Skip to comments.VANITY: It seems Petraeus may be a criminal who is turning on his country
Posted on 11/18/2012 6:23:08 AM PST by AAABEST
click here to read article
Grant described what he wore at Appomattox as “the uniform of a private with the straps of a lieutenant general”.
Robert E. Lee was much better turned out. But he lost.
When I saw the photo that was the first thing running through my mind. Not to take anything away from David Petreus, but it seems he need to have an extended uniform coat to put all the glitter on. You don’t either see stars on Dwight!!!
He’s a “bad guy” if he went along with hussein/jarrett/huma’s wag the dog gone wrong and he’s an equally “bad guy” letting the admin get away with it if he isn’t screaming from the top of the tallest tower IF he’s being blackmailed. Forget his retirement and his wife’s make believe job. He swore to protect America and that should be at the top of his duty list.
You have adduced not a single syllable of evidence of two propositions:
1) that I have conducted an "attack" on Petraeus;
2) that there is a false narrative concocted by the Obama insiders -I assume you are talking about Petraeus' indiscretions and not the entire video flimflam.
If you are talking about the video flimflam, the general's indiscretions which could include A) the military crime of adultery and B) the civil crime of lying before Congress are hardly distractions when he as head of the CIA resigns in mid battle over Benghazi. They are part of the picture and any serious observer must a deal with them, as well as a conservative observer Charles Krauthammer observed, they raise the possibility of blackmail by the administration, moreover, they raise the possibility, as I have, that the administration elevated Petraeus to the head of the CIA knowing they can dispose of him with the adultery charge if they needed to control him.
I am not attacking Petraeus, nor will I white wash him, let us deal with the facts and see where they take us, evidently a novel idea to those who are somehow better informed about what actually happened than the rest of the world.
Yeah, I noticed that, too. It’s ridiculously over the top.
You have to have lots of other fruit to compensate for the lack of grapes.
He certainly utilizes every millimeter of space between his shoulder and breast pocket. Would think he'd want to consolidate the collection somewhat, if only to save time getting dressed.
After his damned foolish rules of engagement this ass clown deserves hanging.
As long he’s acting like Santa Clause they are NOT going to realize. The baby boomers’ children has been raised that way by the sixties hippies ruling the educational system!!!
Eisenhower’s reputation preceded him. Thus he wore minimal medals while Petreaus wore full fruit salad plus boy scout merit badges
I’ll be honest with you and say I was always a bit skeptical of all the accolades given to Petraeus after years of seeing men like Eisenhower, MacArthur, and others of that era and going forward to Generals like Schwarzkopf. I consider the likes of Powell,the Balkan Bomber, and Dempsey as being recent political generals and place Petraeus as part of this trend. A specific question as to Petraeus and other mortals is “ How many times do you get to be a fool before you are a fool’? I will grant that there is much more to this saga than only Petraeus which has Obama and his enablers imbedded. However, with 50+/- of the population taking Obama as honest, trustworthy, and above all charismatic how does our Nation get past the debacle of all the stuff being done.
The General’s job at the CIA is based on deceit. That is what the CIA does. He no longer has that job so he tells the truth.
Now let’s see who lies constantly...
It is my understanding that if you have earned medals in the military, you are supposed to wear them on your formal attire.
The pentigon is full of Puff Piece generals. They forgot their beginnings and now parade around like peacocks. Look at all the Star Studded dudes in CenCom. It’s a joke.
I was skeptical of Petraeus after he made the statement that he thought that he could work with Obama but that still doesn’t elevate the Broadwell foolishness to the level of incompetence that we are seeing.
You are falling for the narrative that the Obama people are putting out there, that Petraeus cannot be trusted and so we should be skeptical of everything that he says.
Men are fools when it comes to sexual advances from attractive women. Powerful or rich men seem to be bigger fools. They begin to believe the flattery from the female aggressor. I think that Petraeus statement that he could work with Obama was a sign that he was vulnerable to this type of persuasion.
It just doesn’t matter any more. Petraeus is a non-issue and his affair is nothing but a planned distraction. The issue is the failure and lies of the Obama administration and their efforts to pin their failures on Petraeus.
No, and no. The false narrative is that the attack was a peaceful protest, sparked by the video.
I don’t care about the affair. Petraeus and his affair are a non-event, they are both over.
The story, blaming the video was concocted in the White House by Obama insiders on the night of 9/11. My guess is that Petraeus boss, Clapper was present in the situation room at the White House on 9/11 and was responsible for the story about the peaceful protest related to the video. So, it wasn’t a complete lie to say that the CIA reported that the attack was just a peaceful protest that turned violent.
But that wasn’t the CIA report from the CIA and Petraeus. That is what Petraeus meant when he said that other reports were coming in from top security officials - those top security officials were his boss and Panetta.
No, parse Petaeus words from the first testimony. He said that he knew it was a terrorist attack, but that other reports were coming in from top security officials.
Those top security officials are his boss, Clapper and Panetta.
By the time that Petraeus had testified the first time, it was already obvious that they were going to try to blame Petraeus for the “bad intelligence”. Now, we know how they got him to testify the way they did. They claimed that the Al Qaeda connection was classified and although the news was already out, I would bet that they warned him that disclosing all the facts about the Al Qaeda connection and the White House knowledge of the connection was classified. Petraeus had to dance around the details.
WHO gave the order to NOT rescue our men in Benghazi?
Good response. However, I’m not falling for anyone’s narrative(s). I’ve seen a lot of political shenanigans since my days in WWII and these come from all directions of the societal structure of the USA and other countrys. I believe it still matters as part of the picture unfolding. There are always things to be learned and remembered; even my mother taught me this fact of life.
that was TWO YEARS AGO!!
Michelle landed a job back then from Valerie for TWICE that amount! And the POS is living in our WP with a salary and ALL expenses paid for all his family and MIL. Does that bother you as much?
You didn't leave me w/the impression he was put under oath - I corrected you and said he did NOT perjure himself because he wasn't under oath!! There are enough lies going around.
I didn't want you to spread information that is not true! Do I think he should be - YES. But the same goes for hillary and panetta - put them under oath! Why only him?
However to say that the Petraeus affair is a non event is simply not to operate within the realities of our culture. The affair damages his reputation, and the value of his testimony. It calls into question his entire military legacy of dealing with terrorism in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Was he right, does his policy actually achieve the results as advertised? These policies along with the career of Petraeus will be reassessed as a result of the affair.
So will Petraeus' participation in the Benghazi fiasco. What Petraeus has to say about the talking points, about his understanding of what happened in Benghazi, why Benghazi was left unprotected, what the administration and the CIA were really up to in Benghazi, will all be affected by Petraeus' loss of credibility.
The real story is the question, what was the administration up to in Benghazi and what does that reveal about our policy of traveling with terrorists? The administration has behaved so irrationally in this affair that there must be something going on beneath the surface. I do not advance this as fact, I advance it as suspicion. If we do not know facts, let us not parade them as such, let us fairly described them as suspicions, questions, allegations.
Above all, let us not attack fellow conservatives for merely citing statutory law.
You make some good points about Clapper and you might add the same thoughts about Donnelly. I have long believed that Secretary of Defense Pineda is a dangerous leftist put in the CIA and the Defense Department to cause them great damage. These men should get the same scrutiny as Petraeus has brought upon himself but they will not in today's media culture if there is no sex appeal to their stories because they are on the left side of the political equation.
We simply do not know where we are going yet. These thoughts are just that, suppositions. There are some facts that we can talk about, the history of the CIA leaking against George Bush; The history of the Obama administration leaking national security secrets about the assassination of Osama bin Laden and on other occasions when it advanced their electoral position; the dubious role of the Attorney General in Fast and Furious and its parallels in this matter. There are many facts that we can adduce that suggest that the administration was playing a double game, perhaps against the interests of the American people. Did the administration fear the people's backlash if the real story of Benghazi were known? Obviously, Obama feared the People's backlash on November 6 it his true policy toward Russia were known.
There is much to mine here. Unfortunately, the Petraeus affair is part of the story and cannot be taken out-the media simply will not let you take it out.
I do not think I need to say I told you these attacks would be forthcoming, they will certainly go on. This one takes on directly general Petraeu's military achievement in Iraq and Afghanistan. It serves several purposes, one of which is to discredit the military in the eyes of the public which is one of the few institutions in America that the left has not been able to undermine. It further serves the interest of The New York Times in its opposition to the Iraq war. They can say in effect, the surge did not work, the war was lost from the beginning, it was not redeemed by the surge, we were right all along.
Fortunately, the style and content of the polemic is over the top, factually erroneous in many places, and therefore not credible to anyone except leftists who read the New York Times. Nevertheless, it is instructive to learn what they are thinking. It is not helpful to our cause to decline to inform oneself about what they are thinking.
Only if you’re narcissistic. There is no AR that says that you are display 40 lbs of ribbons and various medals on your tunic.
Dwight Eisenhower, who was a General of the Army, wore nothing except his rank and army lapel badges.
This looks more like what General Zukov, other Russian generals and those from North Korea wore.
The general made a decision to work with and for Mighty Marxist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.