probably seeing the shit he got himself into. she was playing. thru out. look at the pictures, the video with stewart and now all we are hearing.

will be interesting.

but, she was a player, and not in a subservient role.

that is different.

You said she was a " she was a player, and not in a subservient role".

Which would mean she orchestrated this mess.

bullshit. two adults making their choices to use each other for their reasons.

Also given the vast power disparity between him and her due to A) his position and B) his being a man in the dreaded Patriarchy how could consent possibly be given here?

And without consent sex is . . .

I discussed?

and ignore what i say. i do not see a fair exchange happening with you. hence, my only replies to you are consistently point out your wrong, and leaving it at that.

argue your point in a rational and coherent manner in an open discussion where dissent is not immediately silenced I understand.

hence, my only replies to you are consistently point out your wrong, and leaving it at that.

it isn't simply multiple people all agreeing with each other over and over and over again.

Occasionally differences of opinion may sneak in there.

That was interesting. Another fan? You've been a reasonable voice, pointing out the behavior of all involved was less than exemplary.

a few. i have just a few. some though, are little yappy dogs, nipping at the heel. constantly. i visualize trying to shake that thing off, thru out particular threads.

lol

I am joking, but it is fun to get to call you sexist for once.

Everything I have read says that she broke off the relationship (she has a husband and two children) and Petreus sent her thousands of messages after she broke it off, ranging from pleading to raunchy.

So it is sexist to assume that the crazy lady got to be too much trouble for the hapless general.

This story has been spun hard by people sympathetic to Patreus, hitting us first blush as FATAL ATTRACTION II where a crazy woman stalks a celebrity.

But the one who won't take no for an answer and sends thousands of messages to a woman who broke up with him is usually the one we call the stalker, in the real world.

I initially accepted that this was a story about her because that it what was being leaked, but I am starting to think that she was being succubusized by Patreus partisans. (Most unarmed CIA sources will tend to take his side, for the PR good of the agency if not out of personal loyalty)

I haven't seen anything about these supposed thousands of messages.
There were supposedly thousands of messages but from another man to another woman.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57548836/details-of-petraeus-affair-emerge-as-scandal-engulfs-gen-john-allen/

a guessing game.

but, i would get your giggle on that point. i am finding a lot of places to roll my eyes thru out this whole thing.

thanks.

i really let this go after the first day, of getting info. so much. then a couple days not reading any threads. until i started seeing mistress pop up. that brought me back into the story because of the absurdity.

i was more interested in that last part of your post. i am interested in the reason and her role being played, and the others involved. cantor. ect....

i really did not read about the emails and who sent what to who. all i saw was a thread about 20k-30k emails.

now.... this is an interesting piece of info that it was patreus that sent them, and now you say we are in the KNOW that it was she that broke it off.

all i got was the timeline the break up was in july. and oct they find his stuff on her computer.

i did hear a piece where someone said it was not her sending threatening emails, so have let that go until that is for sure. but it is really not the affair i care about.

thanks.

will sit back again, and watch what develops.

Wow, plot thickens, that's a book to throw at him if he was the one who stalked her.

In fact, what was reported is that Petraeus and Broadwell weren't even sending e-mails to each other. They were sharing an e-mail account and saving drafts. That is supposedly an old spy trick to not leave a trail.
So Petraeus did not send her thousands of e-mails.

Given the emails, I'm going with the latter ...

Yeah, she's a villain. So is Petraeus. So are all of 'em in this sordid affair.

Bake

It looks like this Kelley has a screw loose. First, she chose to move to Florida. That is a big red flag right there. And she looks goofy.

I think the threatening emails were a way to scare this woman off of Patraus.

Assuming that what the official story says is true.

The story line says she sent the emails to the other woman, but all that is certain is that they were sent from her computer. Who sent them is just a guess.

Remember that we're dealing with people who engage in black ops.

if it ever does.

There will be several months of kerfuffle. Lives and families will be torn apart. Careers will be ruined. The American public, whipped into a frenzy by the corporatist media, will have its eyes glued to the scandal. Then, one day, it will all suddenly disappear. The smoke will clear. And Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will be gone.

about her that fits that definition. but, the many posts that dismiss her sexual role but in the position of throw away, and all about the all important male sexuality.

surely, by this time, we would not be playing this game anymore.

but, here we are going back to a world of 1950's womans role serving the male sexuality.

she had an agenda. she used. he is an old man that got some attention. fucked his life up totally for a little stroke to the ego.

there is nothin in this woman and her life that reduces her to a mistress. no one was taking care of her. she wasnt in a subservient role.

this is what is surprising me, after a couple days of this crap.

making these points.

so she is presented as the one who seduced him for personal gain.

Typically when you seduce an underling the personal gain is pretty straight forward: you do it for the sex/companionship.

When you do it to someone many many times higher in position than you the assumption is that you're doing it to curry favors and gain power that way.

And that is how this story is being presented.

We can't really say this is sexist without looking at an actual woman in power who got hit with this sort of scandal involving a male inferior.

As is there are two possible variables: gender, but also a great disparity in power. You can't assume it all comes back to one.

who the woman is.

facts do matter.

A mistress is a long-term female lover and companion who is not married to her partner; the term is used especially when her partner is married. The relationship generally is stable and at least semi-permanent; however, the couple does not live together openly. Also the relationship is usually, but not always, secret. There is an implication that a mistress may be "kept"—i.e., that the lover is paying for some of the woman's living expenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistress_(lover)

A mistress is a long-term female lover and companion who is not married to her partner

...check.

the term is used especially when her partner is married

...check.

the relationship generally is stable and at least semi-permanent

...check.

however, the couple does not live together openly

...check

Also the relationship is usually, but not always, secret.

...until recently, check

There is an implication that a mistress may be "kept"—i.e., that the lover is paying for some of the woman's living expenses.

...unclear at this point. Given his power (and the fact that she made a lot of money by gaining access to details of his life) being his biographer may count in this regard. Either way this is an implication and popular usage rather than an explicit requirement.

So . . . were you trying to prove my point for me? Because that really isn't necessary.

If Petreus was a young, low ranking reserve officer and Broadwell was a retired 4 star general and head of the CIA, my guess is that some here would be refering to Petreus as a "boy toy" or something similiar and I highly doubt anyone would be refering to Broadwell as a "mistress".

They're all the bad guy to me.

It is the culture of the DC area that is the villain. It all goes back to the frat boy days these people participated in during their college years. After leaving college, they just continued the same sleazy behaviors and "frat brother" nonsense into their adult lives. Paula Broadwell is just one of the sorority girls they want to boink, and the circle goes around and around, over and over again.

The entire DC area is full of the sons and daughters of privilege. They believe they are different and better and can do as they please. Why? Because they've always felt that way and have been reinforced in that belief by everyone around them, since everyone around them shares the same background.

It's ugly and dysfunctional and harms the nation. It has been the story of our history, frankly.

..

some weak little woman being taken advantage of. she is not just some girl they boys are boinking. she is not a mistress. she is not young and naive.

They're all from the same mold. I have zero respect for any of them, as far as their behavior is concerned. The behavior is stupid and sophomoric, and is typical of people of privilege. That it becomes part of the political picture and involves others is the only villainy. In that, they all are participants.

naive, inexperienced role.

They're superannuated adolescents, emotionally. I question their character, in general.

These people, and I mean all of them, believe that their personal lives have nothing to do with their character. They think that nothing they do has any effect on their work. They are incorrect. Poor character involves every aspect of a person, including their professional lives. That is my belief, and it is one I have always held. It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with trustworthiness. If a person cannot keep a commitment as basic as marriage, why on Earth should I trust that person with anything else? In fact, I do not trust such people. It is good that Petraeus is now unemployed.

As I say downthread, Paula is one of several villains in this story. And villains (repukes as well) they are... for all the reasons you cited and likely more that are yet to be revealed

Place I know where at parties women spoke openly about their most important criterion for lathering up some male: Power and position. Money, looks, even celebrity were rarely mentioned. Strange culture, but boring, banal.

Do we really have to give a pass to the elite who can't avoid corruption of the evil culture that the elite MUST conform to?

Rather than do that I'd rather say in re this scandal, depending on which way you happen look at it this turd it has many different bumps to show us.

The whole thing is just a big ugly mess, and they all got caught in their sophomoric crap.

Bear in mind, that was the claimed pretext for an FBI investigation that may well have been politically motivated. But the link in the OP suggests the emails were not threatening. More just rude.

What we have here are power hungry not-so-nice people who feel entitled to behave however they wish.

All are culpable.

I am not stating that you are wrong, I am stating that I have not seen any indication that you are right, except in how the story was initially framed.

Since the entire investigation may well have been a rogue wing-nut FBI agent ginning up an investigation I do not know that we have reason to think there was anything demanding investigation.

The email excerpts I have seen were not threats.

There may well be published examples that I have not seen, but it is sounding more like the FBI guy was pretending they rose to the level of threats as the predicate to 1) a political investigation, and 2) getting into the 'threatened' party's pants.

Spectrum Dominance-domestically-- for instance.

I wouldn't exactly describe Broadwell as "hot" aesthetically speaking. "Attractive" is a matter of taste, but then when you have a blackened conservative soul, you get serious negative modifiers in my book.

Palin is consider "hot" or "attractive" is some quarters, but I cannot get past her rank stupidity, which is revolting in my book.

Second, this is the media narrative in some places, but not my household. I view Patreaus as equally guilty and should be subject to public scorn.

Third, I would view that matter as private and none of my business, except that the usual hypocrisy is at play, and classified information appears to have been bandied about like baseball cards.

in the way of the American media.

My definition of "hot" tends toward Eve Myles, John Barrowman, Elisabeth Sladen, Aisha Tyler, Felicia Day, Jewel Staite, Mayim Bialik, David Tennant, Dawn French, Catherine Tate, Bennedict Cummerbatch, etc.

Intelligence and nerd cred are my aphrodisiac.

story broke and I saw her photo, I remembered her appearance on the Daily Show, and how weird she was. She is frankly kind of scary and the sort who would threaten another woman. Petraeus seems like a weak, pathetic, lovesick fool. Jill Kelley--who knows what is up with her and her husband and their forelosures and constant lawsuits and social climbing? Running to the FBI, hiring defense lawyers and PR managers. Does anybody know anybody like this? I sure don't. The emails with the general in Afghanistan--now that is an interesting twist.

It is my understanding that thousands of e-mails were not from Petraeus to Broadwell, but from another man to another woman.

The self described "social liaison" was arranging sex parties that Broadwell and Petraeus attended a time or two. I don't see either of them as villains. The only villains in all of this are the FBI agent that contacted Eric Cantor and Eric Cantor for not being forthcoming to the intelligence committee.

I agree with the replies so far on this thread that make the point that Broadwell was not some naif.

Maybe she started boinking him to get killer exclusive(s) for her book. The calculus of power-mad (and what repig isn't power-mad?) people in the DC world is another level of repig-alternate-reality.

Maybe she thought an affair with Petraeus was the way to get there, who knows.

> She did publicly state her goal was to become National Security Advisor.

Now I'm thinking it wasn't boinking to get juicy tidbits for her book. Maybe it was boinking to create a blackmail-able event!



The reason I think it is more likely to set up a blackmail situation than to ensure loyalty is that repigs know that they themselves are slimy snakes with no loyalty whatsoever!

Spitzer, he's a lawyer for god sakes, took the legal angle last night with a JAG retired officer.

Inappropriate yes, criminal, no...and that is even when he was still commander if ISAF.

My take, the powerful want it to go away.

Oh and Cantor called the FBI. The one doing something Illegal, was the FBI agent.

And Petraeus is more guilty on that count, seeing as he's the one who was married. In either case, those are a couple of adults capable of making their own decisions and I'm not going to judge them.

The villains in the story, in my opinion, are the loony, Limbotomized FBI agent, and the Linda Trip-esque busy-body who reported her suspicions to him.

She is married with two young children. So why would you give her a pass on that?

no worse than Petraeus' own offense, and he seems to be painted as the 'poor, fallen, Great Man, tempted by a harlot'.

Hers are still young.

A promise is a promise, and they both broke the same promise of (I'm assuming) fidelity. Sometimes people do that. It might make them weak, or selfish, or arrogant, or incapable of controlling their impulses, or whatever, but I don't think it makes them national villains. The villains here are, in my opinion, that right-wing FBI agent and Linda Tripp Part II.

Well, if there is a divorce, you don't need to worry about custody of adult children. Whereas you have to about custody of young children. So when somebody is cheating and they have young children, in my view that makes it worse.

Not a victim (IMHO), but definitely a tool, and the REAL crimes-- the devastating results of that myth making-- have nothing to do with infidelity.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/11/12/not-a-private-affair/

And neither should journalism be like a movie or TV show. There is no villain role, nor hero anti-hero roles; what we have here is just a bunch of powerful people being idiots. That's all.

Of course the media has to frame events into narratives using well known tropes; they are framing this into some kind of fatal attraction set in the spook world. Would make a good movie.

Color me in the minority here, but I see nothing that makes this an important story. The media just salivating on it because of sex, like they always do.

Call me if something important turns up.

If you send threatening emails to someone in order to try and control their behavior, you are doing something seriously wrong in my book.

Many in the rest of the cast of characters also lied and cheated and various other stuff.

I beg to differ. The victims are:
Mrs. Petraeus
Collective war casualties (of the 'surge' especially)

And Paula is one of the several villains!

her husband and two young boys.

It fits a narrative: normal women don't like casual sex and don't have sex for pleasure outside marriage. Therefore any woman involved in a sex story is an abnormal woman and must either fit the victim or villain mold. She made threats to another woman, so she can't be shoved into the victim mold; she has to be the villain.

It goes right over the average head that they might have each just found the other person sexy. Only men find women sexy, so Petraeus was just "acting like a normal man". Women don't find men sexy (outside marriage) so Broadwell had to have another motive.

Can I offer you a sip of monogamy kool-aid? I'm told it's delicious.