That sounds like a foreign country where people have no legal rights.
We are not such a country. Are we?

I think that is why Gloria Allred also said we need to hear from her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #101)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:58 PM

125. Her friends can--and have--spoken for her.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/friend-paula-broadwell-regrets-damage-affair-david-petraeus/story?id=17757837#.UKpyTYfAe1U

So, we've heard from her--and she's admitted to the key feature of her misconduct. She's got problems with her military commission--I think she can kiss the Army goodbye. She'll have to be all she can be without the uniform, assuming she can avoid jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #99)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:34 AM

103. You do realize she's on the brink of being charged with a shit load of stuff under the Uniform Code?

Her lawyers have no doubt told her to button it the fuck up, and say NOTHING.

Are you seriously suggesting that the FBI is "making it up" and she never admitted to the affair to them and didn't have classified on her computer?

Please. I'm not really sure why you want to pretend that these events didn't happen, perhaps you'll elucidate? "Everyone's lying but Paula?" I don't think that is the case. I think that Paula is a nutter, and so is Petraeus--poor judgment, hubris, and a grand dose of assholishness, the two of 'em.

She's not going to say shit until she's out of uniform, a civilian, and she's been fined, lost lineal numbers, been discharged under adverse circumstances, and maybe even done a bit of time in the pokey. Then she'll probably get herself another ghost writer and craft a racy tell-all.

Paula Broadwell brought this shit down on herself--by emailing that Kelley woman those veiled threats. That's what started this mess. And good thing, too--it points out that we had a fuckup running CIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:03 PM

40. Seems to me the men are the ones being shamed here.


Not that women don't frequently get the short of the stick in sex scandals. It's still true that illicit sexual behavior is treated as a more damning thing for a woman to engage in than a man. We still have no words equivalent to "tramp" or "home-wrecker" that we pin on men.

But who's resigned here? Whose promotion has been delayed?

There's no question women typically get "slut shamed" where illicit sex is involved, and probably there is someone out there doing that, but I don't see a large-scale double-standard happening on this story. Clearly Petraeus is being treated as having caused his own problem.

It also appears that in a very real, reasonable sense, both Broadwell and Kelley acted in bizarre, foolish ways that caused the scandal itself to erupt. "Back off" e-mails sent from hotels and internet cafes? Getting a friendly FBI agent to launch a cybercrimes investigation?

Woman-shaming for sex, illicit or not, is not okay. But stupid shaming is fair game. Lot of stupid to go around on this one.

Allred's done some good work, but she's also a headline hound and a calculatedly abrasive shouter much of the time. She's perfectly willing to seek attention over actual principles when it suits her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #40)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:16 PM

41. I think there is indeed a lesson to be learned here, for women

And that lesson is this: Don't hang around someone for any reason if there is no criminal penalty associated with them
falsely accusing you of having an affair.

Once Petraeus had his job title changed, in Sept 2011, to head of the CIA, Paula Broadwell should have stopped
seeing him for any reason, and only conducted interviewed needed with him via email.

Because it WAS a crime for him to carry on an affair while working in the military under military law; but
it was NOT a crime for him to do so while head of the CIA.

This means: no protection for her, once he becomes head of the CIA. She should have made a decision, and a big point publicly,
that she never once saw him after he became head of the CIA.

So any alleged "affair" he later wants to allege would have thus meant: he had an affair when it was a crime for him to do so,
and he is publicly admitting to a crime.

But Paula Broadwell trusted him. I feel very sorry for her. SHe found out her trust was misplaced.

I imagine the general, Petraeus, and his wife, Holly, are laughing about the whole matter. Neither of them are "furious."
It is just another CIA plot.

However, seeing such plots in the USA, if that indeed is what it was, is pretty scary, IMO. Paula Broadwell is completely innocent IMO, except
for her failure to recognize she was in danger once he became head of the CIA as there was no criminal law for him to comply with in terms
of his conduct.

It's scary. Paula Broadwell could have been anyone's daughter. Now she is an outcast, thanks to this smearing which is life-long and permanent,
due to the internet. It's very sad to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #41)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:22 PM

42. Wait. Why would Petraeus want to out Broadwell?


Seems pretty counter-intuitive. I'm sure she's having a hard time, but didn't he lose a big job and his political future?

Won't her book continue to sell?

What would his motivation be for exposing her, by exposing himself?

Seems to me they were both humiliated, both come off looking stupid. Meanwhile, he's out of government. Long way to go to target a little-known writer.

For what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:29 PM

46. Her professional reputation is now: in the toilet

Would you hire her for anything involving the public trust, in government? I doubt she will ever
work for government again. But it would not surprise me if he does.

As for what he was targeting her for, I think he is covering up some misconduct on his part.
I don't know what. But I sense that he used her as a fall guy as explained on a previous post here.
I don't think my conclusion is way out there either. I think many people are thinking the same thing
but don't want to say it, since it is obvious everyone is supposed to believe his version of events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:24 PM

57. Broadwell probably will suffer more, propotionately

Thats culture and probably grounded in biology.

You can only stretch human nature so far.

I have seen many injustices, I committed a few and suffered many more. After awhile you realize that some things cant be fixed. Human nature is one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:28 PM

66. "Would you hire her for anything involving the public trust?"

I probably would but I'm a misfit and a maverick,
and power inevitably devolves to "yes" men and suck-ups
who play it safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #41)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:53 PM

44. "SHe found out her trust was misplaced"

what ARE you talking about?

Broadwell kicked off the events that led to her own exposure.

I don't see that Patraeus had any involvement in that.
If anything, I see the opposite.
It looks to me like he tried to keep the whole thing at an innocuous level for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:26 PM

45. What "whole thing" are you talking about? The "alleged" affair?

That's not a "whole" thing - that's HIS allegation.

What I meant was I don't think she suspected that someone who was the subject of her writings would ever
falsely accuse her of having an affair, if that's what he did. She trusted him; she wrote about him in glowing terms.
What he has since said, about her, is not so glowing - so, her trust was misplaced, if indeed he is telling a lie about having an affair.

She is prorbably shell-shocked, as is her husband, her husband's inlaws, and her own father. They never expected someone to
lie about their daughter like he did. That is what I meant. And, I still think this is an "allegation" of an affair until she confirms
something happened. She has not done that yet. And she may never, if indeed nothing happened like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #45)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:13 PM

54. wow. did you look at the pictures of them?

I must admit that's an angle I hadn't considered. i don't think its viable and probably an injection of your personal experiences but its interesting.So you think Kelley, FBI, senators are all in on this fake affair conspiracy?

Im curious, what does a fake affair buy Patraeus? Its seems far easier to claim health problems or take the princeton job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #54)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:20 PM

56. That's right - he could have resigned for "health" reasons, too.

It was unnecessary to publicly mention an "affair' and unnecessary to point a finger at Paula Broadwell.
That's all I am saying.

What everyone else is doing or why or who knows.

But it really seems like a lot of pollution and fake news articles in the media since few if any mention
an "alleged" affair -- it is done deal just about everywhere. And that simply is not reflective of real journalism,
for starters. It looks like a bunch of propaganda. Not journalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #45)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:51 PM

62. Are you saying there was no affair? She has not denied it has

she? It seems there was plenty of evidence of the affair, uncovered after Broadwell sent 'threatening emails' to Kelley and the FBI got involved.

What I object to is the FBI snooping around in people's personal 'affairs' as they did. Once they saw, as they claim, no evidence of any crime, they had no business continuing to read personal emails etc.

However, there is a certain irony to all of this. Petreaus, being a Bush guy, Broadwell and Kelley apparently as far as we know, all on board with the 'Security State' never objected to the spying on Americans. So you reap what you sow.

I have zero sympathy for any of them. They were all gung-ho war/military supporters.

My sympathy is and always was and remains with the victims of these wars they were all so thrilled and impressed by.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #62)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:09 AM

98. She told the FBI about the affair in September, when they confiscated her computer.

That's why Petraeus confessed to it--because it was already out there. All the two of them needed to do after that horse left the barn was firm up the dates and get on the same page as far as the timeline goes.

Two astoundingly stupid assholes--they deserved each other. The American people didn't deserve either one of them in the uniformed ranks--a bunch of "in the rear with the gear" bullshit artists, if you ask me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:57 AM

96. She "confirmed" way back in September when she gave the FBI her computer with the classified

material on it.

Good grief. They're both a pair of asshole-idiots. I feel sorry for anyone who had to be subordinate to either one of those hubris-laden nitwits--talk about failures of leadership, the two of 'em. They aren't fit to stack skivvies in a rear echelon warehouse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:03 PM

48. Why he didn't just resign "to spend more time with his family" - ?

Speaking of innocuous =-

What possible legitimate reason did he have to even allege an affair with anyone?

He has a Phd from Princeton, and he was thinking of going there to become president.

He could have resigned by saying he thinks now is a good time for him to "spend more time with his family"
like every other public official who ever did something wrong likes to say.

What possible benefit to him accrues from ever mentioning an affair, or Paula Broadwell?

It's not like someone walked in on them and is now telling the media what was witnessed.
It's an allegation he is making. She is destroyed professionally as a result. He, meanwhile, is still praised and flying high.
And any wrongdoing he may have done is swept under the carpet. Her future aspirations are also now swept under the carpet.

Republican leaders don't want to know if he was engaging in reckless or illegal conduct that resulted in the deaths of Americans. Why would they? He is
a Republican.

Democrat leaders don't want to know about any possible wrongdoing. Why would they? It just makes it look like generals don't take orders
from Democratic presidents.

So, it looks like a deal: Destroy the woman who was your biographer since she looks like a future presidential candidate to us, and yes, we will
sweep all your illegal and bad decisions that resulted in the deaths of Americans way under the carpet. Republican leaders won't mind, either.

Something like that. I am sad to even think that. But his mention of an affair was completely unnecessary for a resignation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #48)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:33 PM

60. interesting. you think he should have defended her

Not sure they had that level of relationship, although the chivalry code says that he should have, no matter what, yes?

Welcome to 2012. I wouldnt do it. Not anymore. but otoh, i probably wouldnt get into that situation anymore too. for me its just sex buddies now, on the rare occasions it happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #60)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:32 AM

91. Ha! Ironic that "chivalry code" would raise its head in

this discussion. In the Beltway, power seems to be the key to sex and a lot of it. And that works both ways. Funny, looks, money, even Hollywood celebrity play second fiddle with a lot of women in the D.C. environs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:05 AM

97. You have the timeline all fucked up--she admitted the affair FIRST. In September.

To the FBI.

When she handed over her computer as a consequence of the whole Kelley email craziness.

Then, they found the classified material.

Petraeus mentioned the affair because she had already admitted it. Way back in SEPTEMBER.

Likely, he wanted to make it clear that he was leaving for screwing around, not for screwing up Benghazi. That's why he mentioned it, because people would have assumed the latter, otherwise.

He had to go, regardless of whether both reasons applied. Better to go for a bit of frigging in the rigging than messing up an intel operation.

Second acts are possible after sexual indiscretion (see Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, e.g.) but they're far more difficult following professional incompetence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:06 PM

49. Bismark, ND high school of Paula Broadwell - profile of her in current newspaper in CharlotteNC

Here is an article about Paula Broadwell's days in high school. Does she really sound like the type who
would throw away all her achievements on: an affair?

...In the 1991 edition of the Century “Spirit” yearbook, Paula got a full-page profile, the only student getting such attention.

It noted that she was so busy with activities that “her schoolwork and friendships suffered a little from the lack of time she was able to put into them.”

And the article posed the question that Paula was so busy that she missed out on being a teenager.

“I don’t think I missed out on being a teenager,” Paula replied. “But through the many opportunities I’ve been given, I’ve lived life to the fullest – giving the best that I had so the best would come back.”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/11/17/3672654/paula-broadwells-life-took-shape.html#storylink=cpy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #49)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:07 PM

50. She sounds like a Little Mary Sunshine - but there's no place for such a person now

It is really sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #50)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:10 PM

52. Also, "overachiever" for a man is a positive; for a woman like Paula Broadwell, it's a death-toll

I have seen so many negative articles on Paula Broadwell - many mentioning she is an "overachiever."
Like it's a huge negative. But I have not seen any negative articles using that word for a man. Men can overachieve. Women? No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:22 AM

100. Yes--driven, 'anything-to-win' personality. That idiot Petraeus was quite the prize.

You need to get off the horse, though--she admitted the affair to the FBI back in September--she was the one who OUTED Petraeus. She threw her secret ex-boyfriend under the bus.

Be interesting to learn who ENDED that little affair...that's where there might be motivation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #100)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:24 AM

102. Gloria Allred disagrees with you

From article:

"I hope that one day all of the women will be able to speak and give a fuller and more positive statement about who they really are and what their role was in this matter,” she wrote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #102)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:48 AM

107. No she doesn't. "One day" doesn't mean "today."

If she were representing Broadwell, her first sentence would be "You shut up--say NOTHING to NO ONE--I do the talking."

You don't know much about how GA operates, apparently. The only "talking" her clients do are in carefully scripted venues.

I would say she agrees with me entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:09 PM

51. Let's see..

..... their "good thing" went to hell because ONE of them sent threatening emails and the OTHER went to the police.

Just exactly how much more STUPID could the media characterize them than they ARE?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:15 PM

55. How do you even know any emails to Jill Kelley were actually from Paula Broadwell?

I post this just to show it seems we in the public have no idea what is ever going on
really with our government. That is what it seems sometimes.



EPA chief’s secret ‘alias’ email account revealed

The name Richard Windsor may sound innocuous, but it is allegedly one of the secret “alias” email accounts used by Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

“That is the name — sorry, one of the alias names — used by Obama’s radical EPA chief to keep her email from those who ask for it,” Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of the new book “The Liberal War on on Transparency,” told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.

In his book, Horner revealed the existence of “alias” email accounts used by EPA administrators. The first such transparency dodge, he writes, came from Carol Browner, former director of the Obama White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy and Bill Clinton’s EPA administrator.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/epa-chiefs-secret-alias-email-account-revealed/#ixzz2CXK4YufJ






GOP accuses EPA chief of using secret email



...Lawmakers are citing a recent Daily Caller story alleging that Jackson has used “alias email accounts,” including one under the name “Richard Windsor.”



“This reported incident follows similarly secretive and highly questionable methods of communication by senior officials at science agencies within the White House, Department of Commerce (DOC), and Department of Energy (DOE),” the Republicans said in a news release. Committee Chairman Ralph Hall and five other Republicans on the panel sent letters Friday to the EPA, the White House and other agencies.

The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Earlier this year, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee raised red flags after learning that an Energy Department employee had used a Gmail account to send confidential information to a company that went on to get a $1.4 billion partial loan guarantee.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83990.html#ixzz2CXJajBku

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:24 AM

70. FBI. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:38 AM

105. Uh.....they confiscated HER COMPUTER. After she confessed the affair to the FBI. In September. n

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:25 PM

58. And how did Paula Broadwell even know the name Jill Kelley or what is Jill's email address?

I must have missed the newspaper articles explaining that part of this national soap opera.

Finally = I am sure -- sure -- there are others in the public just like me who are waiting to see
what Paula Broadwell has to say about all this.

And who don't believe a word of what Petraeus said about having an affair.

I am sure I am not the only one in the public who wonders what is really going on,
and realizes: we may never know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #58)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:41 PM

61. small circles

My best friend from high school is dating a woman much younger. he ended up with her husband's and her other boyfriend's number almost by chance because they are interconnected in different ways. happened to me, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:08 AM

79. If I was on a jury, here are four facts I would agree are true

1) Paula Broadwell said something at her videotaped University of Denver speech that was later disputed by the CIA as not being true --
so, there is indeed a controversy here;

2) The father of Paula Broadwell immediately spoke on the record to The Daily News in support of his daughter, claiming the whole
affair was a "smokescreen" covering up something else (which tells me he is a witness in that his daughter may have confided in him prior to
the media onslaught);

3) Both Tampa twins in this matter are in fact lawyers, and one or both of them is whistle-blower lawyer;

and

4) The FL Bar website has a very advanced search function (which might have enabled Paula Broadwell to locate a
whistle-blower lawyer, who turned out be a Tampa Twin, and to email this twin about some matter Broadwell was trying to blow the whistle on).

Thinking she is acting patriotically, Broadwell tries to blow the whistle.

Broadwell does not realize no one in govt wants any whsitle to be blown, fearing for the safety and national security of the country, as blowing this whistle might provoke an attack.

Something like that.

I am sympathetic to any desire to protect the USA.

But I am also of the belief that Paula Broadwell is completely innocent of any affair -- and may well have believed she
was doing her patriotic duty by attempting to blow a whistle.

I am not convinced at all she ever had an affair with the general.

He could have resigned to "spend more time with his family" if he wanted to resign.

Mentioning an affair, and Broadwell, was completely unnecessary in terms
of any desire he had to separate from employment.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:24 AM

86. Interesting choice. I consider the father to be the least revelant

He has a personal stake but no personal involvement in the events.

I'll grant you that he's more relevant than Bubba the Love Sponge, however.

I'm late for my breakfast group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:30 AM

90. And, if by chance I am correct, then there should be some sort of punishment for Petraeus

I am sure ANY political party would rather have photo ops with "hero" generals,
but if a general turned CIA director is in fact taking illegal actions on his own, he needs to be punished.
We are a nation with respect for the Rule of Law. Sometimes it may be difficult when those who break the law are hero generals,
if that is something that has happened. But respect for the Rule of Law is what makes the USA the envy of the world and
keeps us as a trusted friend to other countries. Collapsing to the Rule of Men means we are like other countries run by dictators.
That is my personal opinion. It is OK to discipline an out of line CIA director, even if he is a Hero General. It is not OK, however,
to destroy an innocent woman who believes she is acting lawfully and patriotically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:28 PM

59. No modern farce is complete

without an appearance from Gloria Allred. The most dangerous place in the world is not Afghanistan or Gaza, but anywhere between her and a camera.

Funny that she can muster up a lather for the fake "ambassador".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #59)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:11 PM

63. When this broke last Friday, I was wondering where is Gloria Allred?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #63)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:30 PM

67. She's late. Several articles have already been written

condemning the treatment of the women as opposed to the Generals. Frankly I find this all very insulting to women. Presumably these women were intelligent, educated and wealthy enough to hob nob with top military brass.

I assume they were more than capable of making the decisions they made. If you choose to have an affair with a married man, you should be aware of what you are doing. If you choose to have an affair with the head of the CIA you should assume you are under a microscope. I am assuming they were smart enough to know the game they were playing and have zero sympathy for any of them, equally, men and woman alike.

I reserve all my sympathy, sorry Gloria, for the mothers in Iraq whose children were blown to bits by our war machine, which all these characters were a part of. They are lucky by comparison frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #67)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:11 AM

80. " wealthy enough to hob nob with top military brass"

Not based on the Twin's lawsuits, debt levels and credit rating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:04 AM

72. Who cares?

 

The women are Republicans, so it's funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftlibdem420 (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:47 AM

74. People around the world are talking about it, too

And apparently, not everyone believes the media version. Here is a comment from a poster on a UK newspaper site:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/petraeus-scandal-readers-guide-cast


Article title: "Petraeus scandal: a readers' guide to the clandestine soap opera and its cast

As the story entangles more characters, use our guide to keep track of the details that would make a TV writer's head spin"


Comments....

DrSigmundFraud

15 November 2012 6:39PM

"Paula Broadwell's father, Jerry Kranz, tells the Daily News that "this is about something else entirely, and the truth will come out".

It is about something else Benghazi.

I believe her when she said the attack was by militants trying to free prisoner's.

We know there was a militant attack that was not a result of the spontaneous protests and there were detention centres run by the CIA they have operated them in this country too.

If such a facility was been operated it would have to be out of sight it would also have to be a place agents could go without arousing suspicion somewhere safe and secure like an diplomatic premises.

These are the places where the rendition suspects are handed over and terror suspects can be interrogated on site they definitely exist and the CIA are the ones who operate them.

If it was an attack on one of these facilities it has major implications, if the President knew about these centres he has knowingly deceived the public by saying they were no more but if he does not know then he has been knowingly deceived by the CIA.
Neither things are good either the man America has just re-elected is a liar or he has no control over his subordinates and the CIA is a complete law unto itself that does not even obey the president.
I think Broadwell has found out something about Benghazi i.e the truth and has been caught going through the CIA directors e-mails to get it.
The FBI said there was extracts of Petraeus's email's being sent to a third party (Kelley) the so called "love rival" and Petraeus was investigated and cleared of passing information to other parties, im guessing Broadwell.
Broadwell gave a lecture about a month ago where she claimed the attack on Benghazi was an attempt to free militants where did that information come from?
The CIA directors e-mails the FBI claim Broadwell had access to would be a good place to gain such "proof" and would explain why Petraeus was asked about passing information on.
I think Broadwell found out about Benghazi from Petraeus's e-mail's passed extracts of the e-mails to Kelley and got picked up by the FBI , Petraeus got accused of passing Broadwell the information and during the investigation the details of their affair came out.

Is the affair real?
If Petraeus had knowingly or not let someone find out the truth and then go public with it even if it was not his fault he is not fit for his job he has slipped up and needs to go.
The affair is a good reason for his resignation
and Broadwell's "threat's" to her " love rival" Kelley would be a good way of explaining Broadwell's passing the Benghazi proof from Petraeus's email extracts to a potential "whistleblower".
Im not convinced there is an "affair" it certainly is not the cause of these people coming to the FBI's attention but i think it is a cover story for what they really have been up to or at least what they have been talking about.

Regardless of what is true and what is not about the "affair" if secret detention centres are being run in other countries with or without presidential permission i am sure there are plenty people out there who do not want that known and will do what they can to keep it that way.
The "affair" story is already making any potential whistleblower out to be a lying dishonest cheat that lives a secret live from those closest to them so true or not it serves many purposes and there is no need to bury the truth as long as you can stop people finding out what it is.


The media are great in these situations there are so many conflicting stories of if's, but's and maybe's whatever the truth is finding it will soon be like looking for a needle in a haystack made of needles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:46 AM

73. Why is she giving an interview to the DAILY FRIGGING CALLER?

That's a wingnut piece of crap and they -- the right -- are the ones shopping the meme of "poor little generals, ensnared by putanas"--not the left.


The sense I'm hearing on the left is "STUPID, RECKLESS, INTEMPERATE generals--being led around by the Little Head."

There's plenty of innuendo and Benny-Hill-like conduct on both sides (as there always is when people admit to an affair as both Petraeus and Broadwell have done), but I don't see the women being painted as temptresses. Stupid people, maybe, but not the lead actors in this sordid drama.

I will say that it is becoming very clear that Paula Broadwell is an empty uniform--she has a brilliant exterior but not much else. She can talk a good game, looks good, is extremely physically fit with the running and push ups and what not, but she lies like a rug about her accomplishments, more frighteningly, she lies with a straight face about what she's authorized to do, she can't write to save her life, her judgment is poor in the EXTREME and she appears to have serious issues in the way she has managed her personal as well as professional life. Ms. Kelley looks like a bit of a social climber with grifter tendencies, but that doesn't make her a sex bomb or a prostitute.

The real and obvious fools in this pathetic little playlet are the very, VERY senior leaders, the ones with the "power," who--terrifyingly--have shown the American people that they can be conned, so damn easily, to think that their shit is ice cream.

I think Gloria Allred does great work as a rule, but I think she's yelling too hard with this exclusive interview at the very people who just don't give a shit about women, and who are still smarting from not being able to elect Mitt "Keep 'em Barefoot and Pregnant" RMoney.

All the readership of the Daily Caller will do is MOCK her. It's all they can manage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #73)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:48 AM

75. She responded to their request for comment

That is why her comments appear in that media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #75)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:07 AM

78. Love the use of the term "spokes (sic) exclusively" to describe an email.

It just shows how they won't hesitate to twist words and meanings.

Daily Caller = Poison.

Large grain of salt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #73)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:15 AM

109. Ths whole mess is disgusting...both the men and the women involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:21 AM

84. Classified Information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information

Top Secret (TS) - The highest level of classification of material on a national level. Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available.

Secret - Such material would cause "serious damage" to national security if it were publicly available.

Confidential - Such material would cause "damage" or be "prejudicial" to national security if publicly available.

Restricted - Such material would cause "undesirable effects" if publicly available. Some countries do not have such a classification.

Unclassified - Technically not a classification level, but is used for government documents that do not have a classification listed above. Such documents can sometimes be viewed by those without security clearance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:36 AM

104. Allred is wrong ....These women had a motive and they deserve what they get....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tippy (Reply #104)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:40 AM

106. I think SNL had the public reaction correct in their opening last night

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:57 AM

108. Why are these women in Tampa entertaining military brass

with fancy parties?

Why are they exchanging any e-mails at all?

Broadwell's connection I understand. And, well love affairs take people by surprise sometimes.

It isn't just about Broadwell and Kelly. Those two are just the tip of the iceberg. Why aren't our generals focused on winning wars? Why are they hobnobbing with the society circle in Tampa? There is something really sick about that. Meanwhile, ordinary soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan and were being killed in Iraq.

If they are going to go to war, they should focus on winning and getting their troops out and home and into safety.

It isn't a matter of the persons Broadwell and Kelly. They could be Molly and Fatso for all that matters. It's about why our generals and the head of the CIA aren't focusing on their work and their families. That's what I want to know. They shouldn't have time for all the social activity. If they do, they need to resign, all of them. I know men and women who are missing out on their children's early years because they are serving overseas. If these military brass were doing their jobs and our commanders did in WWII, a lot of our soldiers could come home.

It isn't a matter of women or men. A pox on all the houses of the people who are attending parties with string quartets instead of getting our soldiers home after completing their work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #108)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:47 AM

110. Well said. Access to CentCom if you are a "Party Giver...who is in debt for millions"

and these Generals think they aren't being compromised?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #108)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:21 PM

114. This shit happens more often than people realize.

It's very common around any major command. Sometimes, there is a "purpose" behind the parties--things like creating goodwill between the military and the civilian community, or trying to persuade a mayor or other elected official to allow some "military-ish" thing to happen out in the community, or to apologize for bad behavior by someone on an installation...or simply to keep social ties in play in the event they are needed in the future.

Having suffered through more than a few of these soirees, I don't "get" the thrill, myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #108)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:47 PM

115. I agree; that disclosure has really opened people's eyes

I had no idea these four star generals and high level military people spend so much time at "parties" or
that MacDill has a golf course, etc.

Other than the young men and women being blown to bits in battle, is there anyone else who is risking their lives
in these wars? It sounds like the generals are all in the back room determining which social invite they will accept or reject.

More here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-scandal-puts-four-star-general-lifestyle-under-scrutiny/2012/11/17/33a14f48-3043-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

Petraeus scandal puts four-star general lifestyle under scrutiny

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

The elite regional commanders who preside over large swaths of the planet don’t have to settle for Gulfstream V jets. They each have a C-40,...


Do taxpayers really have to foot the bill for all this? People in this country are losing their jobs, losing their homes to foreclosure, and have no health insurance; meanwhile, vets are homeless and these military elite are acting like billionaires on the taxpayer dime. Where is the belt-tightening for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #115)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:27 PM

118. MacDill has TWO golf courses.

The reason that the base CO opened up his base to people who were background-checked is because the taxpayers are NOT paying for that shit. Those are non-appropriated funds instrumentalities--they must either self-sustain or they must be CLOSED.

Now, if we add 800 souls to the base population, who join the O-Club at a dues of $17 per month--when we do the math, that's $13,600 a MONTH, $163,200 a YEAR--that'll pay for a lot of greens upkeep, now, won't it? These 800 souls will spend money at the base restaurants and in the "mall" and food court area at the PX/Commissary (though they won't be allowed into those stores) and keep those businesses viable, too. The businesses "kick back" into the MWR/MWA funds and that enables that department to fund stuff for the junior enlisted at a cheaper cost to them. That "Friends of MacDill" thing was a QOL business decision made by the base CO to keep those businesses operating on base -- nothing more. The people that were picked to participate were ones that had a lower probability of being troublemakers (getting drunk and in fights, etc.) and who were likely to use the golf course, the club, etc., and spend money there.

Of course, Ms. Kelley kinda blew that shit to hell when she phoned her FBI pal and put a spotlight on the program, but this program has been working for quite a few years, now and the CO of the base is not the originator of the program--it was created by his predecessor.

Most flag/general officers that I have known, who live in assigned government quarters, don't have "palatial" homes. They do have nice quarters, the bulk of which are "public entertainment" spaces. They don't generally live in those spaces-they're like museum areas. They live in a smaller part of the home day-to-day, normally.

Above two star, that's when the perks really start (some exceptions for the two stars in major command overseas). As often as not, a flag officer working at the Pentagon, unless he has some major-ass fancy title, drives his own car, lives in his own house, and doesn't have any "servants." The "servants" are associated with command positions that are three and four star. The "chefs" are military cooks--admittedly, good ones, but guys/gals who rotate in and out of the duty. Same deal with the schmucks (an aide (junior officer, usually--occasionally as high as field grade, and an enlisted person who keeps the uniforms looking spiffy--rather like a valet)--they come with the JOB, they don't follow the person around. The people who do the maintenance on the house are assigned, technically, to the HOUSE, not the principal living in the house.

Overseas, where flag/general officers are assassination targets, they have drivers who are trained in escape/evasion and who know how to drive a hard (armored) car. Some have bodyguards (or PSDs--Personal Security Detachments) but many do not. Any flag/general who "summons" a choir or a quartet to personally serenade them is going to get fired, quickly--those assets can only be requisitioned with justification, in writing, in advance. Now, that justification might include building community goodwill, but the smart leaders do not abuse the privilege.

The aircraft are often an issue--the whole "austerity/luxury" cycle seems to wax and wane routinely, with flags taking re-purposed support aircraft for a time, then transitioning to civilian luxury aircraft, then going back to the more "operational" models.

I don't disagree with many aspects of the article, however, it is important to distinguish between a four star in a specific position and one who is a program manager at the five-sided funny farm. The latter guy doesn't get all the perks...even though he (and so far, usually a he though that's changing) is often making bigger decisions as to the over-arching direction of the military (either logistically, fiscally or operationally) than some of these "in command" party-goers.

Gates' comments are salient, too, as well as accurate in the larger picture-- however, you'll find that the flag/general officers will tend to close ranks and not 'dis' one another. They'll try to pour oil on the waters here to protect their assets.

I will also say, though, that it seems that under Dumbya, the "perks" have grown once again--under Clinton, that shit was pared down considerably but it's like weeds--if you don't chop that stuff down regularly, it grows like crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #118)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:43 PM

119. The program has only existed since "2010"

Your post says this Friends of MacDill program "has been working for quite a few years" but the Tampa Times repeatedly
reports this program has only been in existence less than two years - since "2010" --

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2012/nov/15/6/jill-kelley-case-prompts-review-of-friends-of-macd-ar-565928/

In 2010, former base commander Col. Lenny Richoux initiated the "Friends of MacDill" program, which allowed unescorted access onto the base for community leaders who passed a criminal background check.

Beyond that, no one has ever attempted to explain how Jill Kelley has known anyone from the military for "more than five years" (since 2007)
as she claimed immediately to the press. Prior to this 2010 Friends of MacDill program, she would need a government escort to go to MacDill,
and no one has ever attempted to report who it is that first brought her to MacDill back in 2007.

As I said, to me, in my personal opinion, this story is like a poorly written farce, with a lot of holes all over the place. Will anyone
ever find out the truth? I don't know. But again, I agree with the attorney Gloria Allred, who is basically saying all the facts are not in yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #119)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:34 PM

120. Yes--they are in their third year, and will soon be in their 4th. Your point?

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

They have three years of experience with the program--they started with 200 souls, and quickly expanded the program to 800 when they saw the revenues that were enjoyed as a consequence.

"Friends of MacDill" is what other commands have done, only on a much larger scale because the installation has some prime facilities and because 80 percent of the military population of the base lives OFF-base, not on the facility. It's an effort to do outreach to the place where most of the service personnel (to include foreign military assigned to the base) live. Also, many civilians volunteer to help the military with Quality of Life undertakings like outreach to vets or wounded warriors, and the access helps with coordination.

It has nothing to do with Petraeus, or Allen, or Kelley, or Broadwell. It's an installation commander's solution for a vexing MWR shortfall, that has the added benefit of building community ties, and it had to be approved all the way up the chain to the USAF Secretary as an ADMINISTRATIVE fix for a fiscal problem.

Ms. Kelley wasn't meeting these generals on the base, you know--she was meeting them at soirees off base. Weekend parties. EVENING parties. We don't even know if she golfs. Her social climbing would not have depended on a base pass, not by any measure.

The FOM program, too, is a DAYTIME program, designed to bring in revenue to the O-Club and the golf course. I can guarantee you that if the program ceases, the first people who will suffer are the junior enlisted, who won't enjoy subsidized amusements at the MWR tix/tours shop or at their club/bowling alley, etc. However, your link simply says that the "annual review" of the program has been moved up owing to the attention that it has received. I'll bet they keep the program. I'm betting that it's worth at least a quarter of a million, conservatively, a year in MWR revenues. The O Club alone gets $163K p.a. with just dues--not having to do anything to make that money.

If not for the juxtaposition of one single member of this program to this scandal, it would continue on happily and no one would have noticed it--it's nothing more than a base moneymaker, because Congress does not fund NAF instrumentalities, and they haven't for many years now.

The behavior of the generals is a separate issue. I know people not familiar with the military can't see the distinction, but not everything is a conspiracy, and this program is nothing more than a way to pull in cash for non-appropriated funds efforts.

FWIW, Kelley didn't get her MacDill pass until AFTER Petraeus left MacDill--but she was throwing parties for the bigwigs--AND Dave and Holly Petraeus-- well before the program was even initiated. By the time she got her pass, Petraeus was gone from FL and in Afghanistan--so it is very likely that she DID know the family for five years or more, particularly since the photos making the rounds of her with them are from way back when he was assigned to MacDill and on active duty--in 2009 or thereabouts--and he assumed his assignment at MacDill way back in 2008. She was probably a member of the Welcome Wagon. She certainly became close with Mrs. P, from all accounts, down the years.

You're talking apples and oranges, here, or, more appropriately, putting the Friends of MacDill cart ahead of the Throwing Parties for the Petraeuses Horse. Kelley was entertaining Petraeus (and his wife) way back when he was a general assigned to MacDill, way before she was admitted to this Friends program (which, again, happened AFTER he left the base).


General David Petraeus kisses Jill Kelley after accepting community service award presented at Kelley's home during the summer of 2011.



From left: Gen David Petraeus, Scott Kelley and his wife, Jill, and Holly Petraeus are shown at the 2010 Gasparilla parade in Tampa, Florida. Photo: Tampa Bay Times


Kelley and her sister with Holly Petraeus...and is that Holly's daughter?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #120)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:28 PM

123. Your post says this Friends of MacDill program "has been working for quite a few years"

I don't think "two years" -- since 2010, when it began -- can be accurately described as "quite a few years" as you said.
That was my point, and I already clearly stated it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anobserver2 (Reply #123)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:27 AM

124. Three years is a few. Your nitpicking isn't taken. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread