i am not concerned about the issues surrounding david petraeus's infidelity. buy a kama sutra, if that titillates you.
what interests me is what it tells us about the professional competence of those who lead us, specifically about a director of the u.s. central intelligence agency who cannot keep his affairs secret.
read this very interesting post at salon, "paula broadwell's big mistake," http://www.salon.com/2012/11/16/paula_broadwells_big_mistake/ . it describes in some detail, (how obtained i have no idea unless some gubment types leaked it), those measures undertaken by broadwell and petraeus to keep their liaisons "secret."
they simply did not know the technical things they could have done to secure their "private" communications, nor how easily they were to be obtained by investigators.
consider that for just a moment. a director of an intelligence agency who doesn't know the most rudimentary aspects of trade craft, or, spy craft, if you will.
this is the guy who is running the central intelligence agency.
he doesn't know the first damned thing about protecting and securing his own communication. or, that in the absence of some prudence, that his most intimate thoughts and communications were easily obtainable. (perhaps even by the author of the blog post above, without any leaks from any gubment handlers.)
think about it.
if the guy who is running a spy agency doesn't know the first thing about spying, then he really isn't running the agency at all, is he? and, the if the guy doesn't know anything about trade craft, not even in its rudimentary forms, he doesn't have any clue whatsoever as to how to manage the information that comes to him, nor the slightest inkling in how it was obtained.
how to know it, accept to acknowledge what your handlers tell you?
in short, david petraeus was not running the c.i.a., and whatever information he gleaned from its operations was spoon fed him, and the spills wiped onto his bibs. he, in fact, simply sat in the high chair, waved his arms and legs in the air, and happily gurgled forth the froth and sputum from his lips onto his front, and said what he was told to say.
i can just see them wiping the goo from his face with a wet towel.
david petraeus was, to put the matter succinctly, simply a figure head to say what others told him to say.
he had no experience, no expertise, no grasp of the matters at hand, to do otherwise.
so, if david petraeus was spoon fed, what are you?
the implication is clear. you know precisely what david petraeus's handlers want you to know.
john jay @ 10.18.2012
p.s. that means that david petraeus, one way or the other, did not know shit about what happened at benghazi. that means his opinions on what happened at benghazi are pretty much worthless.
this means that what he told the congressional committee is worthless. and, the fact that the house members running the show don't know this, calls into question what they think they know. if they are relying on petraeus's word on the matter, they know precious little.
unless, of course, he was of the habit of reading conservative blogs. which i doubt, because his interests and extra-curricular activities seemed to lead other places besides an interests in the truth.
did he ever understand, even in the terms of simple fact, that chris stevens was not taken from a "safe house," but drug out of a laundry room?*** do you?
do you understand what it means when your government officials talk in terms of a "safe house," or a "safe residence," on the embassy grounds? well, let me suggest, that it confirms that you are being lied to.
do people lie to you, except to protect their own interests? governments? presidents?
*** i determined this fact by examining photos in the daily mail, purporting to be of the interior of the "safe house"/"safe room." i have never seen anywhere that the authenticity of these photos is in the least bit questioned.
how did i deduce the room was a laundry room? quite a simple matter, really. the room contained a washing machine, a sink at a window torn out and on the floor beneath the window, an ironing board if i remember correctly, and a cabinet drawer ripped open, and askew, with a plastic tray for utensils in it, utensils at the bottom of the drawer.
some other stuff.
you figure it out. you'd better, you won't be hearing about it anytime soon on the news.