FBI and email privacy

[flintlock]

Re: FBI and email privacy

I just heard a recording of a call Jill Kelley made to the police about reporters in her back yard. Was claiming some sort of diplomatic immunity from reporters based on her honorary ambassador status to Centcom. Pretty funny.

[don]

Petraeus a Scapegoat for all Seasons?

Epitaph for a Four Star

by Col. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, Ret.


When Major General David H. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division met Lieutenant General William Wallace, commander of the U.S. Army’s V Corps on 27 March 2003 at a site near Najaf, only five days after American forces began the attack to Baghdad Petraeus and Wallace were deeply pessimistic. They concluded, “The war was in dismal shape.”8 Petraeus, an officer who had risen to Major General and Division Command with no previous combat experience, was deeply worried about the level of Iraqi resistance.


The fact that 3rd Infantry Division (mechanized), an armored force of hundreds of tanks and armored fighting vehicles was already 50 miles south of Baghdad and poised to attack the city did not seem to matter. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. would have flown into a rage and fired them on the spot. Yet both men went on to four stars.


Was General David Petraeus the heroic figure his press releases suggested or a piece of fiction created, packaged and presented to the American people by the Bush Administration and its Neocon allies in the media and academia as the poster boy for counterinsurgency? Was he simply a world class aid de camp, military assistant and speech writer, a slick briefer who successfully cultivated dozens of Army four stars and political appointees on the ladder to four stars? Or is Petraeus simply the victim of his own press releases?


Consider these points: The Shiite dominated government of Iraq is not only more corrupt today than its secular Baathist predecessor. It’s also among the most corrupt states in the world, far worse than North Korea or Russia. And, unlike Saddam Hussein’s Iraq it is unambiguously tied to and aligned with Iran. In Afghanistan, Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) continue to run from fights with pathetic Taliban in bed sheets and flip flops and more Afghan civilians died during the 18 months of Petraeus’s “Afghan Surge” than at any time in the previous ten years.[i] How did these things come about? Who is responsible for this debacle?


How many times have Americans read the flattering assessments of Petraeus on the editorial pages of The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or heard Journalists repeat Petraeus’s assertions of “progress” and “success” on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC? Whenever Petraeus wanted to show that his alleged “counterinsurgency” strategy was delivering significant progress in Iraq or Afghanistan, the mainstream media offered unconditional support for whatever narrative Petraeus provided.[ii]



Vacuous statements removed from the facts were routinely treated like sermons on the mount, “It’s about being comfortable with a degree of chaos,” he [Petraeus] said in the interview. “And the whole point is that I am comfortable with that kind of situation. What you want to do is constantly push the envelope in every respect.”[iii] Huh???


When the Surge in Iraq began, no one in Washington was interested in explaining why the world’s most powerful military establishment led by Petraeus was buying off its Sunni Arab opponents with hundreds of millions of dollars, effectively supplanting counterinsurgency with cash-based cooptation.[iv] When the Surge in Iraq ended, no one in Washington wanted to discuss why Tehran’s Shiite allies in Baghdad restrained their fighters, and waited until the U.S. occupation ended before consolidating their control of Arab Iraq. In 2009, an Iraqi journalist described the outcome in terms no serious observer of the conflict could ignore:


“Observers not steeped in Iraqi history might be bemused to find that six years after the toppling of a dictator, after the death of several hundred thousand Iraqis, a brutal insurgency, trillions of wasted dollars and more than 4,000 dead US soldiers, the country is being rebuilt along very familiar lines: concentration of power, shadowy intelligence services and corruption.”[v]



A year later, Al-Qaida together with its Sunni Islamist affiliates in Iraq was also making a comeback recruiting scores of Sunni Muslim Arabs to rejoin the fight against the “crusaders and the Shiites” by paying them more than the monthly salary they received from the Maliki Government.[vi] Petraeus had brought the country back to where it started. Members of the House and the Senate privately acknowledged Iraq was a failure,[vii] but this tragic outcome did not obstruct the Petraeus proposal to repeat the folly of Iraq in Afghanistan.


On 7 October 2009 before the surge in Afghanistan began, Marc Sageman, a veteran intelligence officer with years of experience in Pakistan and the region warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “The proposed counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan is at present irrelevant to the goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda, which is located in Pakistan. None of the plots in the West has any connection to any Afghan insurgent group, labeled under the umbrella name “Afghan Taliban.”[viii] Reason and facts took a back seat. Sageman was ignored.


A year later, when I asked a field grade officer in Washington, DC with experience in Afghanistan if the simultaneous departure of General Petraeus and Ambassador Eikenberry from their posts in Kabul at the start of the security transition and after two high-profile assassinations (Jan Mohammad and Ahmed Wali) would undermine the Afghan population’s confidence in the U.S. leadership, he answered, “Absolutely not! There is no public confidence to lose. Read the local media translated every day in opensource.gov. The matter is absolutely irrelevant to the population-Uzbek, Tajik, Huzzara or Pashtun.”[ix]



Sadly, what happened in Afghanistan was also irrelevant to the American people. By now, Americans had figured out that large-scale U.S. military occupations of non-Western societies to transform them into images of the West inevitably provoke resentment and breed violence; even when the U.S. pays $25 million a month in hard cash to its enemies not to fight.
Why did these things happen?


The short answer involves the skillful use of data and information to create a false picture of military action in faraway places. It’s not a new practice,[x] but in Iraq, Petraeus elevated it to an art form. With the backing of the Bush Administration, Petraeus created a narrative based on the illusion the he, David Petraeus, had “discovered” a military solution to Iraq’s societal misery in the form of counterinsurgency.


Secretary of State Dean Acheson said it best, “Americans are suckers for good news.” And P.T. Barnum insisted, “A sucker is born every minute.” Both were right.


However, in Afghanistan, Petraeus overestimated his ability to control the narrative even with a friendly U.S. press. True, the chronic absence of accountability for lost funds and failed nation building projects persisted as they did in Iraq,[xi] but when Marjah, the alleged test case for the Afghan Surge faltered badly, IED strikes multiplied and U.S. casualties rose, the Afghan narrative fell apart.[xii] Unfortunately for General Stanley McChrystal, he arrived in Kabul just in time to embrace Petraeus’s false counterinsurgency strategy and supporting narrative, an act that brought him down as much as any imprudent remarks he made under the influence.


When Petraeus finally left joined the CIA, a place from which he could direct black operations that are largely unmonitored and uncontrolled by the president and congress, Americans simply tuned out operations in Afghanistan that were going nowhere. If such disastrous leadership did not result in the pointless loss of American life in uniform,[xiii] undermine American strategic interests abroad, and empty the U.S. Treasury of its hard earned tax dollars,[xiv] it would almost be comedic.


Of course, these observations still don’t completely explain the meteoric rise of Dave Petraeus, or how his carefully crafted image swayed American public opinion. One reason is very that few Americans know much about the military. Most are conditioned to see generals through the prism of Hollywood films. They are easily persuaded that today’s generals are indistinguishable from the battle-hardened leaders of the Second World War or the Korean conflict. Nothing could be more inaccurate.


Directing air strikes, raids and patrols from the safety of the Green Zone, a place that compares favorably with any number of elaborate shopping malls and motels in the United States, is not waging war. Suppressing hostile Muslim populations that resent Western occupation is not the same as confronting the Waffen SS in the Ardennes or hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops on the Korean Peninsula. In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no opposing armies, air forces or air defenses.


In truth, only a fraction of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who deploy, are ever under fire. Their courage and devotion are never in question, but confusing them with generals is tantamount to equating senators and Wall Street Bankers with American citizens struggling to survive the economic meltdown. In such an artificial war environment, sacred cows like Petraeus are never slain, they simply vanish.

In addition, Petraeus made a common mistake that is all too common in the Army’s four star ranks. He concluded he was the smartest guy in the room and he made sure everyone in the room knew it. Petraeus was always one of those guys who wanted to be a general for the sake of being a general and he was prepared to do anything to secure the stars,[xv] the product of extreme careerism coupled with the façade of false humility. President Bush and the Neocons in his administration needed a “hero,” an alleged “great captain” to make the case for victory in Iraq when there was none.


Petraeus was eager to play the role and, the otherwise unknown Paula Broadwell, a former Army officer and West Point graduate, was anxious to tell Petraeus’s story. Broadwell and Petraeus were simply two people with converging agendas.


Petraeus wanted a biographer who would cultivate the myth he worked so hard to create, someone who would glorify him, his “surges” and legitimate the Neocon policy of occupation and nation building with which he identified himself. Broadwell wanted the fame and fortune that access to Petraeus and his narrative would bring. Both got what they wanted, at least, for a while.

However, given that amateur hour in Benghazi is taking center stage on Capitol Hill, there’s little reason for the Obama Administration to keep up appearances with its generals. The latest revelations cast doubt on General John Allen’s future.


It turns out that in two years Allen sent approximately 30,000 pages containing hundreds of emails to Jill Kelley, a volunteer social organizer at the MacDill Air Force Base, in Tampa, and a bit player in the Petraeus-Broadwell affair. How many emails a day is anyone’s guess, but how could Allen have any time left over to focus on operations in Afghanistan when he was sending so many messages to the magnetic Mrs. Kelley!!!

None of the generals’ peccadillos is newsworthy, but for its commentary on the generals. The affairs are genuinely irrelevant. But the events demonstrate that the readiness of four stars like David Petraeus and John Allen to enthusiastically push utterly foolish and self-defeating policies conceived in Washington, DC is not the result of individual failures, but the crisis of an entire institution.[xvi]


Americans must wake up. The contemporary American military is not led by a Roman or Prussian class of hardened professionals. On the contrary, for the most part, the senior leadership is really an overgrown bureaucracy committed to jobs for generals. But these bureaucrats in uniform have gone too far. They are now responsible for the extraordinary loss of American blood, treasure, as well as, strategic ground in Iraq and Afghanistan at a point in time when the American people just cannot afford it.


Douglas Macgregor is a retired Army colonel, a decorated combat veteran, a PhD and the author of four books. His latest work, Warrior’s Rage from Naval Institute Press describes the generals’ failure in 1991 to exploit the victory in the Battle of 73 Easting and destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard.



Notes.
[i] http://www.afgnso.org/2011/ANSO Q2 2011.pdf
See the first paragraph on page 1, then, look at the charts on page 7 showing the overall trends in violence. See the graphic on page 8 and note the information on RC-Southwest (and, in fact, all of the regional commands). Page 9 provides a province by province breakdown. Once again, Petraeus and his staff did not tell the truth.

[ii] David Wood, “Auditors Despair over Pentagon’s Books,” San Diego Union-Tribune, 21 July 2004, page 1.

[iii] Yochi J. Dreazen, “The General’s Playbook,” National Journal, 30 October 2010.

[iv] Michael Vlahos, “Fighting Identity: Why we are losing our wars.” Military Review, November-December 2007, 7.

[v] Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, “Six years after Saddam Hussein, Nouri al-Maliki tightens his grip on Iraq,” The Guardian, 30 April 2009.

[vi] Martin Chulov, “Fears of al–Qaida return in Iraq as US–backed fighters defect. American allies the Sons of Iraq being offered more money by al–Qaida to switch sides,” The Guardian, 10 August 2010, page 2.

[vii] Daniel Tencer, “GOP congressmen: Everyone agrees Iraq war a ‘horrible mistake,” The Raw Story, 19 March 2010.

[viii] Marc Sageman, M.D., Ph.D., Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 7 October 2009, “Confronting al-Qaeda: Understanding the Threat in Afghanistan and Beyond.”

[ix] The officer declines to be identified for obvious reasons.

[x] Robert Maginnis, “Distrust Corroding The Military,” Washington Times, 2 March 200, page 11.

[xi] Marisa Taylor, “U.S. Spending In Afghanistan Plagued By Poor U.S. Oversight,” McClatchy Newspapers (mcclatchydc.com), 15 January 2010.

[xii] Alex Strick van Linschoten, “Five things David Petraeus wants you to believe,” Current Intelligence, 22 November 2010.

[xiii] Pauline Jelinek, (AP), “Army’s Suicide Rate at 26-Year High,” Boston Globe, 16 August 2007, page 1. The failure to devise a more humane rotational system is a case in point. Jelinek writes: “In addition, there was a significant relationship between suicide attempts and number of days deployed’ in Iraq, Afghanistan, or nearby countries where troops are participating in the war effort, it said. The same pattern seemed to hold true for those who succeeded in killing themselves.”

[xiv] Paul B. Farrell, “America’s Outrageous War Economy! Pentagon can’t find $2.3 trillion, wasting trillions on ‘national defense,”MarketWatch, 28 August 2008, page 13.

[xv] Thom Shanker, “Concern Grows Over Top Military Officers’ Ethics,” New York Times, 13 November 2012, page 2.Also see avid Barstow, “One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex,” New York Times, 30 November 2008, page 1.

[xvi] LTC Paul Yingling, “A Failure in Generalship,” Armed Forces Journal, May 2007, page 27.

[shiny!]

Re: Petraeus a Scapegoat for all Seasons?

Is there a Cliff's Notes version of this particular scandal? I'm on overload... eyes glazing over...

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Petraeus a Scapegoat for all Seasons?

The article lost all credibility with this passage:

"When Petraeus finally left joined the CIA, a place from which he could direct black operations that are largely unmonitored and uncontrolled by the president and congress,"

yeah, about that.........nah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community_Oversight

Why do you think there as so many intelligence leaks on highly classified operations?

For example.....Op Nepture Spear......the DOD didn't release op details......the Administration did....because they are privy to everything...even the stuff they pretend they know nothing about.

[don]

Re: FBI and email privacy

Why couldn't he testify under oath as a civilian?

turns out he will. Escobar's take . . .

How sexy is Benghazi?
Pepe Escobar

The Love Pentagon - as in the Petraeus-Broadwell-Kelley-Allen-FBI shirtless torso guy - is the farce that keeps on giving. But this should really not be about sex, lies and emails. This should be about Benghazi.

Scandal or not, General David Petraeus finally accepted to testify, at a still unspecified date, to the Senate Intelligence Committee, about the 9/11, 2012 attack on the US consulate in Libya in which ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed; he may eventually be asked about what the CIA had been up to before, during and after the attack.

As for President Obama, in his first press conference after re-election he has warned Republicans - who have been trying to twist Benghazi to their own purposes for weeks now - to "go after me"; for them to go after UN ambassador Susan Rice, "who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received", and to "besmirch her reputation", that's "outrageous."

More than Republicans having a problem with the President, it's more like Petraeus having a problem with the nation. Deeply in denial Republicans will obviously freak out when Petraeus tells the Senate exactly what he told the White House two months ago. The General - and later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, plus Susan Rice - they all said the Benghazi attack was to be blamed on that pathetic Prophet Muhammad YouTube video.

By that time Petraeus' steamy affair his Biog Babe, Paula Broadwell, was already history. But he arguably didn't know he was already ensnared by the Tampa socialite Jill Kelley-inspired FBI investigation over Paula's harassing emails. And then, last week, the investigation miraculously surfaced, immediately after Election Day and just as he's scheduled to testify to the Senate. He may have failed in his calculations to save his job. But there's no reason to doubt he will pull off a smooth performance at his Benghazi special.

A lean, mean killing machine
The notion that the now disgraced General will come clean regarding the current CIA modus operandi is as fanciful as Paula Broadwell playing Snow White. Since Petraeus was appointed director of the CIA by Obama, the agency has morphed into a full-blown paramilitary killing machine - not exactly a haven for HUMINT (human intelligence). It's all about secret, shadowy black ops, unmonitored by the Executive, the Legislative, the Judiciary, the media; virtually out of control.

This hardcore militarization of the CIA implies the agency never acknowledging the Drone Wars. Not to mention how its targeted assassinations, from the Horn of Africa to the Arabian Peninsula and the Pakistani tribal areas, are chosen; and who is lucky enough to live (or die) another day. What makes is even more absurd is that the CIA is also entrusted by the White House to impartially analyze its own shadow war enterprise.

That inevitably brings us back to Benghazi - and that bombshell Fox News report quoting an anonymous Washington source stating that the consulate had a "CIA annex", where three Libyan militia warriors, as in Salafi-jihadis, were being "detained", aka undergoing Dick Cheney-style recreational water activities.

As for the interrogation sessions, that was the responsibility of contractors, a shady collection of "former" Special Ops - as the CIA itself later reminded public opinion that it "has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued."

Yet other previous "guests" in Benghazi included fighters from across Northern Africa and the Middle East. To sum it all up; this "annex" was the CIA's top black hole in all of Northern Africa.

So here we have a "secret" CIA safe house attached to a consulate - and obviously not responding to the State Department - staffed with "former" or current Special Forces contractors accepting "renditions" and engaging in "detention" and certainly torture practices that are illegal under American law. They were all there working for Petraeus - and not Hillary Clinton.

And this may not have been the only one of such holiday resorts - as Special Forces keep roaming Northern Africa and the CIA happens to keep a safe house also in Somalia.

Let's bet a cellar full of Chateau Petrus that The General will keep absolutely mum about all this in his upcoming Senate testimony. The General will repeat that the Prophet Muhammad video did it in Benghazi.

And then there's Boobghazi
Boobghazi still beats Benghazi in all the ratings. No wonder; what with Biog Babe Paula and her virtual catfight with steamy Lebanese-American Jill Kelley, aka Jill Khawam, aka Gilberte J Kelley, aka Gigi Khawam, aka Gigi Kelley and her unpaid "social event planning" gig at the CENTCOM base in Tampa, Florida, not to mention the excruciatingly laborious exchange of up to 30 emails a day, everyday, with General John Allen over no less than three years. No wonder Allen could not keep his steady hands on that pesky Taliban problem.

The Tampa Bay Times is having a field day after another describing the morphing of "South Tampa's decades-long reputation for genteel hospitality toward the military"; the paper says that "ground zero" for the new sexy shenanigans "is not the Pentagon, but a mansion on Bayshore Boulevard inhabited by a family with lavish appetites and gigantic debts"; that is, the Kelleys.

With so much salacious turpitude on offer, it's hard to concentrate on foreign policy. Yet Benghazi may be just the hors d'oeuvre to what's brewing in Syria.

Benghazi - as well as the middle of the desert backwater Darnah - fueled the NATO rebel war in Libya with countless Salafi-jihadis, including those directly linked to al-Qaeda via the "former" Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

There is no question that ambassador Chris Stevens was in close contact with this powerful "rebel" strand - including Islamist superstar Abdelhakim Belhadj. After Colonel Gaddafi was captured, sodomized and killed by the "rebels" - with ample previous support of American missiles and Qatari Special Forces on the ground - Libyan Islamists, with Belhaj on the forefront, started to smuggle fully weaponized Salafi-jihadis for the Syrian rebels fighting the Assad government.

It took a while but finally Hillary and the State Department woke up to the potential blowback. This was one of the key reasons why Hillary pressed for a remix of the Syrian opposition leadership, enshrined this past weekend in Doha.

At his press conference, Obama stuck to platitudes on Syria, as in "we have been extensively engaged with the international community" and "constantly consulting with the opposition" as well as Turkey, Jordan and Israel (significantly, Obama did not mention key anti-Assad Gulf Cooperation Council players Saudi Arabia and Qatar). He warned about "extremist elements" within the Syrian opposition, and did not commit to weaponize them. At least on the record.

This Friday a new Syria donors' conference - the follow-up to Hillary's Friends of Syria bash - begins in London. That's when the West will be formally introduced to the new opposition leader, Moaz al-Khatib - which Western corporate media, in unison, is frantically selling as a "moderate", with "impeccable revolutionary credentials", who will, in his own words, lead Syria towards a "civic state".

This is as ridiculous as the Boobghazi farce. Al-Khatib has already said that Syria's problems will be solved with "weapons". France - which under Hollande remains as pathetically neo-colonial as under King Sarko - already recognized him and the new opposition set-up, essentially created under pressure by the US and Qatar compounded with vague promises of cash.

Al-Khatib - the former imam of the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, a position he would have never obtained without being vetted by Syrian intelligence - is known to have called for jihad to rescue the Muslim world (here it is, in Arabic, but nothing Google Translate could not handle). And then the clincher; he is sure that Facebook is a US-Israeli plot.

With frenemies like the US, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, Syria certainly does not need enemies. As for blowback, brace yourselves; what happened in Benghazi is just the hors d'oeuvres to be offered by increasingly rampaging frenemies of the US. Can't count on Petraeus and Allen to defend the homeland? Well, there's always four-star groupie Jill Kelley.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His most recent book is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com

[flintlock]

Re: Petraeus a Scapegoat for all Seasons?

The article lost all credibility with this passage:

"When Petraeus finally left joined the CIA, a place from which he could direct black operations that are largely unmonitored and uncontrolled by the president and congress,"

yeah, about that.........nah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community_Oversight

Why do you think there as so many intelligence leaks on highly classified operations?

For example.....Op Nepture Spear......the DOD didn't release op details......the Administration did....because they are privy to everything...even the stuff they pretend they know nothing about.

I agree , but some of this part rings true to me.

Of course, these observations still don’t completely explain the meteoric rise of Dave Petraeus, or how his carefully crafted image swayed American public opinion. One reason is very that few Americans know much about the military. Most are conditioned to see generals through the prism of Hollywood films. They are easily persuaded that today’s generals are indistinguishable from the battle-hardened leaders of the Second World War or the Korean conflict. Nothing could be more inaccurate.



Directing air strikes, raids and patrols from the safety of the Green Zone, a place that compares favorably with any number of elaborate shopping malls and motels in the United States, is not waging war. Suppressing hostile Muslim populations that resent Western occupation is not the same as confronting the Waffen SS in the Ardennes or hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops on the Korean Peninsula. In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no opposing armies, air forces or air defenses.

I've long wondered how the media decides which top general is a genius and which is a goat. The fact is a modern 4 star general probably has more in common with a CEO or a politician than Omar Bradley ever did. Thats not a knock on Petraeus, just a reflection on the difference in how wars are waged today. He asks for a troop surge and is proclaimed the next Hannibal? Come on. What commander doesnt ask for more men? Is it any surprise that worked? Its hardly Napoleon at Austerlitz is it?

I have no fault with the job Petraeus did but it seems we love to build men up to artificial heights so we can enjoy knocking the down. High level military has always been very political and perhaps these guys open themselves up to dramatic falls from grace when they make the decision to dance with that devil. Lots of lessons here about ambition, ego,etc.

I respect what men like Petraeus do for our country. But respect more men like I met Monday. This National Guard Lt Colonel just got back from his 5th overseas deployment. Most recently UN service in Kosovo. West Point. Ranger. Its only because I saw a flag in french with Kosovo on it that we struck up a conversation about his service. Turns out he was with the rangers in Panama in that invasion, Desert Storm, Iraq, etc. The last three deployments torn away from his family and job with the Guard. No fame. No fancy parties to attend. No political ambitions. Just a personal satisfaction and knowledge that people in the know respect his service every bit as much as a Petraeus.

[Slimprofits]

Re: FBI and email privacy

I have no idea about the legality. I have seen a few stories, and the word warrant is never used.

So a complaint is made, and because the person who made the compliant is associated with General Petraeus, the FBI has carte blanche to do as they wish with whatever they turn up?

That seems to be the case.

[cobben]

Re: FBI and email privacy

The real story here may be the Khawam family.

Gilberte Khawam (aka Jill Kelley, aka Gigi Khawarm, aka lots of other names), and her identical twin sister Natalie Khawam (both born in Lebanon? but who grew up in Philly) seem to be all over the place. Each is millions in debt.

Say no more, anything you hear is probably true, not to mention everything you didn't hear . . .

[dcarrigg]

Re: FBI and email privacy

Say no more, anything you hear is probably true, not to mention everything you didn't hear . . .

The LA times is saying they were born in Beruit. I'm not certain how much it matters, other than they may retain dual citizenship in that case.

[Shakespear]

Re: FBI and email privacy

"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" is looking down right boring next to this unwinding script.

Ok, I really think we now have enough for a full blown spook movie. As a reminder, Jill Kelley is the gal from Tampa who was born a Maronite Christian in Lebanon and who started the entire Petraeus Affair by contacting the shirtless FBI agent about harassing emails that turned out came from Paula Broadwell, who was the lover of General Petraeus.

Lurking in the background of the story, has been Kelley's twin sister, Natalie Khawam. You will recall that as a result of a bitter child custody dispute, General Petraeus and General Allen wrote glowing character references for Khawam. The ex-husband of Khawan, Grayson Wolfe, has been described in the press as an "investment banker," but he isn't just an ordinary IB. And this is where new developments in the story take us. As one anonymous EPJ commenter put it about Wolfe, "Noticing how the twins seem to orbit around trouble, I'm wondering how long before somebody really starts picking at the scab that's the ex-husband of Natalie Khawam: Grayson Wolfe. I gotta believe there's some pus under that one."

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...-twins-ex.html

[don]

Re: FBI and email privacy

Grayson Wolfe

you can't make that name up . . . .

[Polish_Silver]

How to stop sex scandals!

. . . . Petraeus has made some scathing remarks regarding members of the military who conduct themselves in the manner he apparently did.

The suspicious email was traced to the inbox of Broadwell, where investigators were said to have found emails indicating a romantic or sexual relationship between the married biographer and Petraeus, who has been married to his wife, Holly, for 37 years.

'

Here's my solution to his problem:

1) Stop expecting sexual monogamy. It is unnatural and sexually frustrating.
Look up "coolidge effect" on google. Humans are not immune to the Coolidge effect,
as observed by Klusmann. Humans evolved in highly polygonous social groups, just as observed in bonoboes and hunter gatherer societies today. We were hunter gathering for 5 million years. We were trying to be monogamous farmers for 5000 years, and monogamous cubicle workers for 50 years.

Male and (to a lesser extent) female anatomy shows abundant evidence of adaptation to sperm competition, including: large penis and testicles. External testicles. Male to female mass ratio of 1.21, just like chimps and bonoboes, and unlike gorillas and gibbons. Female capability of multiple orgasm, extended female sexual receptivity, perpetual sexual display (enlarged breasts).

2) Protect critical males by offering them screened females. It is better if he has an affair with a woman who is screened for disease and security issues. Avoid the situation of Kennedy, who supposedly caught various diseases, and had diverse liasons with women who could have been soviet agents.


3) Greater public acceptance of sexual feelings. Supposedly in India, nobody cares about a sex scandal.

[vinoveri]

Re: How to stop sex scandals!

'

Here's my solution to his problem:

1) Stop expecting sexual monogamy. It is unnatural and sexually frustrating.
.

And while we're at it, stop expecting Honesty, Fidelity, and Loyalty. Those buggers can damn be difficult and invconvenient.
I'm sure we can find plenty of good examples in the animal world to justify chucking these and good resaons why these "evolutionary" traits are just too "retro'.

[Polish_Silver]

Sex and Anthropology

Sexual fidelity is not more ethical than sexual freedom. If I love my wife, I want her to have fulfilling sexual experiences. Not something most women have in monogamous relationships. (pg 36)
In pre-agricultural cultures, multiple sex partners were and are the norm, just as in bonoboe societies. Sexual fidelity was emphasized so that fathers could pass property and social privilege to thier sons. That is why it is characteristic of agricultural societies, which have a high degree of social inequality. In hunter gather societies, there is no property to inherit, no inherited privilege, and no reason to obsess about female fidelity.

Sexual promiscuity would have been the rule rather than the exception.

The evidence for this theory is surprisingly strong. Accounts of actual hunter-gatherer societies, from Captain Cook's Polynesians to recent inhabitants of the Amazon rainforest, confirm the above narrative in all respects. The evidence from comparative anatomy is even more compelling. As Ryan summed it up in a recent PT blog article, "women's breasts, orgasms and reproductive anatomy echo the same story told by men's testicles, penises, and seminal chemistry. It's an X-rated tale of the orgiastic origins of our species."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...prehistoric-po

[lektrode]

Re: FBI and email privacy

I guess it is key for all major pols to have a dalliance on the side, just in case they need an excuse to make a swift exit from their appointed or elected position.

that was my reaction: the good general had simply had enough (of the administration) and it was time to go - what better way for a quick exit?