Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never cease to be amazed by how many men destroy their careers over a piece of azz. As my dear old dad use to say and forgive the crude and rude, but "tang is a candy that all tastes the same the only difference is the wrapper." The old man was crude but accurate. if your going to trade always trade up. That was another of his sayings and he was right. The point being if you're going to step out on the woman you married, vowed to honor and to cherish you better make sure it is worth it if you get caught. I see it where I work. A factory is a soap operah of sleezy affairs that seldom end well.
Now the CIA is a sleezy, lie filled enviroment. They work with the scum of the world, them being among the sleeziest. I would hope that the individule sitting on top of such a powerful org would be able to control his hormones. If he can't then maybe he isn't man enough for the job. perhaps the men sitting on top should be required to be chemically castrated while doing the tour. It might save them a little humiliation down the road.
For the record. I am 50 years old dec 28. I have never stepped out on my wife. I am in charge of a 24 person team and many have been women and more than a few have offered companionship. I dont claim to be handsome or a stud. I do claim to have the strength of character to decline said offers. You see I have a wife and she trusts me to keep my word, to honor my commitment. A real man if he finds he cant bear to be with his wife or finds her to be up to his standards will divorce then look for the replacement. You dont cheat.... You dont humiliate her, you don't humiliate your family.
And YOU are a very good man!
Congratulations on your integrity and congratulations to your wife for finding you.
One thing that doesn't make sense to me about Gen. Petraeus' announcement today is, why did he feel the need to cite this affiar he had had, as the reason for his leaving? If he simply felt bad about it, he could have made this move any time in the last six months or a year, or however long the affair has been going on. But nobody ever heard a word about any such affair, until suddenly, three days after Obama wins re-election... and a week before Petraeus is to testify to Congress about Benghazi.
Immediately after a successful re-election, is a normal transition time for cabinet and other high officials in an administration. Lots of them leave, usually citing "We have had good success and now I want to spend more time with my family". Why didn't Petraeus simply say that... especially with an affair nobody has ever heard about?
Keep in mind that revealing opponents' sexual affairs, salacious divorce problems, etc. have been an Obama campaign specialty for many years. Most of his elections have been won after he - or people connected to him - have revealed lurid details of his opponents' marital problems, at conveniently timely occasions.
When he was running for U.S. Senator, he was losing to a strong opponent, Blair Hull. Then just a few weeks before the primary election, the Chicago Tribune (former employer of Obama's hit man David Axelrod) leaked information from sealed divorce records about Hull. Hull's campaign collapsed, and Obama won the primary easily. In the general election, Obama's opponent Jack Ryan had also been divorced, and had already released all his divorce records as well as tax records. But the Tribune again petitioned a judge to release sealed records about the custody of Ryan's children. Buried in them was a mention of Ryan taking his wife to a sex club. The judge finally released the custody case records, the minor story splashed all over the papers, Ryan got pummeled with questions about it, and a week later Ryan dropped out, handing Obama the Senate seat.
Then during the Republican primary race in 2012 for President, several women suddenly and simultaneously decided to go public with revelations about sexual improprieties about one of the then-frontrunners, Herman Cain. Cain strongly and repeatedly denied any improprieties, and none of the women ever produced any evidence of these improprieties, but Cain eventually dropped out of the race, still denying them.
And now suddenly a key offical who is about to give testimony about CIA involvement in a highly questionable series of events during the terrorist attack on our consulate inn Benghazi, Libya, has abruptly revealed that he had had an affair, and resigned.
No, I don't recognize any pattern here. Nothing to see, move along, folks, move along. It's all just a series of coincidences. Trust Obama. Would he stoop so low?
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 11-09-2012 at 04:41 PM..
Petraeus is saying he is resigning because he had an extramarital affair, and he considers such activity to be too improper for a general in the armed forces, or something along those lines.
Well, maybe that's so. But... why at this particular instant? He could have felt the same way last week, or last year. What prompted the resignation now, three days after the election?
And just a week or two before he is scheduled to testify before Congress about what went on in the attack in Benghazi?
SPECULATION:
I have no evidence that the following is what happened. But nothing hangs together to me, except this:
Petraeus, as head of the CIA, knew of course about the CIA compound near the consulate. Once the terrorist attack on the consulate began, the CIA soldiers and personnel requested several times for permission to go over the the consulate and help fight the attackers and/or rescue the American personnel there. And they were refused each time. Finally they disobeyed orders and went there anyway, and did what they could. (This much is documented to be true, and publicly disseminated)
Could Petraeus himself, be the one who refused them permission to help? And could he have done it only after being directly ordered by his Commander in Chief (Obama) to tell the CIA people to stand down? And could he have strongly protested to Obama, saying it would be disgraceful and deceitful to the CIA personnel, to order them to stand down instead of helping? And Obama ordered him to tell them to stand down anyway?
And later, when Petraeus was scheduled to testify to Congress, could Obama have directly ordered him not to say anything about certain subjects, including Obama's orders to him to stand down? And could Obama have given the excuse that such information was "classified", or otherwise harmful to American national security, and that's why he was ordering Petraeus to not talk about it? And Petraeus knew that was a complete crock, and knew that Obama was merely covering his *ss, Nixon-style?
And so Petraeus was faced with a dilemma: His duty as a general, to obey a direct order from his Commander in Chief... while he knew that order was based solely on scurrilous grounds, and possibly harmful in itself?
And, just maybe, a person from Chicago had a little meeting with him, and hinted that this little affair he'd been having with a woman not his wife, would be revealed in public if Petraeus talked too much about certain subjects? A person whose name rhymes with Saxelrod?
And Petraeus knew damned well the information he would give to Congress was neither "classified" nor harmful to National Security, but only harmful to Obama's political career, and SHOULD be revealed to the Congressional investigating committee. And he decided that the only way he could do the right thing, was to remove himself from the chain of command, and so NOT have to obey Obama's order to shut up any more. And Mr. Chicago-person's little talk pissed Petraeus off just a little too much, and backfired?
And maybe Petraeus at that point decided that Obama and his cohorts coudl just go f*ck themselves. And he called some reporters into his office, calmly told them he'd been having an affair, giving names and dates (thus removing Mr. Chicago-person's threats), and announced that he was resigning immediately (thus removing the duty to obey Obama's order).
And now he will testify to Congress soon, with nothing anyone can do to shut him up.
Well, that's purely speculation by me. I have no evidence that any of it happened - nothing but guesswork.
But nothing else makes even the remotest sense. Anybody else have any better ideas?
Just one more thing: Petraeus had better stay out of small aircraft between now and his testimony date. And stay far away from Ft. Marcy Park.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
)
)... this ain't about Benghazi, not directly anyway.
