THE PETRAEUS AFFAIR...WHO GIVES A SHIT?

could someone explain to me what all of the hoopla is about? so, he directed the cia and he was getting some on the side. where's the problem? don't give me the whole 50's "he could be blackmailed" bullshit, times have changed and that's no longer valid...if it ever was. i mean, he wasn't porking mata hari, he was having an affair with his biographer. big fucking deal.
what worries me is that the fbi has spent time and money since june to verify that he was having an affair. don't they have some criminals they could be looking for or something? i can't get the police to even respond when i call to report drug dealers in the neighborhood but the fbi can spend 6 months finding out if petraeus is getting his dick wet?
honestly, now...the guy wasn't having sex with teenagers or picking up crack whores at columbus circle. and, frankly, when i saw his wife "great in bed, i bet!" was NOT the first thought that leapt into my mind. are our values so skewed that we have to make a national scandal out of something that only concerns the man and his family? now i read that "the investigation is widening"...jesus fucking christ!
if they want to witch hunt the guy, how about going after him for the fact that he was in charge of a bunch of armed hooligans who went to a foreign country uninvited and proceeded to kill eveyone they saw? that seems like a bigger crime than getting some strange, to me.
By rae121452 | 11/13/2012 12:30 PM | 15 comments
Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • Hey Rae--since, I'm the 22nd comment on this thread, then I guess some give some kind of shit. I agree with you--yuck, who wants to hear the sordid details--and you know now that more crazy stuff is going to come out of all of this. Now after hearing about this investigation for the last few days, I'm blown away by the equally bizarre details that led to the investigation. The fact that this Kelly woman had a FBI connection to make a complaint, and the FBI did follow up is damn annoying. Yesterday, NPR, covering the story, a point was made that a warrant had to be received for the FBI to go through these emails. It's hard for me to believe that one woman feeling slighted by nasty emails could possibly merit a criminal investigation that would have allowed for the warrant. It's criminal now to break your marriage vows? No, I don't give a shit about Patraeus' affair, but I am pissed that the government is snooping around in people's lives ( I can hear the moans now, "you're just figuring that out?!"). If anything good came out about this is the tightening of laws that allows for this obnoxious government intrusion into our lives. The whole process is veiled under the guise of national security not allowing for any reasonable transparency. This investigation is outrageous, but you wanna talk about gov't waste....
    furball 11/14/2012 02:43 PM
  • erlybird, my deep fried twinkie...no you didn't! i know you did NOT pull out the character and fidelity card! i'm fairly certain that you're married, so now, really...and are you saying that you've never tricked with a married man? i'm just not buying it, sister girl.
    and, OMG...you hold politicians to a higher moral plane...............someone get me my smelling salts, i feel the big one coming on!!!
    rae121452 11/14/2012 06:30 AM
  • I'm sure it was held back until after the election. But I really don't think it would have made any significant difference. An extramarital affair and Libya are not things that are going to influence many votes.
    BearinFW 11/14/2012 04:36 AM
  • Well, regardless of what one thinks about the morality of extramarital affairs, they aren't a crime. They're a personal matter, which is what the Republicans didn't get during Monicagate.

    In this case, though, we have the head of one of the country's top intelligence agencies involved. It's been strictly against the rules for many decades, and Petraeus knew that.

    Now, perhaps we should consider updating the rules to reflect modern realities, but that's something for long debate and consideration, and not anything that would save Petraeus' butt.

    Of course, if this had happened to another top government official, say the head of the Department of Education, for example, it would be a different story and they presumably wouldn't have to quit or be fired over it.
    BearinFW 11/14/2012 01:19 AM
  • It's just the common folk on their high horses, projecting an image of marital fidelity and trying to feel good about themselves with a public figure on trial. Happens all the time with celebrities. It's hilarious how we are all too happy to break the "laws" of morality in our own lives, but expect those in the public eye to hold themselves to a higher standards and not fall from grace. Cause they're not human.

    Besides, who gives a fuck about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes/offices/whatever, as long as it's not illegal? Oh wait. Never mind. We, the public, with our archaic Victorian ideas of morality, are the judges of what's right and wrong in this world. But fuck it if we would allow others to judge OUR actions.
    aliencubby 11/13/2012 11:51 PM
  • Pillow talk... what a bunch of crap. You think military leaders get a boner and start telling secrets? If so their wives would forever be targets.
    PDQuesnell 11/13/2012 10:58 PM
  • Once again, the moralist dream of monogamy has taken another casualty.
    PDQuesnell 11/13/2012 10:51 PM
  • All that the general public wants to hear is :"who is bopping who?"
    hisbiguy 11/13/2012 08:47 PM
  • Hi can someone please start a rumor that he was looking for dates on this website? I'd love the publicity. You couldn't buy publicity like that.
    Thanks
    Marc 11/13/2012 06:19 PM
  • Maybe this incident will open up dialog on updating rules of behavior for the U.S. intelligence agencies. Being gay used to be considered a security risk as well.

    And then there were the Secret Service guys who hired hookers in Colombia ...
    BearinFW 11/13/2012 04:58 PM
  • pillow talk...........??? oh yeah, that was the basic plot of "dishonored" with marlene dietrich...in 1931. the critics panned the story as old fashioned-in 1931. i guess no one in washington ever saw the hitchcock film from 1946 "notorious". the plot of that one is that the u s government recruits ingrid bergman to marry claude raines to worm all of his dirty nazi secrets out of him. yeah, she marries him. she's a spy and she's MARRIED to him.
    rae121452 11/13/2012 04:10 PM
  • Well, the rules may be antiquated, but bottom line is he broke them. He knew it, too.
    BearinFW 11/13/2012 04:02 PM
  • What is the big deal here he is just having an open relationship instead of a mongamous one is all.
    barney290 11/13/2012 03:38 PM
  • rae, You are 1000% right. Who gives a rats ass. What that has to do with running the CIA or any business is beyond me. We was a good General and seemed to run the CIA just fine. everysooften, Men of that caliber don't do pillow talk. That went out with Doris Day.
    fenwaydav 11/13/2012 01:47 PM
  • Hard to believe a 4-star general had the time for pandering. These are busy guys!

    But, he is THE man - in charge of his own schedule and activities. It is a power thing...

    If there was sex on "the side" it is a personal matter. The trouble however, is that at certain levels there should not be any suspicion of the possibility of betraying our nations secrets (called "pillow talk" by an Inspector General in Europe when I was there...).
    everysooften 11/13/2012 01:14 PM