Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 10, 2012

Petraeus' Fall - Late But Welcome Justice

So Petraeus got caught screwing with his dishonest hagiographer Paula Broadwell and had to resign. (My hunch is that there is much more behind this story but it will take a while until we learn about that.) 

Petraeus was responsible for many horrible things done in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. On example is the liberation of Tarok Kolachie in Arghandab River Valley. Paula Broadwell described the destruction of such villages, and other Petraeus crimes. She was callous towards the victims and flattering to the perpetrators. Another Petraeus adulator and buffoon, Tom Ricks, published her. He also should, together Petraeus and Broadwell, go down in flames.

Before liberation

After liberation

Joshua Foust, no bleeding heart himself, wrote at that time:

I cannot comprehend why the deliberate destruction of villages seems to be an official, sanctioned ISAF policy in the South. Is is abhorrent, an atrocity, and there is no excuse for it (nor are there words for the anger it’s stirred in me, reading about it from afar; I suspect Broadwell would sniff at me to stop whining as well, were we to discuss it in person). This should outrage and infuriate everyone who reads about it. But, and this is where I move from rage to despair: how could we ever possibly hope to stop it?
Removing the perpetrators from their position is the only way to stop such atrocities. Petraeus' and Broadwell's fall is late but welcome justice.

Posted by b on November 10, 2012 at 6:06 UTC | Permalink


It would be wonderful if Petraeus was ousted for the destruction of Tarok Kolachie, but he wasn't. I guess there is some kind of justice here in that he is officially ousted for dicking Broadwell while she as an "embedded" reporter defended these crimes. Of course, no believes Petraeus has been removed for infidelity to his wife. There is some other political intrigue going on here that will remain murky for probably decades.

Whatever happened here we should relish the result, now this is schadenfreude in its literal meaning. It would nice to see real justice follow.

Posted by: ToivoS | Nov 10 2012 6:51 utc | 1

someone(american) who says hes in afghanistan makes this outrageous comment:
' Amazing. A self-styled 'human rights activist' interviews self-styled relatives of 'innocent victims.' We have only the self-styled 'survivors' word for it that innocent deaths or their injuries resulted from drone strikes [not, for instance, from traffic accidents, blood feuds, AQ or taliban bomb-making efforts gone awry, all of which are dramatically more prevalent than 'innocent' drone-strike victims]. The case is heard in Pakistan, not famed for independent judges, whose establishment midwifed the Taliban in 1994-5, facilitated their alliance with AQ in '96 and has enabled their decades of butchery and mass murder. This is transparent Pakistani govt propaganda. The only reason drone strikes are an issue is because they WORK. They're dramatically precise at targeting the pseudo-Islamic mass murderers whom key Pakistani officials still support, while MINIMIZING innocent casualties. Sorry to see the 'Mail' and many of its readers are such easy marks for this nonsense.
- John Jennings , Gardez, Afghanistan, 22/10/2012 12:36

US has some seriously morally disordered people

Posted by: brian | Nov 10 2012 7:26 utc | 2

Surprise resignations and accidental deaths at the CIA are no surprise. Just ask Porter Goss or the ghost of William Colby. To my knowledge we never did get a believable reason for the resignation of Goss, although the mini-scandal involving Dusty Foggo was adduced as such. It may, of course, be that Obama is actually planning a "mid-course" correction in his foreign policy toward more rational goals, but that truly stetches the imagination beyond the breaking point.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Nov 10 2012 8:09 utc | 3

Rafael Correa seems to think the CIA is acting outside of the control of the administration.

He also said those are operations that are plotted and carried out behind a government's back and in this case, he thinks Obama's government "would not do these things conscientiously."

Correa considerd feasible that the CIA is a superstructure that acts independently from its government and the public scrutiny and said there are precendents about CIA operations without the US government awareness.

He also remarked that permanently, not necessarily the CIA, US ultra-rightwing foundations are financing civil organizations to destabilize, based on criticism, the Ecuadorian national government and he mentioned Fundamedios as an example.

Asked if he feared to be assassinated, Correa said "it was a possibility that can not be ruled out" and recalled the events on September 30, 2010 with the coup attempt.

"Although the media denies what can not be denied, the pictures of the six bullets shot to the presidential car, in which they thought he was, are there. The orders were to kill the president," he recalled after highlighting that "those people are capable of anything to defend their privileges."

Posted by: somebody | Nov 10 2012 8:18 utc | 4

ashley ‏@Way2Wonderland
What's going on? CIA’s Petraeus to testify on Benghazi next week Petraeus Resigns As CIA Director

Posted by: brian | Nov 10 2012 8:40 utc | 5

Hasn't Correa heard of plausible deniability?

Posted by: Maracatu | Nov 10 2012 13:59 utc | 6

The main question I have is who put the FBI on the trail of Petraeus?

The official version seems to be that the FBI were investigating an unrelated corruption case and stumbled onto his emails to his lover. Of course using the word "stumbled" implies that the whole thing was just an accident. I would doubt the FBI casually or accidentally found themselves going through the emails of the head of the CIA. Such a thing would require high level security clearance for starters. Secondly I would assume the FBI Director would need to be briefed before agents just went after the CIA boss.

@ somebody

On "color revolutions" news I read yesterday that alot of pressure/manipulation is going on with Agentina:

Argentina took a grave step in May when it nationalized YPF, its main energy company. The takeover, condemned around the world, forced out Spain's Grupo Repsol, which owned a majority stake in YPF. Repsol was providing the engineering know-how and financial investment to develop Argentina's massive energy reserves—including the huge Vaca Muerta oil-and-gas find.

The financial coup against Repsol won strong national support. The approval ratings of Fernandez temporarily shot up. Even opposition parties backed the move. Government officials talked about how they had restored Argentina's dignity by standing up to foreigners exploiting its natural bounty. Meantime, Fernandez kept the once-hot economy going by nationalizing private pension funds, redirecting the money into housing loans, and expanding welfare programs by decree.

Now scanning the papers today I read this:

The broad avenues of Buenos Aires were crowded on Thursday night by Argentina's biggest and noisiest anti-government demonstration in a decade, as hundreds of thousands of protesters marched or banged pots to express frustration at President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.
Word of the demonstration spread through social networks. Many organisers remain anonymous, but Mariana Torres, administrator of the Facebook page El Anti-K, one of the most active in calling for the rally, said she was delighted: "It was a true feast for democracy."

Of course Argentina is already a democracy, but by nationalizing its oil and gas has made enemies with the US-EU and IMF:

International Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde has warned Argentina it could face sanctions unless it produces reliable growth and inflation data. The IMF head said the fund had given Argentina a "yellow card" but it could face a red.

It's the same anonymous opposition on Facebook & Twitter. The same favourable coverage in the Guardian/BBC/AP/Reuters. The same Western financial and political interests at work. With the goal of rolling back Argentina claiming its own oil fields.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Nov 10 2012 14:28 utc | 7

Petraeus's comments about the threat Israel posed to our security led to his diminished public stature, and, probably contributed to his ultimate downfall. Note the media's inattention to his carreer after his unscripted criticisms of Israel. They, (the media), also stopped marketing him as a potential political player. I can only imagine how intimidating it musta been to the Israeli's to have this guy at the head of the CIA, knowing his opinions about the corrosive effect our support of Israeli policies is to our own security. There is much to loath about this man, but he deserves a bit of respect for being honest about this aspect of our foreign policy. A shame they so successfully managed to hide his public statements about Israel, and were able to subsequently muzzle him.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 10 2012 14:57 utc | 8

Heres what the rabid pro-Israel whores think of Petraeus....

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 10 2012 15:26 utc | 9

Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall for having an affair?
Before they could erect a statue to him in Firdos Square?
So now there will be no President Betrayus,
Only the usual suspects to service us.

Posted by: JohnH | Nov 10 2012 16:07 utc | 10


"It's the same anonymous opposition on Facebook & Twitter. The same favourable coverage in the Guardian/BBC/AP/Reuters. The same Western financial and political interests at work. With the goal of rolling back Argentina claiming its own oil fields."

They all work together. It's obvious Israel-America is playing their regime change games there. If Argentina doesn't act quick in rooting out the puppets sabotaging their country, they could end up back where they were under the dictatorship.

Posted by: вот так | Nov 10 2012 16:39 utc | 11

If the US didn't provoke the Iraqis once we occupied Iraq, there wouldn't have been much of a "war"

Of course, why anybody expects a military punitive epidition which was corrupt from its inception to be conducted with anything but corruption and brutality is beyond me. And now, should it become a problem, they have a scapegoat.
Of course Patreus is corrupt, that's why they choose him for the job.

Posted by: Mooser | Nov 10 2012 16:56 utc | 12


They also have renewed their attack in China:

Tibetans have’sacred duty’ to support self-immolations

I find the sort of psychological warfare the fascists practice on those Tibetans to get them to set themselves on fire particularly gruesome, callous and repugnant and think it shows how lacking these people running the west are in even basic human values.

Posted by: вот так | Nov 10 2012 17:40 utc | 13

Is there any chance that Petraeus was outed because the drone was CIA's and they wanted to push the administration into a showdown with Iran? Recall that Petraeus was the one who pushed for the ridiculous Iranian car salesman plot.

Posted by: s | Nov 10 2012 18:07 utc | 14

Is there any chance things weren't going well with Ms. Broadwell and she saw a chance to promote the book?

Posted by: dh | Nov 10 2012 18:23 utc | 15

.....or was Broadwell's husband looking to get even?

Posted by: dh | Nov 10 2012 18:27 utc | 16

"or was Broadwell's husband looking to get even?"

If it was a case of wife-swapping, I can see how he might have felt he got shafted.

Posted by: вот так | Nov 10 2012 18:49 utc | 17

In France, it has been clear for some time, that top pols, men, have handmaidens who are media women, announcers, chroniclers, book writers, TV personalities, journalists, commentators, blog owners, and so on.

The female support staff is paid, believe you me, very generously.

They present a soft face on politics, in nice clothes, cute faces, skimpy attire, etc. Sometimes they pretend to be puzzled, have hesitations, etc. They write biographies and pretend to be tough interrogators on the blue screen or radio, it is just BS. Often, they sleeep with their subjects who are their mentors and controllers at the same time.

That has come to the US? Heh. Too funny.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 10 2012 19:36 utc | 18

I guess Petraeus dyes his hair, does he? That's why he looks young alongside his wife Holly, who doesn't. I couldn't see a single grey hair at the age of 60. Says a lot about him.

Posted by: alexno | Nov 10 2012 20:05 utc | 19

Or is it a wig?

Posted by: alexno | Nov 10 2012 20:11 utc | 20

Personally I think it is a good thing he is gone. It will help the US to understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are defeats. Though I don't like the logical corollary for the US that it would be better to turn to drone warfare.

Posted by: alexno | Nov 10 2012 20:18 utc | 21

Watching Broadwell in that Jon Stewart clip joggled my memory of another well known illicit military couple. Hot Lips and Frank. Striking similarity...

Posted by: вот так | Nov 10 2012 20:35 utc | 22

@Noirette #18 Now now I hope that isn't a reference to the charming and perfectly formed Valerie Trierweiler France's new 'first lady' who has become infamous for siding with the right against her president/partner's ex-wife.

None of this is new or different really men in power are attractive to some women (Didn't Eisenhower gad about WW2 with a personal 'nurse'), the obnoxious thing about it is that (a) it is always the women who in the long run are held to account - see Trierweiler who is under the gun for her tweet against Royale although presumably Hollande was well aware that his tweet in support of his former wife would piss off the current woman (jeez I hate even thinking about this soapie shit).

(b) Politicians and the media use this crap as a diversion from the issues yet so many humans go along with it, much preferring to know how many different people a pol is having sex with than the numbers of humans the pol has had murdered or starved to death

Am I the only person to have noticed that media coverage has featured some pretty unflaterring pix of Mrs Petraeus (along with a couple taken of her at the time of her engagement to Petraeus way back when - a dodgy sort of biggest losers "before and after" perspective).
Meanwhile the pix of the 'biographer' show her in Playboy bunny type poses (albeit with a tad more clothing) as a dog whistle to alla the 'red blooded amerikans males' out there that ol Dave did 'what any man would do'.

After years of watching this dance I hafta say that Petraeus has had good advice and will likely end up more popular than before (among the demographic that he plays to).
In fact maybe he did the whole thing himself, maybe there was no other agenda apart from gettin aligned for rethug 2016 after seeing the xtian right's destruction of Dinesh D’Souza for similar 'crimes' Petraeus decided to get in first. Maybe he has a play to stick the right's complaints about the benghazi square up back on oblamblam not t'other way round.

Time will tell eh?

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 10 2012 21:22 utc | 23

re 18 Noirette

In France, it has been clear for some time, that top pols, men, have handmaidens who are media women, announcers, chroniclers, book writers, TV personalities, journalists, commentators, blog owners, and so on.

The female support staff is paid, believe you me, very generously.

They present a soft face on politics, in nice clothes, cute faces, skimpy attire, etc. Sometimes they pretend to be puzzled, have hesitations, etc. They write biographies and pretend to be tough interrogators on the blue screen or radio, it is just BS. Often, they sleep with their subjects who are their mentors and controllers at the same time.

You should mention DSK (Dominique Strauss-Kahn). That at least indicates a beginning of change.

France is a funny country. It is beloved of many women worldwide, but in fact it is as sexist as any.

However things change, and I suspect, Noirette, that you are talking of the old France. Our faculty has been dominated by women since 2001.

In the media, the split older men/younger women is the same as elsewhere. At the moment there is a discussion in UK as to whether women can be sacked when they begin to appear to be old. Evidently it is completely illegitimate to do away with women presenters simply because they've passed a certain age.

The split is sexual. Older man=provider; younger woman=capable of bearing children. It won't be easily erased, but it is coming, in France as elsewhere.

Posted by: alexno | Nov 10 2012 21:51 utc | 24

Remember this is the second time Petraeus has been fired by the same employer. Part of me doesn't believe any of his actions have actually pissed off his superiors. I think he might be just a placeholder. When we see who Obama appoints, we'll know, perhaps. It definitely won't be anyone with an overt military career or history.

Posted by: L Bean | Nov 10 2012 22:02 utc | 25

According Mondoweiss, Petraeus recognized his ‘error’ and attempted to mend his relations with Tel Aviv.

Posted by: Watson | Nov 10 2012 22:23 utc | 26

re 23 Debs

I didn't have the impression that Hollande moved on from Ségolène Royale to Valerie Trierweiler. Rather he was dumped, and he had to find someone new. If Ségolène Royale had been loyal, she would have accepted the role of First Lady.

Am I the only person to have noticed that media coverage has featured some pretty unflaterring pix of Mrs Petraeus

She accepts her age. Mr. Petraeus does not, see my 19.

After years of watching this dance I hafta say that Petraeus has had good advice and will likely end up more popular than before (among the demographic that he plays to).

I was going to tackle this point: is he still electable as president? My impression is no, American voters value too much monogamy. But I don't really know. I leave it to Americans to tell us.

Posted by: alexno | Nov 10 2012 22:45 utc | 27

Petraeus could be on a conservative political salvation ticket for 2016, now that the republicans have used up all the crazy. The man in uniform is probably their Plan B: someone who will be ideologically neutral, albeit blood-soaked. His infidelity will by then be old news; and none of his sexual monkey business would really spoil him in the eyes of the old fart republicans, as long as they conclude that he is one of them.

Posted by: Copeland | Nov 11 2012 1:30 utc | 28

Correction: I should have written that the general will seem to be ideologically neutral. That is how he would likely be sold to the public, in a future campaign.

Posted by: Copeland | Nov 11 2012 1:40 utc | 29

I agree, b. Tom Ricks needs to go, too. Ricks's stand-by-your-man apology on his blog is especially offensive when contrasted with the before & after photos of Tarok Kolachie.

Posted by: ess emm | Nov 11 2012 5:47 utc | 30

More than 1 US soldier involved in March 11 massacre: Afghan eyewitnesses

"Faizullah, whose father Haji Mohammed Naim was gunned down, told the hearing that he was awoken and saw a US soldier shooting his father.

He added that the shooter was not alone on the night of the attack in the Panjwayi district of Kandahar province.

According to a video broadcast by CNN in March, Afghan villagers said multiple US troops broke into their houses and asked about the Taliban.

Witnesses said that they told the troops that there were no Taliban there, but they started shooting at people anyway.

Other villagers said that after the carnage, the US soldiers piled up the dead bodies of the victims and set them on fire.

The US broadcaster showed photographs of the dead bodies of the children, which the villagers said were burnt by the troops.

However, US officials still insist that only Bales was responsible for the killings."

Girl: She hid behind dad during Afghan massacre

"One Army Criminal Investigations Command special agent testified that several months after the massacre, she took a statement from one woman whose husband was killed. The woman reported that there were two soldiers in her room — one took her husband out of the room and shot him, and the other held her back when she tried to follow.

But other eyewitnesses reported that there was just one shooter, and several soldiers have testified that Bales returned to his base at Camp Belambay, just before dawn, alone and covered in blood.

A video taken from a surveillance blimp also captured a sole figure returning to the base."

The report in the Iranian media stresses that the massacre was done by more than one person. The western fascist media, on the other hand, works to discount the evidence more than one U.S. soldier was involved. If the U.S. can pin the blame for the massacre on one soldier, they can pawn the operation off as the work of a "lone nut". "Lone nuts" figure highly in American crimes...

That massacre was systematic of the way America rules territories they occupy. It was a revenge/terror by example operation in response to a resistance attack upon an American group that happened a few days before. And it was intended to send the message of "we'll slaughter many of you for every one you kill of us". These terror ops were done in Vietnam, also. Remember Calley? Americans accept this brutality because their media hides the true nature of this state terrorism from them, and, after all, it's being done by Americans, not evil foreigners with with "scary" languages, religions or customs.

Posted by: вот так | Nov 11 2012 9:00 utc | 31

re US policy in Latin America - I have been wondering how the multinationals seem to have lost a lot of control and/or interest there the last decades or so - not that they were not trying ... maybe because political priorities were in the Middle East?

On returning there back now - Correas statement - I think he refers to this

Washington Post - Explore Top Secret America

The government has built a national security and intelligence system so big, so complex and so hard to manage, no one really knows if it's fulfilling its most important purpose: keeping its citizens safe.

The Washington's Post series should have created a storm in any democracy - as the conclusion of the above quote is "nobody controls it and nobody knows what it is doing"

I have also wondering: As both US parties now have to fight for the Latin American vote and this time it is the vote of poor immigrants sending money home to their folks and not rich Cuban ex property owners will they be able to afford the old US Latin American policies?

Posted by: somebody | Nov 11 2012 11:03 utc | 32

Well, the removal of Petraeus and the outcome of US elections probably means the end of COIN

And about who is now going to answer on Benghazi - usually the no 1 of an organization does the politics and takes the responsibility, the no 2 does the operations.

The no 2 will now be able to answer questions without having to take responsibility.

Posted by: somebody | Nov 11 2012 13:35 utc | 33

I don’t understand why Petraeus, head of the CIA, was being investigated (turned up in some check? ..what?) by the FBI, because I don’t know how this all works, institutionally. That would be a first thing to grasp. Who was investigating, checking, vetting, whom and why? SOP? (see Colm above..)

So he was bonking the biographer babe. Big deal. You can be sure everyone knew and nobody cared. This is just an excuse for his hasty exit, stage right.

EMBEDDED for a year (!) to write a book titled ALL IN, authored BROADWELL, you gotta laugh.

I remember rumors of an affair long ago, when he was in Afgh. or Irak?...hard to look up now without more detail as the media is swamped with the present story. I’ll give is a shot (sic) if time.

My guess: Money and/or missing military/other records. All that money missing in both countries. Plus, women, or something else extra. P would not have been, imho, interested in or tempted by ordinary graft to benefit himself. Also difficult to hide in his position. It could simply be that he was super careless or much worse and that ‘under his watch’ all kind of shenanigans to be covered up took place, so his mouth has to be shut in a ‘soft’ way. Note, this is speculation.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 11 2012 16:22 utc | 34

"Petraeus' and Broadwell's fall is late but welcome justice"

I agree b,but, I have to say I don't think their demise will be permanent. Petaeus' will rise again after a short banishment, probably bigger and better, in at least, the right wings eyes. As for Broadwell, just another chapter in the old story of V power. Us men, if we admit it, know the REAL power of a beautiful woman. Beautiful women, if they admit it, also know that power. And the beat goes on.

Posted by: ben | Nov 11 2012 16:26 utc | 35

@ alexno 24. I understand all that. And France is a funny country indeed.

The point is, the attractive media birds (journos, tv presenters, interviewers, biographers, scribblers, groupies, etc.) have more impact than before.

They appear to be ‘genuine’, ‘unbiased’, ‘tough’, ‘caring’, even ‘crack’ reporters who risk their lives (Florence Aubenas, etc.) but they merely uphold or enforce the power structure as is.

It’s a career choice, risky but lucrative to some degree, and very socially admired, which is the main attraction. Ppl suck it up because they are women.

Handmaidens > new form of power of the visual media is maybe the main theme.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 11 2012 17:02 utc | 36

Interesting piece by Robert Parry. He seems to imply that Obama wants to move towards a genuine deal with Iran over its nuclear program in his second term. If Mr. Parry is right then Obama has a very weird way of showing his intentions!

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Nov 11 2012 20:44 utc | 37


"On returning there back now - Correas statement - I think he refers to this

Washington Post - Explore Top Secret America

The government has built a national security and intelligence system so big, so complex and so hard to manage, no one really knows if it's fulfilling its most important purpose: keeping its citizens safe.

The Washington's Post series should have created a storm in any democracy - as the conclusion of the above quote is "nobody controls it and nobody knows what it is doing"

My first reaction to reading that is it sounds like one of those sci-fi thrillers where machines gradually take over that are periodically popular in film. Makes an occasional film entertaining, but a bit too far fetched to be taken serious outside of fiction.

Another scenario one hears frequently about is a cabalist like secret take over of the government by a small, well organised group - the film "Fail Safe" is a well known fictional example of this scenario. There is the related take over by outside, nefarious forces scenario - "Manchurian Candidate", a well known portrayal of this fictional scenario. Duff posits something like these here (among other things):

Why else did the CIA spymaster resign?

It is possible that some small group could take over the U.S. government. It has been attempted at least one time before. In the 1930's when some very rich, far right corporate fascists decided FDR wasn't fascist enough for them and decided they could do a better job. The plan got exposed when these fascists picked the wrong man who was to be their front man after the coup (Smedley Butler), and he exposed them.

Some interesting events reported on in the Duff piece I didn't know about was these:

"A week ago, Vice Admiral Gaouette, in command of the USS Stennis and her support task force including nuclear submarines, was “perp walked” off the flight deck of the giant American carrier, twenty miles off the coast of Iran, as though he were a common criminal.

The removal of Gaouette is unique in military history with one exception, the firing of General McArthur by President Harry Truman during the Korean War. Truman fired MacArthur for not just planning but preparing a nuclear attack on China and a full-scale invasion of the Chinese mainland.

With only one direct parallel in the last century, it is reasonable to assume that Gaouette was following in the path of former 5th Fleet commander, Admiral Cosgriff.

Cosgriff, according to Gwyneth Todd, Chief Political Officer for the fleet, reported Cosgriff to the Department of State when she learned that he was planning false flag terror attacks against American troops in the Persian Gulf theatre and was planning to sail American warships well into Iranian waters."

I don't know how accurate that representation of those events is, but it is also likely others are getting the axe that we are not hearing about. This means a major shake-up in going down, mostly probably behind the scenes. I think Betrayus resigning is part of that shake-up.

I don't think this is about a busted secret conspiracy to take over the government, or some "rogue elements" setting up an unapproved falseflag. What I think is going on is rivalry between management teams, and the team Betrayus is on is "out of favour" with the "board of directors" and "major stock holders". I think the various fascist interests who run the west, run it exactly like they run their multinational corporations. Countries are their "corporate subsidiaries". The people we know as "leaders" are, in effect, frontmen for the various management "teams" or alike thinking groups who run things for this polygarchy. Like different management groupings in a large corporation, these "teams" both work with each other and at the same time try to push their "management method" forward. Sometimes, in the eyes of "the boss", they blow it enough, elements of the "team" get sacked.

What I think this means is that Israel-America is going to make some major changes to the way they approach their goal to dominate the planet and planners of policies they think were failing in that respect are being replaced. My own view, pessimist that I am, is to look for a meaner and leaner world super power who will be more aggressive, more duplicitous and who will be staging a more widespread and better coordinated attack on those still independent of its clutches. Look for more centralisation of power into publicly unaccountable fascist hands and more repression at home, both covert and overt.

Posted by: вот так | Nov 11 2012 20:47 utc | 38

yep, the Garoutte case is interesting as is its timing this here is the official version quoting "inappropiate leadership judgement" as reason.

Posted by: somebody | Nov 11 2012 21:17 utc | 39

Scorched earth is the strategy of the defeated.

Funny how a bestial bonk receives more attention than the horrors this man has inflicted on his fellow man. Now time to look forward to the next psycopath in charge.

Posted by: david | Nov 12 2012 8:57 utc | 40

Incredibly powerful photos. Thanks again b.

Posted by: scottindallas | Nov 12 2012 14:31 utc | 41

rmmbr the paramour thing is gossip - below is what i was murkily recalling.

NYT, Aug 2007

Several federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other matériel to Iraqi and American forces, according to American officials. The officials said it amounted to the largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here.

The inquiry has already led to several indictments of Americans, with more expected, the officials said. One of the investigations involves a senior American officer who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005, American officials said Monday. (...)

There is no indication that investigators have uncovered any wrongdoing by General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, who through a spokesman declined comment on any legal proceedings.(...)

The inquiries are being pursued by the Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, among other agencies. (...)

(...) That operation moved everything from AK-47s, armored vehicles and plastic explosives to boots and Army uniforms, according to officials who were involved in it. Her former colleagues recall Colonel Selph as a courageous officer who was willing to take substantial personal risks to carry out her mission and was unfailingly loyal to General Petraeus and his directives to move quickly in setting up the logistics operation.

From the Dpt. of Justice, Aug. 16, 2011,

A retired colonel in the U.S. Army was sentenced today to 12 months in prison for her role in a scheme to pay bribes for contracts awarded in support of the Iraq war, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division. Levonda J. Selph, 57, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton of the District of Columbia.(...)

Current, WSJ:

Petraeus had a G mail account (!) for sexy chats with BiogBabe. Apparently the present flap was sparked by BiogBabe sending threatening mails to a rival.

How ‘security’ was breached is unclear from this article.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 12 2012 17:52 utc | 42

Michael Hastings with a good rant on Petraeus---and a few well-deserved swipes at Ricks, too. The one I like best

Ricks is the ringleader of what I like to call “the media-military industrial complex,” setting the standard for its incestuous everyday corruption

Posted by: ess emm | Nov 12 2012 22:10 utc | 43

Lendman has a scathing critique of Betrayus. Here is a sample:

Petraeus: Resignation or Sacking?

"The man behind the image was fake. He's a shadow of how he and spin doctors portrayed him publicly.

Competence didn't earn him four stars. Former peers accused him of brown-nosing his way to the top. It made him a brand as much as general. Talk about him being presidential material surfaced.

In 2007, Time magazine made him runner-up as Person of the Year. The designation is as meaningless and unworthy as Nobel Peace awards.

So is current and previous praise. John McCain once called him "one of (our) greatest generals." His judgment leaves much to be desired.

He's not the best and brightest on Capitol Hill. He once admitted to graduating near the bottom of his Naval Academy class [and the military colleges are the lowest of the low of the higher education institutions - вот так].

White House and media spin praised Petraeus' performance as Iraq commander and CENTCOM head. It was falsified hype. Performance contradicted facts. Iraq was more disaster than success. His Afghanistan surge failed. Syria on his CIA watch didn't fare better.

Before he fell from grace, he was called aggressive in nature, an innovative thinker on counterinsurgency warfare, a talisman, a white knight, a do-or-die competitive legend, and a man able to turn defeat into victory.

In 2008, James Petras described him well in an article titled "General Petraeus: Zionism's Military Poodle. From Surge to Purge to Dirge."

He explained what spin doctors concealed. He quoted Petraeus' former commander, Admiral William Fallon, calling him "a piece of brown-nosing chicken shit." Petras added:

"In theory and strategy, in pursuit of defeating the Iraqi resistance, General Petraeus was a disastrous failure, an outcome predictable form the very nature of his appointment and his flawed wartime reputation."

The generalissimo is more myth than man. He shamelessly supported Israel "in northern Iraq and the Bush 'Know Nothings' in charge of Iraq and Iran policy planning."

Posted by: вот так | Nov 13 2012 2:07 utc | 44

The Petras piece on Betrayus that Lendman referenced provides a lot of background history on Betrayus, especially about his Israel loyalties. Here is the final section of it:

General Petraeus: Zionism’s Military Poodle. From Surge to Purge to Dirge

"The advance of Petraeus is a victory of the Zionist Power

Configuration in its quest for American military leaders willing to pursue Israel’s agenda of sanctions and war against Iran. That is why the ZPC was a factor in the ousting of Admiral William Fallon, and why the main propaganda bulletin (the Daily Alert) of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations worked for and hailed his promotion to military overseer of the Middle East wars. AIPAC and their bought and bonded Senators ensured Petraeus an easy time during his confirmation hearing and his unanimous endorsement. His appointment marks the first time that the Zionist Power Configuration has trumped the views and opinions of the majority of active and retired American military officers. How far Petraeus will go in ‘paying back’ his debt to his long-term Zionist backers for his meteoric rise remains to be seen. What is certain is that they will demand that he line up with the State of Israel in pushing forth toward a war with Iran.

It is neither military honor, nor patriotism, which will restrain Petraeus from pursuing the Zionist War for Israel agenda – but his future presidential ambitions. He will have to calculate whether a second Middle East war, which will please Israel and billionaire American (?) Zionist political fundraisers can offset voter discontent resulting from a war in which the price of oil will rise to $300 dollars a barrel and cost several tens of thousands of American casualties, will further his political ambitions.

The US has degenerated into a sorry state of affairs when its future course depends on the political calculus of a feckless General, a failed counter-insurgency ‘expert’ and ambitious politician pandering to billionaire political contributors working for a foreign colonial power."

A lot is made of Betrayus criticizing Israel as a reason for his sacking, and it's been forgotten that for a long time before that, he was basically an Israeli whore of the standard neo-con sort. This is interesting because of the manner of his shoot down. It is very much like what happened to DSK. A "sex scandal", then a lot of vicious hype designed to cause extreme humiliation publicly. Like with DSK, this isn't a normal "sacking", but one involving extreme prejudice. They want him destroyed, like DSK, not just sacked. Obama could have just announced it was time to change CIA directors without all the drama we are seeing now, but they wanted the drama.

So who did he piss off?

And why?

Posted by: вот так | Nov 13 2012 2:38 utc | 45

Follow-up to #31

Bales attorneys have now opened Pandora's Box:

Staff Sgt. Robert Bales didn't act alone, attorneys suggest

"Bales’ defense team, however, has plenty of material to suggest that multiple soldiers participated in the killings.

“One person cannot do this work,” said Maj. Khudai Dad, an Afghan officer who investigated the killings the morning after they took place.

He testified via a video link from Kandahar Province late Sunday. He did not have evidence to support his argument, only a contention that one person could not kill so many people in separate villages.

Better evidence could come from Masooma, the widow of a man killed in Najiban. She told an Army Criminal Investigative Command agent in June that she saw two American soldiers enter her home, shout about the Taliban, take her husband Mohammed Dawood outside and execute him with a pistol to his head.

Mohammed Dawood’s widow told 1st Agent Leona Mansapit that she overheard multiple Americans speaking English in the compounds around her home. The widow also reported hearing helicopters overhead and seeing multiple flares shot in the sky.

Mansapit, who presented Masooma's version of events in court Sunday, said she had no reason to doubt the credibility of the widow."

The article still tries to discredit any thought America's Sacred Troops were out there slaughtering in force, and that such terror ops are part of policy, just as they did in Vietnam.

Posted by: вот так | Nov 13 2012 6:00 utc | 46

Clinton-Lewinsky "spinners" resurface in generals scandal

"It's a case of déjà vu in D.C.: some of the same high-profile, high-priced handlers who played supporting roles in the scandal over President Bill Clinton's affair with intern Monica Lewinsky have re-emerged in the sex scandal that has toppled one U.S. national security chief and threatens another."

Posted by: вот так | Nov 15 2012 1:04 utc | 47

The comments to this entry are closed.