31
   

CIA Chief Petraeus resigns as result of extra-marital affair

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 06:46 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Hawkeye can you see any family judge that would think for one mill-second that those letters in support of the lady would indicate that the army or the CIA for that matter have a position on the custody of a child!!!!!!!!!!

a character witness normally wants the person in question to win, so yes I can.

Quote:
I can not picture any judge being that stupid and in the ends the judge in this case had no problem disregarding those letters.
i dont think that the judge should disregard the opinion on character coming from such distinguished sources.

Quote:
Oh and why would intelligence guidelines cover the issue of writing such letters it all so must bullshit
people helping other people to get what they want is almost always a good thing....army guidelines should not forbid those in the army from such humane and productive endavours.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 06:48 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
I guess all your ranting about innocent men being victimized by false accusations of abuse was all a sham. Such women obviously merit the support of the most prominent and powerful men when they move in the same social circles they do

another firefly lie...they did not help her because they knew her, they helped her because she had helped them. this is a good human trait.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 06:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
I see this whole affair quite differently. These are grown, mature, adults, who can make such decisions on their own. Beyond national security issues, what they do on their own time that's within the limits of their position should not be under question or challenge. False accusations does more harm to an otherwise "good soldier" who served his country well.

Foolish is not against any laws that I'm aware of.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 06:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Beyond national security issues, what they do on their own time that's within the limits of their position should not be under question or challenge.

a soldier is a soldier 24/7...there is no "off" time. check out the UCMJ to further your education on this matter.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 06:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
i can imagine a good case being made that the army should help this woman

Why, because she is an accomplished name-dropper?

Why would Petraeus or Allen reach out to her and ask her to get involved? What were her qualifications to become involved in a situation involving a shock-jock threatening to burn a Quran? Haven't you considered the possibility that Kelley was lying to the mayor of Tampa?

Kelley sounds like a complete phony, albeit an accomplished social climber and manipulator.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/gty_petraeus_kelley_kb_121115_wg.jpg
Petraeus kissing Jill Kelley.

Quote:
Businessman: Jill Kelley Wanted $80M to Broker Korea Deal: 'It Didn't Smell Right'
By BRIAN ROSS (@brianross)
Nov. 15, 2012

A New York businessman who discussed a multi-billion-dollar Korean business deal with Jill Kelley said the Tampa woman at the center of the Petraeus scandal told him Gen. Petraeus had arranged for her to become an honorary consul for South Korea and promote free trade, and then asked him for $80 million to complete the deal.

"Ms. Kelley made it clear to me that General Petraeus put her in this position, and that's why she was able to have access to such senior levels [of the Korean government]," said Adam Victor, president and CEO of TransGas Development Systems, "that they were essentially doing a favor for General Petraeus, and that she had access solely because of her relationship with General Petraeus."

Victor, who met Kelley at the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August, said he was disappointed in Gen. Petraeus for helping Kelley become an honorary consul. "Frankly, I blame Gen. Petraeus for this as a lapse of judgment," he said. "The general should have known better."

Gen. Petraeus resigned as CIA director last Friday after an FBI investigation turned up evidence of an affair between Petraeus and Paula Broadwell, co-author of the Petraeus biography "All In." The investigation began when Kelley, a Tampa socialite, told an FBI agent she knew about "harassing" emails that turned out to originate from Broadwell.

According to Victor, he went to Tampa to promote coal gasification and met a friend of Kelley's who suggested that they meet to discuss a possible international deal. "The person who introduced me to her said that she was well known to be a very close friend of Gen. Petraeus," said Victor.

Victor said that he and Kelley met in "the VIP section" at the convention, where Kelly said that "she was a very good friend of Gen. Petraeus," and that "he arranged for her to get this position of honorary consul for South Korea" to promote free trade. She also allegedly said she had access to senior government officials in Korea.

Victor said he thought it made sense that Petraeus would want to put a trusted aide in charge of promoting free trade. When Kelley named her fee for brokering the deal, however, Victor balked. The coal gasification plants under discussion were worth $4 billion, said Victor -- and Kelley wanted a two percent cut. "That's an $80 million fee," he said. "And I mean that is problematic . . . No broker gets $80 million. I mean that's two whole orders of magnitude higher than what they would get."

Victor said he "terminated the relationship" after Kelley asked for $80 million. He decided that while she was not making an inappropriate request on purpose, it showed she was inexperienced and unqualified for the job. He also began to wonder about Petraeus's judgment.

"It became clear that it did not smell right," he said. "Gen. Petraeus should not have put an inexperienced person in charge of the Free Trade Agreement with such an important ally as South Korea."

"It's a sad day for the country," concluded Victor. "Gen. Petraeus has served this country well."

A spokesperson for Jill Kelley did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Retired Army Col. Steve Boylan, a friend and former spokesperson for ex-CIA Director Petraeus, said it was "nonsense" that Petraeus had any part in Kelley's alleged Korean deal. "He knows nothing about it," insisted Boylan. "What other people do he can't control." Another source told ABC News that Petraeus had asked Kelley to stop throwing his name around.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/jill-kelley-allegedly-asked-80m-bragged-petraeus-connection/story?id=17732754
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 07:07 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye the military are full of human beings willing to aid others and throw the book away in doing so from time to time.

When my father enter the army during WW2 he was move to an unknown training center with the railroads cars window blacken out.

My mother however wishes to wish her new husband a happy birthday so she placed a blind call in to the war department and the results was that a thousand miles away a jeep drove up to his training platoon and a lieutenant call my father name and then told him to get into the jeep as the colonel wish to see him.

My father was in shock and fear by this time as he could not think of any reason on this earth why the head of the training base would wish to see a raw recruit and send a jeep and an officer beside.

He enter the Colonel office gave the best salute he could to the colonel only to have the colonel point to the phone on his desk and said you wife in on the line and walk out of his office.

Everyone during the rest of the training was very impressed with my father wife!!!!!
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 07:22 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Hawkeye the military are full of human beings willing to aid others and throw the book away in doing so from time to time.

But we're talking about a man who was CIA Director...

Think someone in that position should "throw the book away", and publicly support someone of very questionable character, before a court, because they are social chums?

Doesn't indicate any bad judgment on his part, does it? Naw, of course not. Rolling Eyes
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 08:22 pm
@firefly,
I'd be very skeptical about a Petraeus-Kelly-South Korea deal. I would need much more information about how this was "arranged" through word of mouth only.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 09:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
a soldier is a soldier 24/7...there is no "off" time.


Except when they are serving as hired assassins or junior terrorists, Hawk.
Mockingclown
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 09:23 pm
@JTT,
Being a soldier is nothing to be proud of, and I know patriotic loons will disagree with me. Assassin, soldier, terrorist, pretty much all the same, just differing in who their perspective bosses are in the murky political world we live in.
Soldiers are just poor and working people from one country told to kill the poor and working people of another country.
Politicians, what a great ability they have to convince the working class to kill and die and control the market of another country, and what ends up happening is our country looses money, and the working class have to face bigger burdens.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 09:33 pm
@Mockingclown,
You don't understand world history.
Mockingclown
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 09:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You don't agree with me that a soldier's master is patriotism, an assassin's master is money, and a terrorist's master is ideology?
They are all loyal to their masters, and are all right with getting their hands dirty to please their perspective bosses.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 09:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You don't understand world history.


Was there something MC said that leads you to believe he was mistaken, CI?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 10:49 pm
@Mockingclown,
Study some world history and psychology. You're suffering from myopia.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 10:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
A guy who runs to the safe confines of 'ignore' lectures about myopic. You're a hoot, CI.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Nov, 2012 11:59 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Why would Petraeus or Allen reach out to her and ask her to get involved? What were her qualifications to become involved in a situation involving a shock-jock threatening to burn a Quran? Haven't you considered the possibility that Kelley was lying to the mayor of Tampa?

a possibility that is highly unlikely after confirmation that they went to bat for her in family court.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 05:16 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Think someone in that position should "throw the book away", and publicly support someone of very questionable character, before a court, because they are social chums?


Or to put it in an other content should a CIA director exercise his rights as an American citizen and express his opinion to a family court or not?
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 06:16 am
@BillRM,
I don't think he should unless the matters concern his own family. There must be a great number of occasions when he shouldn't express his opinions on the record as American citizens might do.

It was a foolish action.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 06:21 am
@spendius,
Once more I do not agree as he have no power over a state family court as CIA director so given that why the hell should he not express an opinion to that court?

It is nice of you to allow him to do so if it involved his direct family but why is that as one way or the other he is still the CIA director addressing the court.
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2012 08:15 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Once more I do not agree as he have no power over a state family court as CIA director so given that why the hell should he not express an opinion to that court?

Because when he publicly supports a person who appears to be unethical, and questionable in her dealings with others, as was the case with this woman, who is Jill Kelley's twin sister, it reflects on him, both in terms of his associations, and his judgment.

Perhaps you've never held a position where you had to be concerned about your reputation, and your position, and such concerns required that you be more circumspect about your actions--and who you were associating yourself with.

For a CIA director, his reputation should be a prime concern, and by publicly supporting someone whose integrity is at issue, as it was in this legal matter, he casts doubt on his judgment and thereby foolishly, and needlessly, puts his own reputation at risk.

Involving himself in this sort of legal domestic dispute, as some sort of favor for a friend, without considering the ramifications of doing so, is probably more indicative of his poor judgment than his affair with Broadwell. He should not have allowed himself to become a part of it.




 

Related Topics

General David Petraeus - Question by gollum
well that's a thought - Discussion by dyslexia
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 01:51:54