Video: Say, why would the FBI be investigating a CIA director, anyway?

posted at 11:31 am on November 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Piers Morgan asked a pretty good question of former CIA agent Robert Baer on his show last night, and Baer is just as perplexed as Morgan.  David Petraeus suddenly resigned yesterday after the FBI discovered an extramarital affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell, but does the FBI routinely investigate the director of the CIA?  Baer tells Morgan, “There is something going on here,” apart from the sexual peccadilloes. Or could it be as simple as the old adage that “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”?

Baer tells Morgan that an affair with a biographer hardly represented a security risk.  At least “four or five” DCIAs in Baer’s time had sexual affairs that never warranted an internal security investigation, let alone an outside FBI probe.  Perhaps the issue of Broadwell attempting to access Petraeus’ e-mail could have touched something off, but shouldn’t that have been handled by internal CIA security?  This was, after all, Petraeus’ G-mail account, not a secure agency account.  And even if it was a secure agency account, wouldn’t that prompt an internal investigation rather than an FBI probe?

As Allahpundit noted in the Green Room as a teaser to this post, ABC’s Martha Raddatz says that the probe started outside the CIA, thanks to … a “fatal attraction” problem?

That prompted one of Raddatz’ followers to question Broadwell’s intellect:

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was true — people do some pretty dumb things, even intelligent people, when caught up in affairs — but it sounds rather odd.  However, not entirely odd, as Fox hears the same thing:

The FBI investigation that led to the discovery of CIA Director David Petraeus’ extramarital affair and his resignation Friday started when the agency began monitoring Petraeus’ email, Fox News has learned.

The agency was alerted that biographer Paula Broadwell, with whom Petraeus had the affair, may have had access to his personal email account.

The investigation began when someone reported suspicious emails allegedly from Broadwell to the FBI. The agency then determined that she allegedly had emailed a number of government employees. The FBI was at one point trying to determine whether any of the employees were being stalked, sources told Fox News. …

Source said the FBI investigation ended when the agency determined no criminal acts had been committed.

Marc Ambinder then answered the first question:

https://twitter.com/marcambinder/status/267292498513256448

https://twitter.com/marcambinder/status/267293341044068353

That does make sense.  The CIA can’t investigate domestic crimes outside of the agency; that requires the FBI.  One has to think that the FBI, which has a long rivalry with the CIA, had to find the situation somewhat amusing in the end.

On the other hand … who was stalking whom, here (emphasis mine)?

However, an FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011.

The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan.

The woman who was having an affair with Petraeus is a journalist who had been writing about him.

Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.

Such a relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements and could have compromised Petraeus.

At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.

Still, Paul Mirengoff has an even better point:

If so, then it seems that the affair started before Petraeus became the director of the CIA. The background check on Petraeus when he was being considered for the CIA job must have been incredibly thorough. And, since an affair with an embedded reporter would probably have been difficult to keep fully secret, even an ordinary investigation might well have uncovered word of it.

Thus, it may be that the White House knew of the General’s affair before he became the DCIA.

I find it very difficult to believe that the kind of background check necessary for becoming DCIA would have failed to uncover the affair.  If the CIA didn’t learn of the affair in the first place, especially since it appears that Broadwell is hardly the model of discretion, doesn’t that call into question their ability to gather intel even in a fairly target-rich environment?  Or if they did, why would the FBI’s discovery of it require a resignation now, rather than a disqualification then?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

This has such a J. Edgar Hoover vibe to it.

ReaganWasRight on November 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Akzed on November 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Of course I know what should be in it, but I have heard of hackers before. And I have had emails from contacts whose accounts have been hacked. I also like to delete these from time to time, why save all this crap?

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I’m saying it doesn’t make sense that either one of them would do something like that in any way it could be done. As far as I can tell, neither one of them are loons.

farsighted on November 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Agreed, just considering alternative explanations.

steebo77 on November 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Why was it necessary to humiliate his wife publicly? He could have given any excuse. It makes blackmail from someone the most plausible explanation, imo.

poli-nana on November 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Maybe he wants to get rid of old Holly. He married the boss’ daughter, but he hardly needs her. And if not Paula, then some other younger model. Besides, I would bet that she knew of this and whatever other affairs there were. I can’t imagine this was a one off.

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Fatal Attraction.

Successful Distraction.

FIFY.

hillsoftx on November 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I thought this was going to be another case of a famous politician nailing an ugly chick …

I was totally wrong … I just googled “paula broadwell” and …

My … My … My …

WORTH IT BABY!! TOTALLY WORTH IT!!

DAVID P YOU ARE MY HERO DUDE!!

HondaV65 on November 10, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Michael Yon said on his Facebook page that he’d heard rumours of the affair while he was embedded in Afghanistan.

If he’d heard of it, surely the CIA knew too.

Jay Mac on November 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM

And what the heck is the CIA director doing using sloppy old gmail?

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Gmail is where all the top brass spy spooks go to discuss their adventures concerning “sex under a desk”.

Rank and file spy spooks have their “sex under a desk” discussions at Starbucks or Burger King.

Basil Fawlty on November 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Well, Obama and the media found their fall guy for benghazi. Yahoo news already has a story up linking the two. Once again, Obama succeeds.

Jack_Burton on November 10, 2012 at 1:37 PM

The Romney campaign was a consultant con job

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/11/10/the-romney-campaign-was-a-consultant-con-job/

SparkPlug on November 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

FBI investigating the CIA? How very… Nixonian.

Still why hold off on resigning? He had to have enough contacts at NSA and Ft. Huachuca to know someone was looking into him from higher levels…

No, I’m smelling charred Benghazi here.

And not liking being under the bus and not rescuing the IC from being under it. Or his underlings, for that matter. That never, ever sits well with the field operatives in the CIA. Not once, not ever.

ajacksonian on November 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

If the CIA didn’t learn of the affair in the first place, especially since it appears that Broadwell is hardly the model of discretion, doesn’t that call into question their ability to gather intel even in a fairly target-rich environment? Or if they did, why would the FBI’s discovery of it require a resignation now, rather than a disqualification then?

1. CIA knew of the affair, and so did Obama, while Obama proceeded with moving Petraeus from Afghanistan (this is a dark chapter, the move, the insistence on it…it was a demotion for Petraeus and an order, or else).

2. Obama liked the foolish Petraeus, for ideologically similar affinities: muzzie love, hate of Israel, compromise on the war, power-sharing, cover ups, and more.

3. Benghazi happened, in part lax security due to Petraeus ‘mind’. Obama owns Benghazi and the blood on his hands, no doubt. The buck stops there.

4. Obama now has Petraeus by his “All In”, and a cover up of his utter collapse on the Arab Spring and the dead.

5. Obama/Axelrod threatens Petraeus.

6. Petraeus lies to Congress and blames “video” – all b/s.

7. Media asleep, on purpose, for their Big “All In” Obama’s azz.

8. Romney caves, after media destroy over truthful response to Egypt/Libya.

9. Obama skates until after election.

10. Two weeks ago facts detailed to Petraeus, about all his e-mails being intercepted.

11. Day after election Petraeus ‘resigns’, due to threat from Obama and Obama’s fear of Petraeus testimony.

12. To be continued…Obama thinks he gave Petraeus immunity but he’ll get his, in due time.

There are a few more sub-chapters, above.

One thing, the woman is highly intelligent/accomplished, and not a dummy at all. Petraeus was attracted by physical and mental beauty and gumption, All In.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I thought this was going to be another case of a famous politician nailing an ugly chick …

I was totally wrong … I just googled “paula broadwell” and …

My … My … My …

WORTH IT BABY!! TOTALLY WORTH IT!!

DAVID P YOU ARE MY HERO DUDE!!

HondaV65 on November 10, 2012 at 1:22 PM

I get a younger “Sean Young” vibe off of her. Who is one crazy b****. You don’t want to be in a relationship with SY.

Paul-Cincy on November 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Maybe the CIA skips the background check if you’re already a four-star general?

KS Rex on November 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I’m saying it doesn’t make sense that either one of them would do something like that in any way it could be done. As far as I can tell, neither one of them are loons.

farsighted on November 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Agreed, just considering alternative explanations.

steebo77 on November 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I think they were framed. There was probably something there between them, but you bet a lot of it is just a fabrication. leaking juicy details to the public (that may or may not be true) to discredit P and assassinate his character. It’s all about Benghazi and his testimony (now we know there will be no testimony from him).

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

OT: As the victims of Sandy suffer, Dear Leader plays golf…yes today!

d1carter on November 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

He need never consult the little people again.

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

OT: As the victims of Sandy suffer, Dear Leader plays golf…yes today!

d1carter on November 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

He need never consult the little people again.

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Yep, he’s got his carte blanche, 4 to do whatever the heck he pleases.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I meant quote, not strike above…

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

1. CIA knew of the affair, and so did Obama, while Obama proceeded with moving Petraeus from Afghanistan (this is a dark chapter, the move, the insistence on it…it was a demotion for Petraeus and an order, or else).

2. Obama liked the foolish Petraeus, for ideologically similar affinities: muzzie love, hate of Israel, compromise on the war, power-sharing, cover ups, and more.

3. Benghazi happened, in part lax security due to Petraeus ‘mind’. Obama owns Benghazi and the blood on his hands, no doubt. The buck stops there.

4. Obama now has Petraeus by his “All In”, and a cover up of his utter collapse on the Arab Spring and the dead.

5. Obama/Axelrod threatens Petraeus.

6. Petraeus lies to Congress and blames “video” – all b/s.

7. Media asleep, on purpose, for their Big “All In” Obama’s azz.

8. Romney caves, after media destroy over truthful response to Egypt/Libya.

9. Obama skates until after election.

10. Two weeks ago facts detailed to Petraeus, about all his e-mails being intercepted.

11. Day after election Petraeus ‘resigns’, due to threat from Obama and Obama’s fear of Petraeus testimony.

12. To be continued…Obama thinks he gave Petraeus immunity but he’ll get his, in due time.

There are a few more sub-chapters, above.

One thing, the woman is highly intelligent/accomplished, and not a dummy at all. Petraeus was attracted by physical and mental beauty and gumption, All In.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Puppet Mastery.

the_nile on November 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

This simplifies things:

Petraeus was/is still a ‘Republican’ and his chick is an Obamabot.

As the “All In” wasn’t so “All” any more, she played powerful strings.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Puppet Mastery.

the_nile on November 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Indeed, with Media the biggest culprit.

Hate them and destroy them, or they destroy you…oh wait, they already have.

The next few months will be very interesting and sad for America.

Obama went golfing today.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Maybe the CIA skips the background check if you’re already a four-star general?

KS Rex on November 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Anyone can develop weaknesses. Drugs , sex , gambling.

the_nile on November 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Must listen to, carefully, word for word, especially when she says “my husband”.

McCrystal recommended that she write the biography of Petraeus. He has the last Schadenfreude.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Must listen to, carefully, word for word, especially when she says “my husband”.

McCrystal recommended that she write the biography of Petraeus. He has the last Schadenfreude.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Wow, I really, really dislike Jon Stewart (nee Liebowitz). Sorry, was there another point? Did I mention that I dislike Jon Stewart?

bofh on November 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Video: Say, why would the FBI be investigating a CIA director, anyway?

Ed! Please…The FBI has always frothed at the mouth from jealousy and vehement animosity from the time when the CIA began.

Every opportunity to undermine the agency’s credibility and influence has never been missed, the cooperate only under duress.

Speakup on November 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

This simplifies things:

Petraeus was/is still a ‘Republican’ and his chick is an Obamabot.

As the “All In” wasn’t so “All” any more, she played powerful strings.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

How do you know that? That she is an Obamabot? I tend to agree with your idea that he was blackmailed to accept the CIA post, I think he is the type of general who camps happily with his troops, more of a hands-on and ‘in the theatre’ kind of top brass, I saw him many times after his CIA appointment, you could tell the thrill was gone, he looked dull and completely unhappy, besides I cannot imagine a position less suited for a general of Petraeus caliber than the CIA director. Absolutely it was a demotion for him and clearly he was ‘forced’ to accept that position. So they blackmailed him, had him accept that position to tighten the strings of their puppeteering. And now they have the perfect scapegoat fpr Benghazi, they could even say that he botched his part of the Benghazi response coz he was distracted with the chick or some crap like that. It is unbelievable what’s going on with this country, banana republic, Roman Empire and Dark Middle Age practices, all in one.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Wow, I really, really dislike Jon Stewart (nee Liebowitz). Sorry, was there another point? Did I mention that I dislike Jon Stewart?

bofh on November 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

He helped the “kill the jews” party to win again.

the_nile on November 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Must listen to, carefully, word for word, especially when she says “my husband”.

McCrystal recommended that she write the biography of Petraeus. He has the last Schadenfreude.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

She addressed him with ‘honey’ too during the same Stewart show, her husband was obviously in the audience, by the move she made and the direction she was turning to when she said that, but the cameras in the studios didn’t pan on him….

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 2:26 PM

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

With that baggage , he was stupid to get involved with the Chicago mob.

the_nile on November 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

How do you know that? That she is an Obamabot?

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Read all, but especially the part about the jumps during the DNC.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

d1carter, don’t believe a word of it.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

*clink*

SparkPlug on November 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Has anyone considered black Mail here?Why else would Petraeus talk about the video being the cause when the CIA had already call it a terrorist attack.Then just maybe Petraeus concise kicked in and he resigned.If Black Mail then who was the Black Mailer? Or am i just way off and crazy? This whole thing just smells bad.

logman1 on November 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM

All in and out, All in and out.

SparkPlug on November 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

The GOPe will Betraeus.

SparkPlug on November 10, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Ed! Please…The FBI has always frothed at the mouth from jealousy and vehement animosity from the time when the CIA began.

Every opportunity to undermine the agency’s credibility and influence has never been missed, the cooperate only under duress.

Speakup on November 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

The FBI would love to open overseas franchises in US embassies and consulates.

Most likely only one thing stands in their way, the CIA.

I doubt there is any love lost between the FBI and the CIA where they overlap — terrorism and counter espionage. They cooperate when they must, but I’m sure there are lots of turf wars and struggles over who hands over what info when, where, and to whom, and over who gets the credit and the blame.

How long did it take for the FBI to get access to the Benghazi consulate and why did it take so long? Why didn’t the FBI find the documents laying around that Foreign Policy journalists found?

So many questions and no answers, nor any interest in asking them among the ordinarily most nosy, suspicious, skeptical, curious, and critical people on the planet, the US MSM, people highly paid to be that way.

farsighted on November 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Well, now the MSM will cover the Benghazi coverup because of the The ex-General’s sexual affair. They can no longer ignore it. And, Petraeus will be more than willing to tell all when he is subpoenaed by the House of Representatives committee. This going to get very interesting. I hope that it ends up really damaging Obama.

SC.Charlie on November 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

If this had been going on for more than a year, what was the reason for keeping a compromised CIA director in place for so long? His resignation immediately after the election and before the Benghazi testimony would seem to offer the answer. But Benghazi didn’t even happen until like 7 weeks ago so it can’t be just that.

If it was so valuable to keep this a secret until the election, the entire administration was compromised, not just Petraeus as anyone who knew could have blackmailed them. I sure hope no one transmitted this information to Vladimir.

Buck up, friends. One of the reasons this is coming out now is that they are counting on conservatives being too demoralized to investigate.

xuyee on November 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

d1carter, don’t believe a word of it.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I don’t either. But a great example of the NYT (legacy media) trying to set the narrative.

d1carter on November 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM

You can’t make this shite up..in hindsight all this sounds almost comic…from an article in USA Today about Paula Broadwell: ‘I later discovered that he was famous for this type of mentoring and networking, especially with aspiring soldier-scholars,” Broadwell wrote, adding that “I took full advantage of his open-door policy to seek insight and share perspectives.”. No kidding? :)…

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Two more things:

1. Mueller and Petraeus are national traitors, for not exposing Obama ahead of Nov. 6…it’s a given that the media are too.

2. Her husband is also a leftie.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 3:19 PM

No wonder he fainted when he came before Congress a while back.

Remember that?

aquaviva on November 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM

xuyee on November 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Indeed, on all of it. It’s gon’ be an interesting time, since this is only the beg.

I always told you ahead of the election that only 30% of Benghazi is known.

There will be chaos, resignations at the highest levels, hearings, impeachment and so much more. Hillary is not clean either.

Muller and Petraeus need to be tried for treason.

Media, die by spontaneous combustion, for having lived in Obama’s azz. What you ate was not Beluga caviar. You betrayed the land and don’t deserve to live/work as you do any longer.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

No wonder he fainted when he came before Congress a while back.

Remember that?

aquaviva on November 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Good recollection, indeed.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Tony Westfield -

From the very first time the face of Petreaus showed up on my television screen, I thought he seemed like a career diplomat who occasionally dressed in camouflage, just for kicks. Too much “real good talker” in this guy, I thought.

Indeed, I always get to feeling a bit queasy when a senior military officer’s resume begins with a long list of college degrees and other academic credentials.

Petreaus is a social-climber who started his career by marrying the boss’s daughter — no kidding, shortly after graduation, Petraeus married the daughter of the superintendent at West Point.

Just a banal little man.

The first time Petreaus was involved in real combat was in the 30th year of his career (Iraq, 2003). He was a two-star general by then. Something tells me that Major General Petreaus did not exactly get bloody, though I wouldn’t put it past him to roll in the dirt just to make himself look messy (like a Little League kid who didn’t play but wanted to show his mom the dirt and grass stains when he got home).

Frankly, I was relieved to hear it was a woman when I heard about the Petreaus “scandal”…but there is no woman, no affair, no carnal intrigue. The whole story is made up, just to cover Obama’s behind in the Libya matter.

RasThavas on November 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Two more things:

1. Mueller and Petraeus are national traitors, for not exposing Obama ahead of Nov. 6…it’s a given that the media are too.

2. Her husband is also a leftie.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Yep, clearly they both are, I read the bit about her fundraiser during the Dem Convention, no doubt they are lefties. Do you think she is going to talk more, or she’s done her part, the slim lady has sung :)…One thing that struck me in her interview with Stewart is that she was somewhat robotic, she is no doubt an attractive woman, but I didn’t see any warmth there when she was talking about Petraeus, and she was merely repeating platitudes about him,. a lot of biographers have usually a strong attachment (in a good sense) to the subject of their biographies , and they are able to tell interesting bits and stories about their subjects, as a result of the time spent together. She was just talking mechanically, nothing new or even interesting a out Petraeus’s personas. It is also possible that she was trying to repress emotion so not to give herself out, but I didn’t see even that sort of inner conflict there, she was literally a little talking automaton.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

No wonder he fainted when he came before Congress a while back.

Remember that?

aquaviva on November 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Good recollection, indeed.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I wouldn’t read too much into that though, he’s a cancer survivor, and he had a few severe wounds in his life. it was weird indeed, but it could have really been a health issue.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM

RasThavas on November 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

You must be joking. No egotistical social climber gives it all up for Obama. He chased some woman who slept with him to get a better book. She wasn’t all that interested after she had her story, and the narcissist flipped out, “how dare you dump me?”

We have no reason to believe she was the woman scorned, sounds like the little general wasn’t used to having the admiration spigot turned off.

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Her job was done. She’s a ‘spy’ who set Petraeus up, then used him, with Obama and Axelturd. This is just the 1% of the story.

Her husband, a leftist, knew all along, and went along, “for the good of the world”, his words, no kidding.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM

You must be joking. No egotistical social climber gives it all up for Obama. He chased some woman who slept with him to get a better book. She wasn’t all that interested after she had her story, and the narcissist flipped out, “how dare you dump me?”

You have it wrond and right.

He didn’t give anything up for Obama, except his position in Afghanistan. Obama moved him to CIA, for his own purposes, then when Benghazi happened, Obama and Axelrod blackmailed him.

We have no reason to believe she was the woman scorned, sounds like the little general wasn’t used to having the admiration spigot turned off.

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM

You got this right.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM

She was an opportunist, not a spy, and like any opportunist she took the opportunity to benefit her next goal.

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Don’t you know what ‘spy’ in single quote means? She was not an official spy.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 3:47 PM

At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.

There is a term for this. It is Demented Stalker. In fact thousand of emails after he had been dumped, is enough for ten, maybe a hundred Demented Stalkers.

VorDaj on November 10, 2012 at 3:49 PM

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Her job was done. She’s a ‘spy’ who set Petraeus up, then used him, with Obama and Axelturd. This is just the 1% of the story.

Her husband, a leftist, knew all along, and went along, “for the good of the world”, his words, no kidding.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Looks like it. Soon wie’ll see the not so aggreieved husband forgiving her publicly for the sake of the kids or something…What a fool Petraeus, was/is. Do you think it is possible that this is also intended as some sort of discrediting of our military, first McChrystal, now this…instill distrust in the military, to make it easier for the SCOAMF to justify the gutting of the military by cutting more of the Pentagon spending and all…

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM

She was an opportunist, not a spy, and like any opportunist she took the opportunity to benefit her next goal.

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM

She was ‘spy’ as in plant, not spy as in real espionage.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 3:54 PM

The only thing of any real importance here is that, apparently, this will get Petraeus out of having to testify before congress next week and we all know who benefits from that.

VorDaj on November 10, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Man, this sounds almost like the real life version of
“Burn after reading” movie… :D

MityMaxx on November 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

jimver, see the 2nd segment “My wife’s lover”. See the date of the article.

VorDaj on November 10, 2012 at 3:57 PM

He will have to testify, but likely under duress, lawyered up, as a private now (different rules/punishment), and will take the 5th.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Oh, my, coild it get any juicier than this. …looks like her husband is a rabid leftist too, (if he indeed wrote that letter) torn between exposing his wife’s affair and or keeping quiet about it for the good of the country/world :)…goodness, is this a case of bad Hollywood soap opera meets West Wing :)..

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 4:07 PM

He will have to testify, but likely under duress, lawyered up, as a private now (different rules/punishment), and will take the 5th.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

If they actually get him there and he does that, they need to call in all his underlings and then, if needed, call in every one of the thousands of CIA Employes, including the janitors, until they get the truth out of one of them.

VorDaj on November 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM

He’s forced to testify if Congress subpoenas him – and it’s my understanding that’s what they will do.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 4:13 PM

But I have to give it to NYT psychologist or whoever it is in charge with that section in NYT for spotting the illogical and absurdity of the guy’s argument there…it really stretches any imagination….


The idea of “suffering in silence” for the good of the project is illogical
. How would the quiet divorce of this man’s mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He’d probably be relieved. The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you’re even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

But I have to give it to NYT psychologist or whoever it is in charge with that section in NYT for spotting the illogical and absurdity of the guy’s argument there…it really stretches any imagination….

The idea of “suffering in silence” for the good of the project is illogical. How would the quiet divorce of this man’s mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He’d probably be relieved. The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you’re even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I disagree. The psychologist or whoever gave the answer, is a leftard too.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

sorry, jimver, should have also said that the psychologist advised to not expose the figure who is ‘helping the nation/world’ in a ‘big way’.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Muller and Petraeus are national traitors.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I disagree. The psychologist or whoever gave the answer, is a leftard too.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

He absolutely is. And he’s an “ethicist” with no real training as I recall. Neither here nor there, but he is exactly the type that printed this “question” and probably understood the who, what, when, and where. If the “ethicist” was ethical, would he have published a compromising letter like this? No. The fact that he would have allowed someone to do this makes it clear that Mr Klosterman may know ethics when he sees it, but applies a different standard to himself.

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

If the background check revealed the affair back in 2011, maybe it was seen as leverage to use against Petraeus in the future, when/if needed?

steebo77 on November 10, 2012 at 12:40 PM

THIS. The Chicago Way.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Read all, but especially the part about the jumps during the DNC.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/11/09/3655509/petraeus-biographer-broadwell.html
Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Great post

In September, she also co-hosted a fundraiser for wounded warriors during the Democratic National Convention, and used her connections to get comedian Jon Stewart to attend. They had met during the book tour when she appeared on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and bested the host in a push-up competition.

She teaches international security at her alma mater, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. She’s a research associate at Harvard University’s Center for Public Leadership and is completing a Ph.D. in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London.

security, def. an academic concept taught at the right schools
Machiavellianism def. see Chicago

1st truth: Head of CIA, and person who teaches international security utilize gmail
2nd truth: all parties seem aligned Left
3rd truth: no one is going to tell the whole truth on this one
4th truth: Generals love their pensions
5th truth: General said something that sounded like he was not backing the Story. Assumption is he made a boo boo and is now paying for it. This is still an assumption. However, he did create a ton of buzz

2010 Petraeus was registered GOP but with progressive views

What if Petraeus were really an honorable man? Could happen

entagor on November 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

This is good.

Not only that, he gave advice to not expose the big guy…for the good of the “nation/world”.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Just wondering…what does the Speaker of House have to say about all this?

Nothing.

BobMbx on November 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I heard that he teared up.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Also very significant

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I’ve never had any hero worship for Petraeus like a bunch of Y’all had… But if nothing else…

This is a lesson for all you guys: You are supposed to think with the big head, not the little one.

LegendHasIt on November 10, 2012 at 4:40 PM

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I disagree. The psychologist or whoever gave the answer, is a leftard too.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Well, they all are, it’s NYT :)… Yet the psychologist (or whoever they are) called bullshite on the guy’s ‘should I suffer in silence for the good of the country/world’ question which is indeed the biggest bullcr*p I have ever heard in my life… whatever his motives were to write that letter to NYT, it was not to really ask for advice. And the NYT staff/psychologist spotted the bizarreness of the whole ‘should I sacrifice my personal happiness for the good of the country’ preposterous bit. Indeed, how would a quiet divorce have impacted the phenomenal-awesome leadership project Patraeus was involved in?
The NYT guy also wrote this:
.

…’I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either.

He might be a leftard, but he’s calling bluff on the Broadwell’s guy motives for writing the letter.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 4:40 PM

What if Petraeus were really an honorable man? Could happen

entagor on November 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

He, a military man of that stature, would have had to expose Obama, after he should have never been in such a position.

He was at one point the “prince of the Rs”, with the possibility of running for the highest office, heh.

Muller is a huge culprit in all this.

The rest of the world must laugh their collective azz off at the idiocy and weakness of the Obama years.

The land deserves it fully.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:41 PM

PappyD61 on November 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Barry’s gulag stormtroopers will always beat us in GOTV.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 4:44 PM

He was at one point the “prince of the Rs”, with the possibility of running for the highest office, heh.

Muller is a huge culprit in all this.

The rest of the world must laugh their collective azz off at the idiocy and weakness of the Obama years.

The land deserves it fully.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:41 PM

We’re third world now..

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 4:44 PM

FBI investigating the CIA? How very… Nixonian.

Still why hold off on resigning? He had to have enough contacts at NSA and Ft. Huachuca to know someone was looking into him from higher levels…

No, I’m smelling charred Benghazi here.

And not liking being under the bus and not rescuing the IC from being under it. Or his underlings, for that matter. That never, ever sits well with the field operatives in the CIA. Not once, not ever.

ajacksonian on November 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I think he resigned and went public with the affair to get out from under Barry’s thumb.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM

This is good.

Not only that, he gave advice to not expose the big guy…for the good of the “nation/world”.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

OK, I see now the point that you and clnurnberg make now. I was just concentrating on the guy’s motives to write the letter, and they were not to ask for advice for sure, and just pointing that the NYT spotted this too. But reading the whole answer in context shows clearly that the Klosterman or whatever his name figured there might be a big potential scandal there involving important people du jour in this admin and advised the guy to go quitely into the night/divorce, heh, for the same ‘good of the country’ reason that he was ridiculing the guy for. Yeah, leftist sick, twisted minds at work…makes me sick, really…this is how the next 4 (and many more after that) look like…

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Sorry, my comment above was in response to this

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Not only that, he gave advice to not expose the big guy…for the good of the “nation/world”.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I don’t care at all about the affair, but this thing stinks of Chicago Style tactics that Obama surrounds himself with. We’ll never know about this or Benghazi, or anything else that will happen. He’ll just ride it out knowing that without a reelection to worry about, he has free run.

I still don’t believe that he’s an American citizen either…

stacman on November 10, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I think he resigned and went public with the affair to get out from under Barry’s thumb.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Yeah, but he has no credibility now, whether he testifies or not, and the sick media will make sure that every single juicy detail will be out there to distract the unthinking masses, that will make him appear even more like a weak fool. He’ll go quietly i to the night, they framed him well. The sad part being that we will never get to the bottom of Benghazi, more obfuscation…and the SCOAMF is playing golf…Nero is jealous :)

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM

He might be a leftard, but he’s calling bluff on the Broadwell’s guy motives for writing the letter.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 4:40 PM

True, but read the section where he advises not to expose the big guy…Utopian fools, all of them.

Petraeus is the biggest fool. He was a convenient pawn when Obama needed one the most, after Benghazi.

He is a traitor for not exposing Obama, and so is Muller, and the media.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Chuck Klosterman is not a psychologist, he’s a pop culturalist/journalist. We all know how ethical journalists are?

Psychology.psychiatry are off the hook for NYT ethics, if there is such a thing

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Or if they did, why would the FBI’s discovery of it require a resignation now, rather than a disqualification then?

BO wanted Petreaus working for him to get rid of the competition as a possible Prez contender, and to enhance the meme that he’s President Gutsy Call/Tough On Terrorists. Affair? No problemo. Good to know. Will keep it in our vest pocket in case we need it in the future to blackmail ya. FF to Benghazi and he’s now a threat to the administration. Time to out the affair and attempt to impeach his character eventually when DoD, WH, CIA versions of events don’t mesh.

Buy Danish on November 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

We’re third world now..

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Self-inflicted, volens, and all deserved.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Funny though that the NYT “ethics” column would be part of this mess. I wonder who wrote the letter? One of the Broadwells? I doubt if Dr. Broadwell is that dumb. How about someone else? Someone who wanted to leak the information in a memorable way. SOmeone who works for the NYT? I doubt if Klosterman started the charade, this is CIA not sports, but he is probably “ethical” enough to help some obot work this info into the magazine section. Probably got a good laugh, felt important.

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Let’s not give the NYT credit for spotting inconsistency until we are sure they didn’t concoct the whole thing to help their her0.

clnurnberg on November 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Buy Danish on November 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Not only all that, but his taking the CIA job gave Obama bi-partisan creds…knowing or not knowing that Petraues is not that R/C.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM

All in parallel Petraeus persued, until a few days ago, the top job at Princeton.

It’s a good fictitional book, er….

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 5:13 PM

He might be a leftard, but he’s calling bluff on the Broadwell’s guy motives for writing the letter.

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 4:40 PM

True, but read the section where he advises not to expose the big guy…Utopian fools, all of them.

Petraeus is the biggest fool. He was a convenient pawn when Obama needed one the most, after Benghazi.

He is a traitor for not exposing Obama, and so is Muller, and the media.

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I did finish reading the whole thing in context and got yours and clnurnberg’s point. and yes, I see where you come from in calling him a leftard and correctly so. I missed reading the whole thing in the larger context the first time, was just looking at the small picture, trying to figure the reasons the guy wrote that letter and the bullshite with the ‘good of the country’ was too much for me to palate, but then I am not a leftist, and don’t have that sort of twisted mind. But yes, klosterman’s response is damning (typically left too) especially for an ‘ethicist’. Funny, if it was a R admin, something tells me that he would have given a different advice to the guy :)…ah, the left morality and ethics :)…can’t scr*w with that :)

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Oups, quote, not strike…

jimver on November 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM

No worries, the NYT clears everything up for us…nothing sinister. FBI just stumbled onto this. Stand down!

d1carter on November 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Move along . . . nothing to see here.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 5:18 PM

No worries jimver, got you in the previous posts…never to worry. I know pretty well how you think :)

Schadenfreude on November 10, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3