Another top general ensnared in Petraeus scandal
I guess if you create a culture in which generals are treated as rock stars, they eventually begin to act like, well, rock stars.
Complete with groupies.
Marine Gen. John R. Allen
As The Washington Post reports:
ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT — The FBI probe into the sex scandal that led to the resignation of CIA director David Petraeus has expanded to ensnare Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, the Pentagon announced early Tuesday.
According to a senior U.S. defense official, the FBI has uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of “potentially inappropriate” e-mails between Allen and Jill Kelley, a 37-year-old Tampa woman whose close friendship with Petraeus ultimately led to his downfall. Allen, a Marine, succeeded Petraeus as the top allied commander in Afghanistan in July 2011….
Jill Kelley
The latest development in the unfolding scandal has shaken President Obama’s national-security staff and upended his carefully chosen plans for his military and intelligence team in his second term.
It also further calls into question the personal behavior of two of the U.S. military’s highest-ranking and most respected figures, who apparently ignored concerns about the highly sensitive nature of their jobs as they embraced personal relationships with younger women who were not their wives.
It was unclear whether Allen could be subject to criminal prosecution. The senior defense official said the Pentagon was still reviewing the e-mails and declined to comment on the nature of the relationship between Allen and Kelley. “Gen. Allen disputes that he has engaged in any wrongdoing in this matter,” the official told the Associated Press.
Under the military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is classified as a crime.
Apparently, one of the anonymous emails sent by Broadwell had accused Kelley of “inappropriately touching” Petraeus — or “Peaches,” as we now he is called by some — beneath a dining table. Unfortunately, these are just the latest and most high-profile scandals in a string of incidents involving senior military officials. And as the New York Times reports, the way this investigation has unfolded does not exactly inspire great confidence or respect for some of those entrusted with law enforcement in our country either:
“Ms. Kelley, a volunteer with wounded veterans and military families, brought her complaint (about Paula Broadwell) to a rank-and-file agent she knew from a previous encounter with the F.B.I. office, the official also said. That agent, who had previously pursued a friendship with Ms. Kelley and had earlier sent her shirtless photographs of himself, was “just a conduit” for the complaint, he said. He had no training in cybercrime, was not part of the cyber squad handling the case and was never assigned to the investigation.
But the agent, who was not identified, continued to “nose around” about the case, and eventually his superiors “told him to stay the hell away from it, and he was not invited to briefings,” the official said. The Wall Street Journal first reported on Monday night that the agent had been barred from the case.
Later, the agent became convinced — incorrectly, the official said — that the case had stalled. Because of his “worldview,” as the official put it, he suspected a politically motivated cover-up to protect President Obama. The agent alerted Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, who called the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, on Oct. 31 to tell him of the agent’s concerns.
The official said the agent’s self-described “whistle-blowing” was “a little embarrassing” but had no effect on the investigation.
Everybody’s human. Everybody makes mistakes. Wearing a uniform or a badge doesn’t endow a person with some kind of immunity to temptation or bad judgment.
But still …
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
224 comments Add your comment
Stewart Blewit
November 13th, 2012
9:49 am
Stewart Blewit used to be a Democrat. Then I hit intellectual puberty, stopped allowing frauds to control me like a puppet, and do what most Americans once did — work for a living! We’ve been scammed into another four years. Voting for Obama is like clicking on a bad link in an email and getting a virus on your hard drive. Benghazi will destroy the President’s “legacy”. Don’t worry, I’m sure there are political contributions remaining and enough money to convert all Obama’s 1,000 campaign offices into grievance workshops.
Jeff Burdick
November 13th, 2012
9:49 am
Coming soon to Bravo: “Real Mistresses of CentCom.” My goodness, this Petreaus sex scandal is getting stickier than a Pooh Bear caught with his hands in a honey pot. Fortunately the Obama Administration is moving quickly to name his successor, and the FluffingtonPost has the funny exclusive details: http://bit.ly/TCAE4b
Scooter
November 13th, 2012
9:54 am
BOHICA
H. E. Pennypacker
November 13th, 2012
9:56 am
Stewart,
Interesting personal story…..you talk about no longer being controlled by frauds and then launch into Benghazi.
Do you mind sharing a few links from where you have pieced together your elaborate theory on Benghazi so we can better understand from where you are coming?
Banderson
November 13th, 2012
10:01 am
The Washinton Post article says that Petraeus had no intention of resigning until it became clear that it couldn’t be kept a secret. If the FBI agent smitten with Kelly had not taken the info to Reichert, who took it to Eric Cantor, it would have stayed quiet and Petraeus would still be at the CIA. I think it would be impossible to run an agency like the CIA once all your employees knew that you had an affair with your biographer, and, even worse, you’d let it become public.
Stewart Blewit
November 13th, 2012
10:12 am
Pennypacker,
Umm, umm, hmmm, one second, bear with me…
My outrage allegedly comes from a YouTube video called “Ignorance of Americans.” But, please don’t share this with anyone until after the election. Or, I’ll blackmail you. Thanks.
Jack Hamer
November 13th, 2012
10:19 am
One thing is common among such scandles. Damn capitalism which forces everyone to work harder and harder to the peril of family life, both spouses working longer enough not to be able to meet each others. So! Both find someone other for company. Solution! Cool down don’t run after $$$$$$. Be happy with less of $$$$ and more of family life.
Does it sink through your upper story thick skull?
East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)
November 13th, 2012
10:24 am
You know, these generals were probably ROTC nerds in high school who could not get girls to talk to them. This is their revenge. “Look at me, I got 4 stars on my collar. Whatever happened to the jock you went to the prom with?”
too little time
November 13th, 2012
10:40 am
Older guys are masters at self-delusion.
You give too much credit to TV shows.
At 44, I went back to college to qualify for a masters program. I had to take some courses (A&P, biology, microbiology) that would be required to enter, as I had an EE/CS background. These courses were full of 18-to-28 year olds. I am not a pretty person, but I can tell you that there were no shortage of pretty young women willing to go out with me. I was not delusional. I made absolutely no effort to persue any of them. I did end up dating one women… 17 years my junior… and we ended up married (for seven years now) and have two kids.
Older men do not have to delude themselves. There are enough jobless, lazy, deadbeats, woman abusers, etc, etc such that any guy who works hard and is not too socially awkward can find women of all ages (older and younger).
Would a woman rather date an older/married guy who buys them a nice dinner and shows her a good time, or a jobless bum who smokes pot all day and is perfectly happy to live off HER income? I know, I know, the answer is NEITHER. But if those are the only two choices, the older/married guy looks better and better as the incessant stream of bums take their toll. It does not, as Aquagirl implied, take a thick wallet. Sometimes all it takes is gainful employment, and not depending on HER wallet.
East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)
November 13th, 2012
11:23 am
Funny the book Paula Broadwell wrote is titled “All In”. Kinda writes its own joke.
Jeffrey
November 13th, 2012
12:32 pm
What is the name of that movie with clooney, France’s mcdourmont and John malkovich? This reminds me of that.
appleseed
November 13th, 2012
1:25 pm
Yeah I thought “Fall In” would have been better title for Broadwell book.
atler8
November 13th, 2012
1:43 pm
Where are Stewart, Ahnold & Recon? I want to ask if they have noticed that the major players at the heart of this scandal all appear to be republicans? Petraeus was thought to be in consideration for a while as the vice prez pick by Romney.
Oh…and then there’s that great pic of Broadwell & Rove together from back in June. Go look for it online if you don’t believe me. Rove even tweeeted about the pic.
Dan
November 13th, 2012
1:45 pm
Let me get this right under todays politically correct environment…adultery is a crime in the military, but gathering around the campfire and eating weenies is 100% okay?
blackbird13
November 13th, 2012
1:55 pm
” Petraeus was thought to be in consideration for a while as the vice prez pick by Romney.”
Just speculatin’, but maybe that’s why Cantor kept his mouth shut; he was afraid of bringing down one of the Republican “heroes.”
blackbird13
November 13th, 2012
1:57 pm
“Let me get this right under todays politically correct environment…adultery is a crime in the military, but gathering around the campfire and eating weenies is 100% okay?”
Yes, and now that you’ve got the update you can crawl back into your cave.
Stewart Blewit
November 13th, 2012
2:13 pm
It all comes down to YouTube. It’s funny how Denver whooped the President twice in one month. The first debate AND Broadwell’s interview where she announced we are holding hostages in a secret location in Benghazi. That’s the real YouTube video worth seeing, but it has been removed. Just like the top Republicans from our defense department. Perhaps they are not willing to take the heat for the President. I find it amusing that we’re told the affair was discovered in late summer, but late summer includes 10 days after the terrorist attack. Patraeus probably sipped the YouTube cover-up koolaid and then said, “Screw this. I’d rather take the heat for my affair.” You know which one will sell more of his books.
Nothing New
November 13th, 2012
2:15 pm
Spent 20 years in the military, retired over 20 years ago. At one time I assigned to a Battalion that had all female company commanders. The Battalion Commander had his own harem that he shared with the Deputy Commanding General of our higher organization. We even had a majority of the platoon leaders being female. You don’t think the male lieutenants in that battalion caught hell. Additionally, the Battalion Executive Officer’s girlfriend, mistress, worked in the battalion headquarters. I spent 3 years of living hell in that battalion.
Long / short of the story. The relationship Petraeus had is nothing new to the military. It just so happens that the news media place people like Petraeus on a pedestal so the fall is a lot higher. He got what he deserved, karma you know, what goes around comes around. I’m quite sure with Patraeus’ ego he screwed over quite a large number of soliers in he career. And, if you think this relationship began after he retired from the Army, I have a bridge in San Francisco for rent. Now it looks like Allen will get his too. What in the hell is a social liaison? New word for brothel employee may be. LMAO!!!
Me
November 13th, 2012
2:29 pm
If they were gay/lesbian, there would be no problem. They wouldn’t even be questioned.
blackbird13
November 13th, 2012
2:32 pm
Funny that Broadwell made that statement about the prisoners being held in Benghazi AFTER she’d admitted to the affair. Was this some kind of revenge against Petraeus, who’d ended the relationship and told Broadwell to knock off the harassing emails to his friend? I suspect it’s going to come out that somewhere along in the line in all this Petraeus lied under oath.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower
November 13th, 2012
2:56 pm
I am ashamed of my fellow officers lying & acting like Chicago politicians. Benghazi will be the downfall for this corrupt administration.
guy
November 13th, 2012
2:57 pm
Bill Clinton did it in the White House,there are gays and lesbians in the military,gays and lesbians(probably in congress and senate?) so don’t complain or point fingers or judge. At least the generals picked the opposite sex! WOW!
independent thinker
November 13th, 2012
6:04 pm
THE PLOT THICKENS- Benghazi-illicit sex- classified information- false news story about CIA and prisoners -Fox News and everyone involved is a staunch Republican. Can’t get much better!!. I guess the stink was too much for Eric Cantor due to some type of relationship with the jilted no. 2 lady:
“”"”"”"”"”"Paula Broadwell, the former military intelligence officer whose alleged affair with CIA Director David Petraeus culminated in the end of his career, had earlier made some startling, now-revealed claims about the agency’s role in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi.
In an Oct. 26 speech at the University of Denver, she said that Libyan militants had attacked the post to retrieve some fellow fighters who’d been taken prisoner at the nearby CIA annex. She also seems to suggest that Petraeus himself knew about it, implying that he may have been her source. Here’s the relevant passage from the speech, transcribed in full here by Foreign Policy’s Blake Hounshell.
Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.
The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this — they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.
The CIA is flatly denying this. “CIA adamant that Broadwell claims about agency holding prisoners at Benghazi are not true,” The Post’s Greg Miller tweeted. Fox News cites a single anonymous source saying that the CIA annex had prisoners at the time, and “multiple intelligence sources” as saying that the annex had at different times held prisoners. So why did she say it? I can only imagine three possible explanations, all of which should be taken with many grains of salt:”"”"”"”"”"”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12/why-did-paula-broadwell-think-the-cia-had-taken-prisoners-in-benghazi/
Of course the cons and Faux News now have turned the whole thing around Karl Rove style and pointed the finger at Obama for a vst conspiracy- go ahead cons . This getting funnier all the time..
Stewart Blewit
November 14th, 2012
9:31 am
Operation Patraeus Distraction in not working, Mr. President. America requests an answer as to why you ordered the armed forces to “stand down” in Benghazi. America would like you to “stand up”, Commander in Chief. A desperate man, outnumbered 100 to 1, stood on a rooftop in Libya pointing a laser at mortar targets awaiting the drone overhead to return fire. Unfortunately, the Situation Room provided the victims air support armed with a camera only. If you accidentally sent the wrong type of drone — regardless of Patraeus and Broadwell being in the broom closet — you could have at least crashed the unmanned aircraft into the target our brave American provided you in the final moments of his life. Or, was that drone too expensive? The White House then pinned the event and deaths on a YouTube video which we now know was a lie. Filmmakers, stand your ground. To me, this hints that Freedom of Speech reform is on the second-term social agenda. Until now, media outlets have been afraid to publish anything but complimentary news about the White House. The YouTube fabrication cleverly pointed the tragedy back to American social issues, which he led in the polls and, therefore, portrayed to the American people that he is capable of handling the sensitive aftermath better than his opponent. Justifying a cover-up implies that he and his team thought the truth about Benghazi would ruin his chance for a second term and they were probably correct. Under these circumstances, I am happy to be classified as a “rightie,” because I feel we should do what is right. “Forward” was a great campaign slogan, but will “Stand Down” be the President’s legacy?