HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » More trouble for Petraeus...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:17 AM

More trouble for Petraeus, it looks like....Petraeus staff investigated over Broadwell access

A federal investigation of how David Petraeus' biographer obtained numerous classified records is focusing on whether the retired general's staff gave her sensitive documents at his instruction, according to federal officials familiar with the inquiry.
Petraeus aides and other high-ranking military officials were often tasked by Petraeus and other top commanders to provide military records and other documents to Paula Broadwell for her work as Petraeus' biographer, former staff members and other officials told The Washington Post.
Broadwell, a married Army reservist, frequently visited Petraeus in Afghanistan when he was chief of U.S. Central Command and in charge of the war there. She repeatedly sought records that she said Petraeus wanted her to have, according to the former staff members and officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry is ongoing.
The focus on the role of military staff members adds a new chapter to the complicated ethics scandal that led Petraeus to abruptly resign as CIA director on Nov. 9. His affair with Broadwell also has put the personal communication of Marine Gen. John Allen, Petraeus' successor as commander of the Afghan war, under scrutiny by the Pentagon.


http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/petraeus-staff-investigated-over-broadwell-access

51 replies, 5374 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 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply More trouble for Petraeus, it looks like....Petraeus staff investigated over Broadwell access (Original post)
MADem Nov 2012 OP
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #1
MADem Nov 2012 #2
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #4
Tutonic Nov 2012 #7
Liberal_in_LA Nov 2012 #34
Little Star Nov 2012 #12
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #3
Schema Thing Nov 2012 #11
malaise Nov 2012 #5
kitt6 Nov 2012 #6
Berlum Nov 2012 #8
MADem Nov 2012 #14
Berlum Nov 2012 #16
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #9
MADem Nov 2012 #18
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #23
MADem Nov 2012 #33
yardwork Nov 2012 #10
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #13
Berlum Nov 2012 #17
RoccoR5955 Nov 2012 #15
Berlum Nov 2012 #19
RoccoR5955 Nov 2012 #20
Berlum Nov 2012 #22
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #24
Generic Brad Nov 2012 #44
MADem Nov 2012 #21
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #25
MADem Nov 2012 #27
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #29
MADem Nov 2012 #30
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #32
MADem Nov 2012 #35
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #36
MADem Nov 2012 #39
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #40
MADem Nov 2012 #41
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #42
MADem Nov 2012 #45
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #46
MADem Nov 2012 #47
RobertEarl Nov 2012 #48
MADem Nov 2012 #50
TorchTheWitch Nov 2012 #37
MADem Nov 2012 #38
TorchTheWitch Nov 2012 #49
MADem Nov 2012 #51
RoccoR5955 Nov 2012 #26
MADem Nov 2012 #31
Cerridwen Nov 2012 #28
KoKo Nov 2012 #43

Response to MADem (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:51 AM

1. MRFF take on Petraeus.................

 

Ironically enough, Petraeus was a vocal advocate of military "Spiritual Fitness." Spiritual Fitness is little more than a disingenuous and transparent Trojan horse for Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism within the U.S. Armed Forces. Indeed, it is a sinister Star Chamber, an unlawful means by which nationalism and militarism are merged with sectarian Christian zeal. One of the core components of Spiritual Fitness is matrimonial loyalty, but since when were religious fundamentalism and outright hypocrisy mutually exclusive? But I digress…


MRFF= Mil. Religious Freedom Foundation

http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/michaelweinstein/petraeus-should-have-been-fired-years-ago

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:10 AM

2. My take on him? He's a bullshitter and a liar.

I can't prove it, but I'd bet a donut that he was schtupping his "biographer" back when they were goo-goo eyeing one another while he was still in uniform and she was scampering around behind him in Afghanistan wearing inappropriate garments (skin tight) for the situation and the culture. She was an idiot too, but he's the senior, so he takes the biggest hit for stupidity.

If he's a religious freak, or pretending to be one, well, he's a stupid hypocrite as well, then, isn't he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:17 AM

4. Yup...............

 

If he's a religious freak, or pretending to be one, well, he's a stupid hypocrite as well, then, isn't he?




That is one of the best parts of his crapola, all his war plans were crap, all his social skills lies & he fits the typical frame for an evangelical, a lying hypocritical puddle of dog poop.

Hope to see his "historical schtupping" exposed, loss of a few stars & pay cuts seem like the very least we owe him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:44 AM

7. This is the second biographer. Look at where the first one landed...

It paid to sex the old general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tutonic (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:00 AM

34. where did the first one land?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:04 AM

12. I agree...

He's a bullshitter, a liar, possibly a religious freak and a friggin hypocrite!

I don't like that man one little bit! Yuck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:16 AM

3. Irony has long since been dead, cremated and its ashes placed in a subduction zone

Hoocoodanoed that a blowhard Christianist would turn out to be a hypocrite of the highest order?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:45 AM

11. One of the two ex-seals who died in Benghazi was a member of MRFF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:19 AM

5. Any bets that details were being fed straight to

Rove and the ReTHUG neo-cons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:22 AM

6. Hell of a job Petraeus!

 

If I wasn't so old I'd leave this country., immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:19 AM

8. Deep Doo Doo (R) and the Mysterious Emails (R)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:19 AM

14. It was worth five edits to finally produce that image...HILARIOUS!! A+++! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:55 PM

16. Yeah - some days ya gotta work it

But I agree, it was worth 5 tries...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:22 AM

9. If Margaretha Geertruida Zelle had been alive and wanted to be a Petraeus' biographer,

 

what are the odds that he would have "co-operated" with her?

Unfortunately for her, after she obtained all kinds of classified and top secret information from French generals, they ultimately executed her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:58 PM

18. Margaretha was not without her talents, that's for certain.

She was probably smarter than Ms. Broadwell, too, I suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:43 PM

23. And, excuse me for saying so, probably smarter than Petraeus as well.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:57 AM

33. Of that, I don't think there's any doubt! Petraeus has always been VERY overrated, IMO. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:23 AM

10. So Petraeus was part of that religious fundamentalism in the military?

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:15 AM

13. Xtian nutz in US Armed Forces is one of the most dangerous things on the planet.............

 

The more they can be exposed for wing nuttery & dominionism/theocracy, the safer we & the whole effing world is.
Xtian MIL nutz screwing up, is something I watch for 24/7.

And aside from DANGER, they make every one around them miserable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:57 PM

17. Got his Fundie Freak On. They usually do. While preaching to everyone else.

That is why no one respects Fundie Republicans any more.
Too DAMN much rank hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:44 PM

15. Can someone answer this?

Why isn't Petraus in a cell and being treated like Bradley Manning? He potentially could be guilty of the same thing, and more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:16 PM

19. He's a RepubliFundie

so there you have it.

They are special.

Not subject to normal moral or legal constraints.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:43 PM

20. Why are they special

and not subject to the same carp that the rest of us are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:35 PM

22. Ask a Republican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:44 PM

24. Eric Holder.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:24 PM

44. Too many Americans falsely equate morality with religion

While a person can be both moral and religious, there are plenty out there who are moral without being religions or religious without being moral. Patraeus is living, breathing proof that the two are not synonymous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 06:05 PM

21. He didn't give anything to Wikileaks. He just gave it to his girlfriend, who had a clearance.

She then took the material and mishandled it.

An investigation has been done. They haven't coughed up any "jailable" offenses for him. Yet, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 07:34 PM

25. He denied giving anything to his girlfriend.

So either he's lying or he doesn't share your opinion that giving classified info to his girlfriend was covered by HER security clearance, which surely was not the same as the guy who was running the wars, and then running the CIA.

He is being investigated now on the issue of 'security risk'. His girlfriend shared some of that information, she claims, in a public talk she gave, informing her audience that she 'knew more about Bengazi than they probably did'. In that talk she stated that the real reason for the attack was that the US had prisoners in the Annex, militia members and the attack was a rescue mission.

Revealing that info put far more lives at risk (Oct 26th) than any of the info leaked by Manning. According to Gates, nothing leaded by Manning had any effect on NS. But to reveal what she did publicly while the situation was still ongoing, that was, to be kind, stupid to say the least, but then we know she is not stupid.

The claims she made have been denied btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:25 AM

27. I read that he directed his subordinates to give her access--that, IMO, is the same

as taking the action oneself. The shit, as they say, rolls downhill.

We have no clue--well, I don't, since I no longer have access to classified material, as I am retired--if Ms. Broadwell was speaking from actual knowledge of classified sources/methods at her little public talk, or if--as she is wont to do--she was talking out her ass. She has a reputation for making shit up and telling huge lies (as she did when she pretended had authorization to formulate a working group, when she had no such authorization whatsoever). Now, unless you have personal and direct knowledge that her gum-flapping WAS a breach of OPSEC, and wasn't just bullshittery or invention on her part, you're simply making assumptions.

FWIW, it's not the results of the breach that always matter. People can be screwed for mishandling material that doesn't "escape." I know a guy who mishandled--in a very minor way that did not result in any classification breach or loss of material--information that was mostly confidential, with maybe one or two secret docs. He was FIRED. He lost his job, he lost his clearance, and as a consequence, he lost his career--which up to that point had been promising--as a commissioned officer. It happens.

Edited to add: http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019735870_petraeus23.html

Aides to David Petraeus and other high-ranking military officials were often asked by Petraeus and other top commanders to provide military records and other documents to Paula Broadwell for her work as Petraeus' biographer, former staff members and other officials said....Broadwell, a married Army reservist with a "top-secret" security clearance, frequently visited Petraeus in Afghanistan when he was chief of U.S. Central Command and in charge of the war there. She repeatedly sought records that she said Petraeus wanted her to have, according to the former staff members and officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

...Petraeus and Broadwell have told FBI investigators that Petraeus did not provide her with classified information, law-enforcement officials said. Attorneys for the two declined to respond to specific questions for this article, as did Broadwell's spokeswoman. FBI officials also declined to comment.


SHE said....and she LIES. So who knows what the truth is at this point in time? I would imagine Petraeus has to be very careful and not throw her under the bus, because she could cost him more than most people make each year in retirement income if she suggests to investigators that they were an "item" when he was running the war in uniform in Afghanistan. They're both on a tightrope, eyeing one another, at this stage, I suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:32 AM

29. So

Petraeus really, really fucked up and gave her access?

The bum needs to be in prison.

That poor girl, misused and abused and led astray by a freakin' general who has ruined her life and gave away secrets.

It is a wonder he was protected as long as he was. Must be lots of $$ behind him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:44 AM

30. Not necessarily--see the link I added in the above post.

Ms. Broadwell may have lied to Petraeus's staff, and TOLD them that Petraeus wanted her to have this thing or that thing, and they stupidly--or maybe NOT so stupidly, because they knew she was schtuping the guy and they wanted to promote in an "everyone promotes" Wartime Army--went along with the program. She had the clearance, the only question was, did she bullshit her way into getting access?

Petraeus--if he was engaged in improper liaisons while in uniform--was the senior, and if that is demonstrated to be the case, he shares the bulk of the responsibility for the affair. However, she was plainly not coerced, forced, or threatened to participate--there was no "bad fitrep" or "shitty follow-on assignment" held over her head--in fact, she by all accounts was an eager participant in the misadventure--and as a field grade officer, she fucking KNEW better. She'd had plenty of ethics training, herself--or she had someone sign off that she'd had the training.

He was Porgie's Golden Boy. I thought he sucked, and I thought Rick Shinseki was right all those years ago. Had they listened to him, we'd probably have far fewer dead on the rolls.

This whole business, IMO, is still in "early days." I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:56 AM

32. So

General's staff are a bunch of idiots who can be easily conned? Holy shit we are fucked.

Which, if what you say is true, the general was using his uniform to get some ass. Gawd, are we ever in bad shape. A general with a lame ass, easily fooled staff with access to all kinds of secrets... not to even mention the CIA stuff!!

Hang him and his staff up in the public square by their balls and allow us to pelt them with spitballs might be justice.

Then let them bunk with Manning.

As for Paula, she should get a medal for exposing these dirtbags. No telling how many soldiers she has saved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:11 AM

35. That could be. Then again, his attitude (the General's, that is) could have contributed to

an atmosphere that fostered this sort of unprofessionalism. She may have known what she could get away with, based on her relationship with the guy.

I have looked at the pictures of him and her that were taken while he was still on active duty, and I'd bet a tidy sum that they WERE schtuping at the time--they can't seem to help giving one another those "knowing looks" and the camera doesn't miss a trick. Of course, unless the photos are of the two of them with shocked expressions staring out from under the sheets, my suspicions based on "knowing looks" mean nothing.

Paula's goal wasn't to "save" any soldiers. Her goal was to demonstrate how "linked in" she was to the General's inner circle. She actually wanted to fire up a working group that would tell Petraeus how to run his little war, and she got the thing into early stages before someone figured out she was acting without authorization. She saw herself as Petraeus's Empress, I suspect--it was an unhealthy relationship for the two of them.

Again, it's all speculation--I think there's more investigating going on, and who knows what will be revealed down the line...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:24 AM

36. She stopped them

Whether it was her design or not, she has brought down these keystone generals who obviously weren't doing their jobs. No telling how many soldiers she has saved from their ruining the army any further.

I get the impression from you that the general, if he had not met Paula, should still be in office. That the woman here is largely to blame. That would be a great error on your part. The general should have said no. He could have easily said no and she'd have been banned. It is his fault and she deserves a medal for getting him demoted and fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:48 AM

39. It was not her intent to "stop them" at all--she wanted to be ONE OF THEM.

I think she saw herself as a future National Security Advisor.

I don't know where--or how--you get the impression from you that the general, if he had not met Paula, should still be in office. That the woman here is largely to blame. Your powers of perception are extremely poor.

I'm overjoyed that Petraeus--an incompetent "in the rear with the gear" assclown from the get-go--is gone. I only wish he'd been shown the door long before this, when he was still in uniform. That said, "Poor Widdle Paula" was not a shrinking violet or a sweet little "victim," herself. She was a fucking field grade officer in the US Army, not stupid, not clueless, highly trained and given more access than most officers of her paygrade to educational and operational opportunities. She doesn't "deserve a medal" for fucking the CIA director. She deserves excoriation for abandoning professionalism in favor of a "sexual shortcut." She alone violated the UCMJ prohibition on adultery (if we pretend their mutual fiction is true--that he was retired, not in uniform, when their affair began), she violated classified material control procedures by mishandling documents in a grossly unprofessional fashion, and she is the one who has no choice but to cop a plea to minimize her exposure, here. This isn't just a "personal matter" as far as she is concerned. She still has a commission, so she's in some serious shit. Of course, she can bring down her old boyfriend yet another peg or ten if she doesn't get easy treatment, and I'm sure that she's expecting him to rely on old associations and friendships to help smooth her way. We'll see how lucky she is. Time will tell.

http://twitter.com/KarlRove/status/212180677532205056/photo/1

Click on the above link to see your "hero" at work and play...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:42 AM

40. Where and how

You give the impression you favor the general. Just look at the word count. You speak way more of her. And your vehemence is aimed at her more so than the general.

Anyway, she has done the country a great favor. She deserves to be treated kindly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #40)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:58 AM

41. How asinine--so if I write "a high word count" about Jack the Ripper, I'm "favoring" him?

Context is everything. You are disregarding it completely.
Further, my (imagined, by you) "vehemence" is a result of YOUR bias.

She doesn't "deserve to be treated kindly" any more than he does. I believe in equality, and she's not a "poor female victim" which is how you are determined to portray her--I could, if I wanted to ascribe motives to you, call you "sexist" for that POV, but I won't.

They are both abusers of the system, wasters of taxpayer dollars, and neither one of them upheld the oaths they took. In fact, they mocked their service with their ethical lapses and high handed conduct. His fault--because he is the senior--is greater, and they need to go after him for every lapse, including each and every BS "invitational travel order" he authorized and insist that he pay the USG back every red cent. I hope they put the most assholish auditor on that guy and go over every authorization under his purview with a fine-toothed comb. I also hope she admits to misconduct prior to Petraeus's retirement, because that'll save the taxpayers at least thirty grand a year off the top of his quarter million dollar retirement pension.

I take that "ethics shit" very seriously. It's not a "game" to those of us who actually "played" it. Integrity is something that, once lost, can never be regained.

She hasn't done the nation a favor--she would have done the nation a favor if she decided to go to community college instead of West Point, and likewise for him--they are both examples of the worst and the dullest, not the best or brightest. Neither one of them has any moral or ethical core whatsoever.

They should both be ashamed of themselves. Instead, in the "Land of Second Chances," he'll probably make milllions as a lobbyist, and she'll write another tell-all book as soon as she gets a chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #41)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:24 AM

42. That's better

All I know about you are your words. So if it looks to me like you are favoring one over another that's the way I see it. Why get upset at me when all I am doing is reading your words?

On a 1-10 scale of worst to me, he's a 10 and she's a 1. She is not my enemy, but the general is; that scumbag deceived millions of us. She just fooled herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:35 PM

45. You don't "know my words" though, unless you've read every post I have ever written about this guy.

And rather than saying "You seem to be favoring" or using other insinuating language, you might be straightforward and simply ask the question "Do you think Petraeus has less culpability...?" or something along those lines, rather than use denigrating language--THAT is why you are suggesting that I "get upset" (not that I am doing THAT, either--I'd say I'm closer to annoyed and finding you a shitty conversation partner owing to your tendency towards bias and your need for confrontation rather than an exchange of views).

And you aren't "reading" my words, you're applying your prejudices to them and drawing wrongheaded conclusions about them without even involving me in the process.

I disagree with your eagerness to absolve Broadwell of culpability. Granted, in this wartime environment, everyone gets a promotion, but field grade rank and up used to mean a little something, and people who reached it were thought to have a certain measure of integrity. It was a point where MORE was expected. She doesn't have that integrity, and neither does her old boyfriend.

The ones who have earned my pity are the spouses who got gamed by those two assclowns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #45)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:44 PM

46. So you're annoyed, then

Heh. Her old "boyfriend" was a US general who couldn't keep his dick under control.

And there you go again: "I disagree with your eagerness to absolve Broadwell of culpability." You fucking got that right. And I disagree with your eagerness to absolve the general of his responsibility.

Your general did 1,000 times more damage than the 'girlfriend' could ever do. Ever. Do you disagree? How could you? Paula had no power, but your general did.

Paula did us all a big, big favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:58 PM

47. I'm not absolving the general of ANY responsibility.

Not sure where you're getting these POVs, but they aren't from me.

As I said, we'd have been better off if NEITHER ONE OF THEM ever got anywhere near West Point. They both suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #47)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:00 PM

48. Pertraeus is a 1,000 times worse

Do you disagree with that claim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:08 AM

50. Yes I do--but you'd have to have been a commissioned officer to understand.

The oath applies to all, 0-1 to 0-10. It's not "graded on a sliding scale."

Absolute integrity.

No exceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:15 AM

37. her clearance gave her access

That's what her having clearance means - she was cleared to have access to the classified docs. HOwever, she was only cleared to review them and still had to keep them secure from others who did not have the appropriate clearance level. Her having them in her home in unlocked boxes and on her personal computer MAY be at issue. Apparently it depends on exactly what type of classified materials she had in her home and on her computer that is still being figured out, and it probably has a lot to do with what level of classification each document was.

Petreaus and her claiming he didn't give her any classified docs likely means that he didn't physically hand them to her or personally send them to her personal email and merely told his staff to do it. He had subordinates take care of providing her with whatever docs she had, and if they let her take them out of the secured area (if there was one) and had no idea how she was securing them herself, then those subordinates are partially to blame for her having them unsecured (again, IF any that she had could not be secured in her home or on her personal computer). THis could also make Petreaus partially at fault (and actually ultimately at fault since he was the top honcho) if he didn't make sure his staff knew and that she knew that she couldn't keep them unsecured at whatever security level was appropriate for each document.

Petreaus very well could have lied to the FBI in claiming he didn't give her any classified docs personally, but he is just as liable for telling his staff to do it for him anyway. I don't believe that Broadwell and Petreaus's staff members would have forgotten all about how the docs were to be secured without his letting it be known that she could keep them where she liked. Why else would all of these people so blithely ignored their security?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:27 AM

38. No, that is NOT what clearance means. Just because you are cleared to "TS"--which she was--does not

give you the "right" to every TS document produced by the US government.

That's what "Need To Know" is all about. If you do not "need to know" you don't get the access to the documents, even if you've been cleared to receive information up to a certain level of classification.

There was a guy named Walker, and another guy named Pollard, who changed the whole way "clearance" and "access" and Operational Security were managed, a few decades ago. Everyone lost their "access" in somewhat of a "rolling blackout" because of those guys (though they did not lose their clearances), and the entire system was, in essence, rebooted. They really caused quite a kerfluffle.

Background:

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

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

It's never legal to have classified material on your personal computer, and the standards for management of classified materials were plainly violated by this individual--there's not question that this is the case. She has done wrong; how badly she'll be punished is the only question remaining.

Perhaps you're forgetting that a CIA director--and not Petraeus, either--was, 'resignation' notwithstanding, in essence, fired for mishandling/mislabelling classified material and signed a plea deal acknowledging his guilt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Deutch

His breach was sufficiently significant that he was granted a Presidential pardon at the end of Clinton's term so that he'd be sheltered from any over-zealous prosecutorial inclinations in later years.

Here's an example of an Army instruction that might make the difference between "clearance" and "access" more clear to you: http://www.hood.army.mil/dhr/pubs/fhr380-1.pdf

Again, they're not the same thing at all. You can't have one without the other, certainly, but just because you have one, does NOT mean you automatically get the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:20 PM

49. that isn't what I was talking about

She had clearance to review the docs she had. It was her security of them that's in question, and as of the last news info they still aren't sure if she had any docs that were classified that she had unsecured. It has not yet been said whether or not she's on the hook for having unsecured classified docs. Her clearance and Petreaus's instruction to his staff gave her access to the classified docs. Petreaus included her in the "need to know" since it was him that instructed his staff to give her access to the docs, which they did, and him telling her she could have them, which he also did. He wanted her to have them as she was his personal biographer that HE wanted glued to his side and writing and speaking glowingly of him despite Obama's admonishment to him that in accepting the appointment of CIA top cheese he had to keep a low profile... no entourage, no contact with the media, no strutting around showing off his uniform and chest wall of glory, etc. Once again he disregarded the president and kept his biographer around feeding her classified info for the sole purpose of exposure to the public about him and did speaking engagements wearing his chest fruit salad on his suit jacket, which of course is totally contrary to keeping a low profile. The dude is liar and has disregarded even the president several times so he could do what HE wanted to.

Who is it that is the decider on who has "need to know" anyway? Being the top cheese of the CIA wouldn't that decision fall to him? Who is it that is higher in the hierarchy that is the one that decides who has need to know within the CIA if not for the head of the CIA - Petreaus - himself? Of course, as his personal biographer she had no ACTUAL need to know, but was it HIM that decided for his own personal reasons that his personal biographer should be in on the "need to know" despite her not having any ACTUAL "need to know"?

You were saying that it was only her that lied to the FBI in saying that Petreaus didn't give her access to any classified docs as he told them as well. They BOTH lied about that, and it's Petreaus that is ultimately responsible since he was the top cheese and told both her and his staff she could have them... his telling the truth that he did not give her access and it being just her and his staff that suddenly couldn't remember to properly secure classified docs is ludicrous. They only would have done this upon HIS instruction. Whether or not he personally gave her any docs - who knows. I certainly wouldn't put it past him that he did. After all, he'd already told his staff and her that she could have them and didn't give a fig about their security or any actual need for her to know, so why would he care especially when he clearly didn't care about instruction (read: orders) from the president himself and has done end runs around Obama before.

I'm also curious about how she got this clearance level to begin with. Did HE give it to her so that she could have classified docs she had no actual need to know so that she could be his personal biographer for his personal self-promoting reasons? I find it hard to believe that she just so happened to have the appropriate clearance level when he found this attractive young Petreaus worshiper.

I never said she wasn't guilty of anything. I don't know if she is or not since at this point that's what the FBI has said... they are in the process of reviewing whether or not she broke any laws here in having the docs in the state she had them as far as whatever their security should have been. I also never said she wasn't doing any lying of her own. I think she has lied about Petreaus giving her access to the docs she had and doing it to cover both their asses. But that was never what I was talking about anyway. What I have been talking about is that it is Petreaus who lied and instructed his staff to give her whatever docs she wanted and told her she could have them. HE is the one with the ultimate responsibility here. I don't believe for one single second that his staff and her just blithely forgot all about proper security and did whatever they wanted without his say so and not only believed his say so was enough but also believed that his say so gave them no other option.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:33 AM

51. No, you are still not understanding. You continue to confuse clearance and access.

The officers around Petraeus during his last military command tour are apparently now saying that she said he gave her authorization to view documents without her going through the administrative procedures to place her on the access list to be authorized to view those documents.

This is not a small thing.

The questions around this issue are 1) Did she gundeck the paperwork? 2) Did she bullshit her way into getting the docs without paperwork, or convincing someone to give her access without any real "need to know?" 3) How was she able to get documents/copies out of a SCIF? Or who let her bring a frigging laptop INTO a SCIF?

A Preliminary Inquiry Officer needs to be assigned to answer these questions--and quickly.

Further, she had copies of or excerpts from these documents on her personal computers, and in her possession in her civilian quarters.

This is not a small thing, either.

No flag or general officer can just "say the word" and grant access. It hasn't been that way since the eighties. There are very specific procedures that must be followed if one is adhering to DOD regulations. Those regulations are signed by SECDEF, and no flag or general officer can waive them.

Further, your timeline is out of whack--the staff that is complaining is his General staff--not the CIA staff. This shit was happening back when he was IN UNIFORM and IN COMMAND in Afghanistan.

She was a reserve Army major. She'd done a number of national security "educational opportunities" and those come with a TS clearance at a minimum. If you are an 0-1, you automatically get a CONFIDENTIAL clearance which upgrades to SECRET if you're doing anything operational. A TS clearance is not that big a deal in national security circles--it's pretty much the minimum one needs to do one's job.

Again, though--clearance is NOT EQUAL TO ACCESS. You are given access to have the material you need to DO YOUR JOB. Writing a fluffy biography was not her "job"--at least not the job the Army was paying her to do. She had no valid access to that material, according to the General Staff on the ground during that time.

HE is not without blame, but she's the one still holding a reserve commission, and HE is saying he never granted her access to classified material. So...there ya go. Someone's lying, and either way, she should have followed the rules that everyone else follows, and ensured that she was placed on the access list before she set foot in the SCIF. People have been courts martialled for less. She knows the rules of OPSEC. She knows what hoops people have to jump through to get access. Everyone who works with that material regularly does. It was incumbent upon her to ensure that her paperwork was in order before she started working with the material--but it looks very much like she felt the rules didn't apply to her, otherwise she wouldn't have classified material in her house and on her personal computer--that, to me, is pure hubris AND stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:31 PM

26. And if they find some, shouldn't he be treated the same as Bradley Manning? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #26)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:53 AM

31. Not necessarily--if Petraeus shared information, he shared it with someone who has a clearance

to see the material. Manning didn't do that--he released classified documents to the public without authorization.

If this material surrounding Petraeus was mishandled, that's another story -- but the passing of material from one person with the appropriate clearance to another with the appropriate clearance is not generally a problem. Where problems arise if there's no real "need to know," if the granting of access isn't done properly, or if the person receiving the material mishandles it in some fashion (by putting it on a personal computer, taking documents home, or talking about it with people who don't have the proper clearance or access, for example). In that case, they are violating OPSEC and they could be in some very hot water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:28 AM

28. "Rank hath its privileges" n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:01 PM

43. Recommend for "MADem's" extra info re "Security Clearance" and links in the comments. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread