I am saddened to read about David Petraeus’s resignation as CIA Director, citing an extramarital affair. I know nothing about the circumstances and suspect we will learn more before long. What I do know is that the hyenas are now circling his political carcass, ready to rip him to shreds, now that he is already wounded. What I also know is that this is a depressing fate to befall one of America’s greatest generals—probably the greatest we have had since the World War II generation passed from the scene.
Imagine Winfield Scott, U.S. Grant, William Sherman, George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower or Matthew Ridgway resigning over an affair. It’s simply impossible to imagine; standards have changed so much over the years that now sexual peccadilloes are about the only thing that can bring down senior military commanders. Petraeus did not have as big a war to fight as his predecessors did but what he achieved in Iraq was one of the most impressive turnarounds ever seen in any counterinsurgency campaign that I am familiar with.
Field Marshal Gerald Templer’s success in Malaya in the 1950s is usually cited as the gold standard of counterinsurgency. Well Iraq in early 2007, when Petraeus took over as commander, was in far worse shape than Malaya in 1952 when Templer arrived on the scene. Few thought there was any chance of stopping Iraq’s slide into ever-more violent civil war. Certainly not with a mere 20,000 or so surge troops–numbers widely dismissed as inadequate for the size of the task. Petraeus did not bluster and he did not boast, but he arrived with a quiet confidence that he could still save the day–and he did.
He did not do it alone, needless to say. The contributions of Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the day to day operational commander, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were particularly important–not to mention the firm backing of President George W. Bush. But the odds are that the surge would have failed were it not for the inspired leadership displayed by Petraeus.
He had already studied the principles of population-centric counterinsurgency; he had quite literally written the book on the subject. And he proceeded to implement everything he had learned not only from his study of history but from the more than two years he had previously spent in Iraq, first as commander of the 101st Airborne Division and then as the top general charged with training Iraqi forces. He faced not only multiple foes on the ground–most prominently Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdist Army–but also constant sniping from the home front where some derided him as “General Betray Us.” Throughout the ordeal of 2007-2008 he stood firm, constantly pushing his subordinates to do better, while defending their conduct in a stream of media interviews and in pivotal congressional testimony that prevented anti-war legislators from pulling the plug prematurely on the entire effort.
I was privileged to see some glimpses of Petraeus in action, not only in Iraq but also later in Afghanistan; I served as an informal adviser to him in both places. Never have I seen more effective leadership in action. He was a maestro at using all the instruments of governmental power, combing multiple “lines of operation” to wage a war far more diffuse and harder to grasp than a conventional campaign. In Afghanistan he did not preside over the kind of quick turnaround he managed to pull off in Iraq but he once again, building on the fine work done by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, helped to implement a strategy that substantially improved the situation.
Petraeus spent most of the past decade deployed—first in Bosnia, then in Iraq, finally in Afghanistan. In between the last two commands he served as Central Command chief, constantly jetting around the Middle East to carry on high-level negotiations. He maintained a grueling pace that would have been hard to do for men half his age, yet he never seemed to flag, not even when he was treated for cancer.
Petraeus devoted his life to serving his country. Few have ever done it as well. He now deserves the thanks of a grateful nation—rather than obloquy that is more likely to be visited on him instead.
Come January will there be ANYONE left in the administration with any experience?
David Petraeus disgraced himself by claiming the silly video was the cause of the attack. At best, one can claim he was being loyal to his boss. Still, the man must be held accountable for his earlier testimony to Congress.
Excellent commentary. n nThe hyenas may circle, but I do not believe that the bulk of the American people will turn on General Petraeus. My wife has a very low tolerance for extra-marital shennanigans. I told her today, as I have before when big men stray, that we know nothing of the circumstance of his marriage, nor do we know anything of the circumstances of his affair. I will certainly give him the benefit of the doubt, and expect that most will. I believe that this is the first instance in my memory when a famous man has voluntarily revealed his transgression and immediately removed himself from a high office. There is something more to know. n nThere will be much speculation about the timing of this and the political undercurrents. Like most, I have to believe that there is a lot more to this than we understand at the moment. Whether we ever will know more, is problematical at this point. n nI hope that I am just one of many voices that thank the General for his devotion to duty thorough some of the most difficult challenges that one can imagine.
excellent comment.
too early to fully understand why Petraeus insisted on resigning. n nmaybe he just could not deal with the beyond Machiavellian cabinet changes that are coming with Obama's re-election. n nas I type, FBI probe – was he caught in a honey-trap?
Announcement AFTER the election? Gee that's not sketchy.
I guess I'm a hyena. n nIf my son had been one of those killed by the ridiculous hearts and minds rules of engagement he pushed and promulgated, I would have been a lion going after his carcass.
you're not entirely a hyena, MM. nyou're half-way to something in worrying that the rules of engagement were designed to assume some risk in order to separate the enemy from the population and kill fewer of the enemy in order to stop swelling the enemy's ranks by killer fewer of the population. n nso you're only half a hyena.
I know that was the theory. n nThe flip side is to fight with overwhelming force, beat the enemy soundly, and have them beg for peace on your terms. n nI guess I'm old fashioned. But wars fought with maximum prejudice have generally been the shorter, with fewer deaths overall. n n
MM—- when the enemy isn't massed or in uniform and when it's entwined with the civilian pop that you're supposed to be protecting….it's different game… and a very frustrating one. nPetraeus didn't start the war and set the terms, he inherited the mess and had to try to work through it.
When the enemy is entwined with the civilians, the civilians suffer. It has always been so, until the media and its PC codes started ruling the battlefield. n nIf they suffer enough, they no longer tolerate the fighters among themselves, and the fighters, whose relatives they are hiding among, may think twice about endangering their own women and children, and if they don't, well, then we let Charles Darwin get to work. n nThat is why a uniformed soldiery developed – to protect the families of the combatants. By giving 'insurgents' a pass on this, and in so doing allowing our young to die to protect the enemy's families, we show weakness. Particularly to Islamics who crow that 'we love death as you love life', and who behead and mutilate OUR civilians. n nSorry, when it comes to war, it is Us versus Them. When it comes to MY child's life, I frankly care little if enemy civilians die so that my son can live.
Bravo.
careful mm you'll be getting called insensitive soon
Why only "half a hyena"? This armchair general's amateur opinion about the conduct of these wars while Petraeus was in command are a justifiable basis for taking this opportunity to attack so talented an individual who has given so much to his country over the course of decades? Has this "hyena" made even a small fraction of the contribution that Petraeus has made? Very, very unlikely.
Tell me, wise Doctor, how would it be be if your son died because he was prohibited from calling in air support when surrounded, for fear of 'civilian' casualties? n nWould you feel so grateful to the wise general then?
Are you the parent of a service member who died under such circumstances, or has such a parent appointed you to speak on their behalf? Or have you just taken on that mantel to strike a pose, and thus bolster the gratuitous opinion you offer about the strategy that General Petraeus pursued?
Whether you are such a parent or have been deputized to speak on behalf of one, or more likely neither of those, how would the answer to your hypothetical pertain to the seemliness of attacking Petraeus, a man who has served his country so selflessly for so long, at this particular time? Clearly, it would pertain not at all.
Those who would attack Petraeus now that he has been wounded by the disclosure of his marital infidelity have been likened to hyenas rather than lions, because the latter are generally seen in a favorable light, whereas the former are revulsive in the eyes of most. That is in part a matter of appearance, but it is also a matter of how these animals go after their prey. Hyenas are opportunistic; they never hunt as individuals, instead ganging up on their target; they don't go directly for a kill, but harry their victim, nipping at them, tearing flesh a bit at a time, continuing until finally they manage to accomplish the task. That may be the way it works in the wild, and in reality there is nothing more noble or less noble in any of it. But many people would be flattered to be seen as lion-like, and most would be highly offended to be compared to a hyena or a jackal. You, however, feel no shame in identifying with hyenas. That is dcdoc's point, and he believes it was Max Boot's point too. n n
n nI have had issues with the rules of engagement for a long time. Posted right here. Thousands of people do. n n n nYou know nothing of anybody here. Personalizing the issue is a sign of a weak argument. n nTake your Petraeus worship elsewhere.
"I have had issues with the rules of engagement for a long time. Posted right here. Thousands of people do." Good for you and them. That is no excuse for being hyena-like here. n n"You know nothing of anybody here." Feel free to tell us why you should be granted special license to do what Max Boot and dcdoc find offensive, that is if you have any. It won't do to play spokesperson for the parents of servicemembers who have died in combat unless you are in fact one of them or have been deputized to speak on their behalf. And disagreement with the strategic and tactical decisions made in his command capacity is not an excuse to attack him personally, especially at this time. n n"Personalizing the issue is a sign of a weak argument." That's laughable coming out of your mouth, since you have certainly made it personal where Petraeus is concerned and with "Tell me, wise Doctor, how would it be be if your son died because…Would you feel so grateful to the wise general then?"
Boot calls is being hyena like, and so do you. So what? n nThat does not make it hyena like. Who made you the arbiter? n nPerhaps it is justified and long overdue. n nThe CIA did such a wonderful job preparing us for the downsides of the 'Arab Spring'. n nEgypt, Syria, Libya, and Libya again. All surprises that kicked the USA smack in the teeth. n nAnd Petraeus was in charge, no? n nPetraeus is a public figure, serving us. Not supposed to be screwing his biographer and potentially compromising national security, right? Is that personalizing it? n nAnd this is the outfit that will warn us when Iran is on the verge of a bomb? n nGod help us.
Looks like you are losing the argument, here, at least. n nYou can always take your kneepads to a site where Petraeus love is more unconditional, and suck away to your heart's content.
Do keep talking, because in the course of doing so, you make clear who and what you are.
Let me get this straight. n nYou can call me and others who are unhappy with Petraeus hyenas, and I can't call you a Petraeus fellator? n nIs that correct? n n
"I guess I'm a hyena." That was you talking, calling yourself a hyena, wasn't it? I only stepped in when lubinsky tried to deny you full credit for being what you declared yourself to be. ("you're not entirely a hyena, MM…you're only half a hyena.") n nFeel free to call me whatever you choose. As I said above, "Do keep talking, because in the course of doing so, you make clear who and what you are." n n(I'm not sure exactly where ldubinsky comes out on this, since he came back to ask, "would you have understood my point with more ease if I had substituted horse for hyena.??" If he was suggesting that you ought to be likened to half of a horse rather than half of a hyena, and the half he had in mind was the rearmost part, then I wouldn't dispute him.)
"Do keep talking, because in the course of doing so, you make clear who and what you are." n nYes, you said that already. It's very clever. n n
would you have understood my point with more ease if I had substituted horse for hyena.?? n nbut the reality is that you're failing to understand that MM is discussing his feelings rather than really analyzing. n nI DO understand what he's saying about his son. n nMY son met Petraeus in Iraq and when the general moved to Afghanistan went there twice at Petraeus' invitation. n nI hated that, and was quite worried until the kid returned home.
He did lose a son under those circumstances? Then he has my deepest sympathies for that loss. But even if that were the case, it would still be hyena-like to take this opportunity to attack Petraeus, a person so deserving of our thanks for his service to this country, whether you think he was a brilliant general, as those who are best informed (e.g., Tom Ricks) do, or you think he pursued a wrong-headed strategy. (And my appreciation to your son for his service to this country.)
Some updated news: nMSNBC's Richard Engel named Petraeus' biographer, Paula Broadwell, as the person with whom Petraeus had the affair. n nEngel is also reporting that she is under FBI investigation for improper access to "classified information" which might also explain why Petraeus had to go since, it's possible, that he might have been the source of the classified info.
Petraeus was a great military man. No one can ever take that away from him. But, as history as often proved time and again, military success does not always equal good politician or in America's case, 'inside the Beltway' success. Petraeus is a lifelong Democrat. Once he took that uniform off, those tendencies took over. Any successful war leader who would serve a disgusting pig like Obama in his civilian career is suspect anyway. Petraeus even before leaving the Army stepped outside his box as a military flag officer by sticking his nose in US Domestic affairs. That treads on dangerous ground usually found in countries where the leader holds the title of "Colonel", and walks about dressed like Cap'n Crunch. History will show us, that Petraeus downfall in the end, was good for the country.
The resignation of Petraeus, a tragedy, was a logical outgrowth of the nClinton-Lewinsky scandal. nIn 1933, when FDR was elected to office, Eleanor Roosevelt moved into a house at 20 East 11th Street, in New York City, as a plaque on the building tells us. Franklin was free to have his girlfriend in Washington, and Eleanor was free to have her girlfriend in New York. The Roosevelts should be a model to us nowadays to teach us that personal life and political office are independent variables.
george, while I fully accept that sufficient time has elapsed so that no one is going to be hurt by our telling tales of Eleanor, I must point out that she wasn't holding public office nor entrusted with serious secrets of state. n n( hope you and family are well…. n.your little froggy friend)
Dear amphibian friend, nEleanor's husband was aware of his wife's residence in New York. He was probably aware of his own extra-marital activity. And he was holding public office and knew more state secrets than anybody else on earth. nThe fact that after the Lewinsky affair Clinton was on trial in the U.S. Senate for 21 days cheapened political life and set the stage for Petraeus to resign.
How pathetic. Still defending Clinton all these years later. n nBill Clinton did not carry on his dalliances in some grubby motel but in the Oval Office, where he worked as OUR representative and served as Head of State of the United States of America. Let that sink in a moment before assessing the magnitude of his delinquency. Also contemplate, as came out in the Starr inquiry, that the man was being fellated while sitting at Abraham Lincoln's desk! While carrying on conversations with diplomats in Bosnia and with a sugar lobbyist in Florida! The Great Seal of the United States in plain view! n nTo top it off, Clinton carried on in that manner in violation of a law on ALL workplace affairs—voluntary, involuntary, and in between—between a superior and a subordinate that HE HIMSELF HAD SPONSORED AND SIGNED into law nine months earlier, to tumultuous fanfare and applause from diehard suck-ups such as yourself, I might add, a law that took for granted immediate discharge from office for a single proven violation. Clinton was a serial violator of his own law. Moreover, he had come into office with a reputation for sexual exploitation of subordinates while Governor of Arkansas and been duly put on notice that further misbehavior would not be tolerated (recall the infamous "60 Minutes" episode where, in the presence of his wife, he pledged repentance and reformation). n nFar from being cheapened, our common political life DEMANDED a defense of the office of the presidency from its befouling by a cynical sexual predator like Bill Clinton, who brazenly stood on the steps of church one Easter Sunday morning, his wife at his side, one arm around his daughter, in the other and held aloft a big, black bible! He was AT THAT MOMENT ON HIS WAY to a rendezvous with Miss Lewinsky in the Oval Office. A more comprehensive illustration of arrant hypocrisy simply cannot be offered. THAT is the real thing when it comes to 24-carat hypocrisy, NOT the pathetic tu quoques hurled, for example, at poor Henry Hyde by Clinton lickspittles because of an affair that he had ended 30 years before. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with sharing a failing you accuse another of so long as you have reformed yourself. We are all sinners. Hypocrisy does, however, have EVERYTHING to do with seeking the benefits of being esteemed as a faithful spouse, even a pious one, by inviting photographs at the door of a church with your family while on your way to an adulterous encounter. n nThe standard under which Clinton was tried was entirely applicable in his case: "High crimes and Misdemeanors," says the Constitution. The word "high" here is often misunderstood, deliberately I sometimes think, as meaning "serious," when in fact it refers to the dignity of the office involved, in Clinton's case the presidency, which ipso facto renders any offense serious. For example, in England, "high treason" singles out treasonous acts directed at the person of the monarch, such as assassination. What Clinton did was not a "high crime," though it was, thanks to Clinton's further hypocrisy, tortious. It most certainly WAS a "high misdemeanor," a term inherited by American courts from British law that had been applied many times in the past to officials for bringing "shame and discredit" on their "high office." Clinton did both, in spades, so it is particularly nauseating to see his flagrant and serial insults to the office of the presidency defended by you as though he were guilty of no more than an affair. Even JFK, when in Washington, had the decency to carry on only in the East Wing of the White House, his private quarters, which behavior, though lamentable, in my opinion did NOT rise to the level of impeachable offense compared with the behavior of a leprous vulture like Bill Clinton, which clearly and repeatedly did. n nShoehorning the treatment that Clinton received, though he escaped the punishment he deserved, into THE reason for Gen. Petraeus' current predicament is fairly contemptible. How far away, I ask you, must one stand for the two situations to seem identical? Somewhere beyond the orbit of mars, I should think. As for the unfortunate general, it is very sad. He deserves all credit for his military accomplishments, though I think there may be some truth, as noted above, in the notion that he was not entirely suited to a political appointment. Certainly his actions in the Benghazi fiasco are highly questionable. I even wonder if the two events—his providing cover to Obama with respect to Libya and knowledge by others in the administration of his extramarital affair—were not related in some sinister manner, though hat is pure speculation. n nOne thing I do find objectionable in the Petraeus scandal is his resort to the shopworn circumlocution of "poor judgement" as a defense, the exact same words that Clinton used, as if dozens of deliberate illicit encounters might be explained away as the results of some sort of confusion. Along with "made a mistake," a claim of "poor judgment," it seems to me, amounts to claiming simultaneously that one is both guilty and innocent. A straightforward "What I did was wrong" is preferable.
strangely enough, the White House has announced that since he is no longer CIA director he won't testify before Congress on Benghazi–after all, well, because.
This armchair general absent stars in his eyes commented here weeks ago that Petraeus' career was finished. He may be a fine general but he has no feel for civilian politics. He didn't belong in the CIA and he certainly wasn't presidential material. n nAs I have suggested before, Max, you have too many friends in high places to be a credible source.
This affair apparently happened while he was in Afghanistan. That means he took the job at the CIA with this hanging over his head. Presumably he revealed it while being vetted for CIA director, which calls into question why it was considered okay then and not okay now. Or he didn't reveal it and that makes him deceitful. An extra-marital affair with a subordinate (the other woman is a Major in the US Army reserves) has to make him guilty of some kind of UCMJ violation, wouldn't it? It's also been reported elsewhere that Broadwell is the one who ended the affair but Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending thousands of emails to her, etc. n nI know it's fashionable these days to consider this kind of a "a private matter" and we're supposed to be sensitive to his wife's feelings and all that. But there are a lot of unanswered questions that I think we have the right to know about this. Basically, who knew what when and what did they do about it.
Please don't forget that Obama's good friend Katherine Bigelow made that "I killed Osama" movie aired on the Sunday before election day using what EVERYONE agrees was classified information that if it were your or I we'd be arrested and charged. Please don't make this about the theoretical release of classified information, it's not.
what planet are you reporting from? n nare you saying that Seal Team Six and the Defense Department allowed classified material to be released…..because the director is a friend of the president? n n nyou're a space cadet.
I agree in principle, but the Bigelow movie has yet to be released. What was released over the pre-election weekend was Harvey Weinstein's cable-television movie for National Geographic, not Bigelow's, which is intended for theatrical distribution in, I think, a month or two.
I feel like there are many excellent officers in the military and Gates was one of the best Secretary of Defense I recall in my life. Petraeus was an excellent office that took a mess and got it turned around so it could succeed and save lives. War has losses but he led his men well considering the political rules he was working under. n nI do not know enough how well he was running the CIA, it may be convienient for him and the administration that he does not testify to Congress. It is sad to see how we are supposed to be so sexually free, except going Zumba is so intolerable in todays society, except for movie stars, entertainers, and european leaders.
The question –and it should be the obvious question, even for somebody like Max Boot– is: does this benefit the hyena-in-chief? Because the timing alone is suspicious.
It is reported now that Petraeus may have resigned as a way to avoid testifying before The Congressional Intelligence Commitee on Benghazi Affair. Here is the full article in DebkaFile:r nr nWas an affair just a pretext for Petraeusu2019 resignation as CIA chief?r nDEBKAfile Special Report November 10, 2012, 11:52 AM (GMT+02:00) Tags: David Petraeus CIA Libya Barack Obama Paula Broadwell, author of Petraeus bio All InThe resignation of the acclaimed national American hero, four-star general David Petraeus, as CI Director is being presented by his friends as an honorable act in the light of an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, 39 – and nothing else.r nThe affair is said to have come out after the FBI placed his extramarital partner, author of his biography u201cAll In,u201d under investigation for u201cimproperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information.u201dr nr nPetraeus stepped down as Central Intelligence Director Thursday, Nov. 8, after serving less than a year. In his letter of resignation he wrote, u201cSuch behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.u201d The President accepted his resignation Friday.r nr nThe point is that during his 2010-2011 stint as commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Petraeus and his biographer Broadwell were often seen together and tongues already wagged then. Before that, he served as head of the US Central Command and commander of US forces in Iraq, where his u201csurgeu201d doctrine brought the US war to a successful end.r nr nFor a public figure of his stature and heroic repute, an extramarital affair would not normally these days be considered reason enough to quit his job. Bill Clintonu2019s presidency survived his affair with Monica Lewinsky, although the US president, who officiates as Commander in Chief of US forces and responsible for the CIA, lied to Congress.r nSenator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said the president should not have accepted his resignation. u201cA personal mistake should not have led to his departure.u201dr nr nInformed sources in Washington told debkafile that they believed there was something more than an extramarital affair behind the Petraeus resignation and the FBIu2019s probe of Paula Broadwell.r nThe FBI denied the director himself was under investigation.r nThe chronology is also problematical. President Obama is said by some Washington sources to have had the letter on his desk no earlier than Nov. 8 and only discovered it was coming on Nov. 7 while he was celebrating his election victory over Republican Mitt Romney. Yet the FBI probe must have started much earlier and its chief, Robert Mueller, would not have launched an inquiry touching on the CIA director without consulting with the president and so Obama must have known it was coming well before the election.r nr nNursing the wounds of their election defeat, Republican party leaders, are trying to connect the Petraeus affair with the still murky circumstances surrounding the murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the Benghazi consulate in Libya on Sept. 10 at the hands of terrorists.r nr nThis affair has still not been cleared up three months later and the labored explanations coming from the State Department and CIA have only deepened the mystery.r nRepublicans and many US media have called loudly for an inquiry into allegations of a cover-up hatched by the administration to keep a major security debacle dark before it damaged Obamau2019s campaign for reelection and marred the kudos he won as a valiant crusader by finishing off Osama bin Laden.r nNext Thursday, Nov. 15, the Senate Intelligence Committee begins its hearings on the Benghazi affair. Heads of US security organizations and senior White House advisers on terror will be summoned to testify. Petraeus was bound to be on the list in his capacity as CIA director. r nHowever, some hours after his resignation was made public, it was announced that he would not be called to testify. This was confirmed by the committee chair, Sen. Feinstein. The announcement followed speculation that he may have quit for the sake of protecting the president from embarrassing disclosures he was bound to make on the Libyan incident.r nThis theory ties in with Sen. Feinsteinu2019s first response to Gen. Petraeusu2019 decision to step down, which was to criticize her fellow Democrat in the White House. u201cI wish President Obama had not accepted this resignation,u201d she said. u201cI wanted him to continue. He was good, he loved the work, and he had a command of intelligence issues second to none.u201dr nIf the speculation is true, Petraeus may not be the only high Obama administration official to pay the price for Benghazi. Our Washington sources predict that the US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Elizabeth Rice, may lose the State Department she was promised after Hillary Clintonu2019s departure, in case she faced questions about the Libyan attack at the congressional hearings for her endorsement as secretary of state.r nThe Senate Intelligence Committee still has the authority to summon both Petraeus and Rice to answer questions on this troublesome incident. That would be up to Chairperson Feinstein.r nDoes all this mean that Al Qaeda scored a double coup in Benghazi? Knocking over the American chief of intelligence and stalling the career of a brilliant US diplomat? Or is there quite a different story behind the abrupt Petraeus exit?
If he'd been having it off with a man, they'd erect a statue to him.
and then at least one of you and he would then have a nice big and lasting erection. n nstop being so grumpy.
Gibberish!
When there are no arguments, insults will suffice.
In your case, after I offer six paragraphs of arguments and you reply unintelligibly, insults are waaay more than sufficient. They are all that's left to say and practically obligatory.
Here is where I have problems with the entire situation.
1. Petraeus should not have announced his reasoning for leaving. It is bad enough that he had the affair; however, to announce it to the world, only causes more pain to his family. Whatever one’s politics towards Petraeus, his blantant disregard for his family’s feelings should not be exculpated.
2. The Obama administration’s delay in accepting the resignation until after the elections should cause all to be concerned.
3. The main point is why was the embassy not protected and why did the Obama administration blame a video when it knew all along that al-Queda had threaten to attack the embassy beforehand.
I agree that it's unfortunate. However, it did not "befall" him. It's a direct result of the choices he made.
In 2009 Petraeus was treated for prostate cancer. Without a prostate, a man cannot have sex. Petraeus could have said, as did Pres. Clinton, "I did not have sex with that woman", and medical evidence could have substantiated it. No. He lied about the affair. It's okay, General, as Cong. King said that Petraeus will testify regardless.
Where did you get your medical degree? You need to brush up on prostate cancer treatments, many of which do not involve removal of that organ.
Okay, you may be right. So what! However, I am not a medical doctor. It could very well be that the disease may prevent sex. Even men with a healthy prostate, as they get older, cannot have sex. Why are trying to defend this man? He is no good! He could have saved 4 Americans and failed! Yes, he was a great general, but when he obeyed Obama he failed!
I'm sure you can see your own prostate quite clearly, given the position of your head.
Bobby's comments exemplify America's sad situation, by using meaningless scornful emotional words instead of rational thought. n nAfter the election, we need to examine our decision process. The advance of humankind over other animals is due to our ability to think rationally. There are three parts to rational thinking. We must have clearly defined and explicitly stated goals. I stress to my university mathematics students when doing word problems to skip reading until you get to the statement of the problem. We must start our thinking on the goal. n nThe second part of rational thought is, of course, correct logical thinking towards the conclusions, coupled with analysis to verify the correctness of the logic. The third part of rational thought is comparing the results with evidence, such as observational, experimental, or historical. n nLet us apply rational thinking to our government. We must begin by stating the goals of our government. It looks to me that a primary goal is fairness. We must raise taxes in order to advance towards this goal. When people in other countries riot and kill Americans, we must be fair and examine the extent to which Americans may be responsible. n nTo understand our government, we would benefit by contrasting with the government of the Jewish state of Israel. The primary goal of this government is national security, internal justice, economic development, and disciplined rational thought. Fairness is not one of the national goals as it is here, in spite of the fact that modern Israel was founded by radical committed socialists with the primary focus on fairness. The reality of Israeli life compelled Israel to move away from the goal of fairness towards the other goals mentioned above. In addition, the very long history of Jewish education and thinking gives great stress to disciplined rational thought, much more so than in America. Americans feel so confident in their national security and economic status that they feel they can elevate the idea of fairness to be a primary national goal. n nIsrael's goal of disciplined rational thought has lead to the fact that Israel has three world famous universities. Contrast this with New Jersey, the size of Israel, which has only one world famous university. The reason for Israel's success is that rational thought is a primary goal of Jews everywhere, and especially in Israel. If we contrast this with America, business success has been a primary national goal for the first centuries of America's existence. n nThe fact that economic development is a national goal of Israel has lead to Israel being a powerful, independent nation in high tech and energy. The economic boom in Israel began when Israel rejected, by electing Begin in 1977, the socialistic goal of fairness. n nWe can give many historical examples where countries suffer terribly with poor economies because economic development is not a national goal. In 1929, America rejected the ideas that successfully dealt with the 1920 depression. The goal of fairness for black people caused financial suffering for many, many decades during and after the Civil War. With a correct set of goals, the government could have insisted no corporal punishment of slaves, no breaking of families with young children, and free education of slaves instead of shooting the Southerners with cannons. n nMoslems have their primary national goal submission to the holy books and such. Their education is based upon rote. They have succeeded in their goal, as Moslems are very submissive to Islam doctrine. Their economic development lags, with unfortunate and severe consequences, because economic development is not national goal. n nThe Jewish goal of rational thinking and economic development conflicts with the American goal of focusing primarily on fairness. This creates a conflict between Jews and Americans. I do not know how to resolve this conflict. It is the source of hatred towards Jews. Americans need to realize the error of their ways of excessive focus on fairness, but to focus on true goals of national security and economic development. n
Bobby's response exemplifies America's problems, using emotional meaningless words instead of rational thought. n nThe advance of humankind over other animals is due to our ability to think rationally. There are three parts to rational thinking. We must have clearly defined and explicitly stated goals. I stress to my university mathematics students when doing word problems to skip reading until you get to the statement of the problem. We must start our thinking on the goal. n nThe second part of rational thought is, of course, correct logical thinking towards the conclusions, coupled with analysis to verify the correctness of the logic. The third part of rational thought is comparing the results with evidence, such as observational, experimental, or historical. n nLet us apply rational thinking to our government. We must begin by stating the goals of our government. It looks to me that a primary goal is fairness. We must raise taxes in order to advance towards this goal. When people in other countries riot and kill Americans, we must be fair and examine the extent to which Americans may be responsible. n nTo understand our government, we would benefit by contrasting with the government of the Jewish state of Israel. The primary goal of this government is national security, internal justice, economic development, and disciplined rational thought. Fairness is not one of the national goals as it is here, in spite of the fact that modern Israel was founded by radical committed socialists with the primary focus on fairness. The reality of Israeli life compelled Israel to move away from the goal of fairness towards the other goals mentioned above. In addition, the very long history of Jewish education and thinking gives great stress to disciplined rational thought, much more so than in America. Americans feel so confident in their national security and economic status that they feel they can elevate the idea of fairness to be a primary national goal. n nIsrael's goal of disciplined rational thought has lead to the fact that Israel has three world famous universities. Contrast this with New Jersey, the size of Israel, which has only one world famous university. The reason for Israel's success is that rational thought is a primary goal of Jews everywhere, and especially in Israel. If we contrast this with America, business success has been a primary national goal for the first centuries of America's existence. n
Rationality is insufficient. Fetishizing it is NOT recommended. What matters are the premises upon which one reasons. Those are not arrived at solely, or even largely, via rationality. n nNO ONE was more rational than the Nazis once their premises—Jews evil, Aryans angelic—were clear in their minds. The Bolsheviks, too, had the same problem, namely, worshipping hard-headed materialist rationality. Once they had fixed their premise in their sights, namely, that communism was historically inevitable, all else followed as if it were a case of completing the proof of a theorem in geometry. n nOnly through sound moral formation will what I am calling good premises be learned by heart, as it were. That they be learned by the brain as well is nice but unnecessary. n nSome good advice courtesy of Jonathan Swift (d. 1745): ". . . reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired. . . ."
Bobby's response exemplifies America's problems, using emotional meaningless words instead of rational thought. n nThe advance of humankind over other animals is due to our ability to think rationally. There are three parts to rational thinking. We must have clearly defined and explicitly stated goals. I stress to my university mathematics students when doing word problems to skip reading until you get to the statement of the problem. We must start our thinking on the goal. n nThe second part of rational thought is, of course, correct logical thinking towards the conclusions, coupled with analysis to verify the correctness of the logic. The third part of rational thought is comparing the results with evidence, such as observational, experimental, or historical. n nLet us apply rational thinking to our government. We must begin by stating the goals of our government. It looks to me that a primary goal is fairness. We must raise taxes in order to advance towards this goal. When people in other countries riot and kill Americans, we must be fair and examine the extent to which Americans may be responsible. n n
To understand our government, we would benefit by contrasting with the government of the Jewish state of Israel. The primary goal of this government is national security, internal justice, economic development, and disciplined rational thought. Fairness is not one of the national goals as it is here, in spite of the fact that modern Israel was founded by radical committed socialists with the primary focus on fairness. The reality of Israeli life compelled Israel to move away from the goal of fairness towards the other goals mentioned above. In addition, the very long history of Jewish education and thinking gives great stress to disciplined rational thought, much more so than in America. Americans feel so confident in their national security and economic status that they feel they can elevate the idea of fairness to be a primary national goal. n n
Israel's goal of disciplined rational thought has lead to the fact that Israel has three world famous universities. Contrast this with New Jersey, the size of Israel, which has only one world famous university. The reason for Israel's success is that rational thought is a primary goal of Jews everywhere, and especially in Israel. If we contrast this with America, business success has been a primary national goal for the first centuries of America's existence. n nThe fact that economic development is a national goal of Israel has lead to Israel being a powerful, independent nation in high tech and energy. The economic boom in Israel began when Israel rejected, by electing Begin in 1977, the socialistic goal of fairness. n n
Without a prostate? God forbid. Maybe he used his … sheesh, nevermind.
I attempted to post this several hours ago…once more with feeling: n nPetraeus was less than he seemed. Haven't trusted him since he put forth for public consumption his belief that Israel was responsible for the problems in the Middle East. Not to mention his p.c. take on "the Holy" Koran. n nAre his murderous rules of engagement connected at all to the precipitous rise in military suicides? n nBut other questions bubble up to the surface of this murk: n n Do we know enough about his biographer – her resources for the book about him, her background – to give her a pass? n nAre the claims that she broke off the affair, that before she left, this obvioussly ambitious woman managed to read his top-secret emails, and that he continued to pursue her with "thousands of emails" – are these credible? That last amounts to a form of stalking. Can emails be conjured by those who don't you well? n nWhile I find his views wrongt-headed and his public pronouncements of said views unprofessional, I do wonder if he was set up. n nAncient story with new players. n
If Petraeus was a "great general" he would have told Bush that Iraq and Afghanistan were unwinnable farces.
The lesson is that anyone who takes orders from Obama may be doing bad things.
Petraeus isn't the only person to commit adultery. What about Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich? There are probably many more that we don't know about.