Home Index Page

 

Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down

 

Chapter Nine (01)

The Poster Boy & His Toxic Leadership

Perhaps no other officer in recent times personifies
what is wrong with the current West Point-military system
for its gross lack of decent and sound leadership than
former four star General David Petraeus.


Cadet Petraeus his junior year

Not surprisingly,
Cadet Petraeus was an opportunistic upstart from the
beginning, marrying the West Point Superintendent’s daughter
Holly Knowlton two months after his graduation in 1974. So
the loser in my court case Hagopian versus General William
Knowlton turned out to be the future general’s father-in-
law. Nice touch launching his golden parachute so early in
his career. But then the star man shined from the very start
with instinctively knowing how to play the game of the West
Point system, both academically and militarily.
In the mid-1990’s a fresh West Point lieutenant was a
platoon leader serving under then Colonel Petraeus’ command
in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Lieutenant Pierce later wrote a detailed account of his time
as the colonel’s self-proclaimed “bitch.” It reveals how his
brigade commander Colonel Petraeus was all for show using
his troops as his prop to impress visiting South Carolina
Senator Strom Thurmond, then the aging Chairman of the all
powerful Armed Services Committee. Ironically Petraeus
followed my West Point roommate then Colonel John Abizaid.
Officers under Abizaid’s command felt “important and
trusted” in stark contrast to Petraeus’ style of
micromanaging, petty rule-pushing, anal-retentive, ball
busting leadership. The lieutenant explained how Petraeus
kept making his company selected to put on the show for
Thurmond relentlessly rehearse day and night over and over
again prior to the Senator’s visit, just so everything
appeared perfect for the VIP that held the military purse
strings. After all, Petraeus was at a point in his career
when he was gunning for his first star as a general. The
colonel was skilled at playing the punch your ticket game
where superficial appearance meant everything in impressing
your superiors. The ambitious general-to-be was not about to
be denied as nothing was going to stop him from fully using
his troops for his own self-aggrandizing needs. And the
lieutenant’s company did not disappoint as old Strom loved
every minute of the mock demonstration showing how our crack
American Army units eliminate the would-be insurgent bad
guys quickly and methodically right on cue. It smacked
reminiscent of a few years earlier when Bob Hope used the
Corps of Cadets as his all for show prop while we writhed in
contorted pain like canned sardines around his stage for the
cameras to capture a few minutes’ footage for another of his
propaganda extravaganzas. Subordinates in the military are
used as mere props, tools or objects to be manipulated as a
convenient means to an end for self-serving superiors.
That’s simply the name of the hierarchical, pecking order
game in the military.    
In 1987 Petraeus earned his PhD from Princeton with a
dissertation on counterinsurgency warfare lessons learned
from the Vietnam mistake and when and how to deploy a sound
counterinsurgency strategy in future wars. Given grandiosely
undeserved credit for virtually writing the Army basic
manual on counterinsurgency warfare where none otherwise
existed, it basically said don’t get involved in any more
protracted wars like Vietnam. With all future wars where the
American military is once again imperialistic occupiers, the
generals must have at their ready disposal a large enough
fighting force to get the specifically defined job done in
as efficient and quick a manner as possible, citing smaller
scale interventions since Vietnam when counterinsurgency
worked more effectively in Grenada, Haiti, and Central
America. He warned against the quagmire of large scale
operations that he himself became fully engaged in both Iraq
and Afghanistan, hypocritically and unwisely ignoring his
own earlier advice and warnings. His paper coldly addresses
exercising military restraint only in terms of outcome for
the Empire, not giving any consideration or thought
whatsoever to outcomes for those thousands and thousands of
innocent people who happen to get caught in the crosshairs
of his strategic imperialistic objectives. He gives little
understanding of overall implications and consequences of
imperialistic aggression. He is clueless in offering any
concern for the well being of the people whose homeland and
homes he is invading, occupying and destroying.
Additionally, full utilization of such handy little tools as
propaganda and disinformation in both America and abroad are
crucial to running a successful military offensive against
insurgents. With Petraeus, perception means everything.
Reality and substance are mere secondary abstractions to be 
overlookedwin over good ol’ boy Strom, humans are seen as mere tools
to be manipulated as a critical, self-serving means to the
desired end. In essence, that is how effective
counterinsurgency operations are executed to maximum effect
according to the man who wrote the book.
Speaking of which, the so called counterinsurgency
manual Petraeus wrote (coined as COIN) hinges on winning the
“hearts and minds” of the indigenous people. The COIN
population-centric approach involves increasing security
within communities to promote greater freedom of mobility,
strengthening the nation’s infrastructure and development of
reconstruction projects such as building roads, schools and 
hospitals, all in close partnership to stabilize a national
government. Information propaganda is viewed as invaluable
in this quest of winning over the hearts and minds of the
native population. By formula, nation-building while winning
over the people will turn the people against the insurgents.
However, I maintain that COIN will never be a successful
strategy in defeating any insurgents anywhere in the world.
COIN possesses far too many false assumptions to ever really
work. The presumption that one nation can invade another’s
homeland and then be prepared to occupy that nation for
years at a time and still believe the occupying nation can
win the hearts and minds of the indigenous people is totally
preposterous and insane. Counterinsurgency also operates on
the supposition that the occupied nation’s government is
legitimate. Every counterinsurgency war we have ever fought
(and lost) has been in countries with illegitimate corrupt
puppets for governments that the United States has placed
into power. Insurgents by definition are forces that are
attempting to undermine and topple a “legitimate
government.” The fact that insurgents are most often
fighting on their home turf against the foreign invader-
occupier that has imperialistic interests to economically
exploit their occupied nation by definition makes us the
illegitimate aggressors and insurgents legitimate patriots
fighting outside oppressors to gain their much deserved
sovereign independence. Our counterinsurgency warfare is a
mere transparent façade to justify imperialistic aggression
and occupation of developing nations. It’s no more than King
David’s modern military spin as the colonialism blueprint
for twenty-first century US Empire global hegemonic control. 


General Petraeus lying before Congress

General Petraeus’ method of extracting intelligence
from the native population to use against insurgents has
nothing to do with winning their hearts and minds through
humanitarian assistance and support. It involves playing
hard ball, strong arm tactics beating the enemy at their own
game by actively rounding up and detaining anyone and
everyone while ruthlessly applying the harshest methods of
interrogation and inhumane torture to coerce information out
of the detainees. Committing war crimes for badly needed
information was how counterinsurgency wars are waged.    
Back in 2004 when General Petraeus was first sent to
Iraq, he was directly involved in Iraqi death squad commando
units marauding through city streets engaging in sectarian
killings and operating hundreds of police commando centers
for torture and death. The story broke recently in early
March this year when the Guardian and BBC Arabic released a
twenty-one minute documentary with both American officers
and Iraqi officers interviewed linking and implicating
Petraeus’ direct and active involvement. The Pentagon
assigned to Iraq a notorious veteran of dirty wars from the
1990’s Central America, an American officer named Colonel
James Steele to help train, consult and coordinate
systematic murder, detainment and torture of thousands of
Iraqis, many innocent civilians, contributing to Iraq’s
descent into full scale civil war. Another Army officer,
Colonel Coffman, who reported directly to Petraeus, worked
in unison with Colonel Steele in setting up the death squad
commando units. Torture was simply another useful military
tactic in counterinsurgency warfare to learn critical
information about the enemy. It was simply business as usual
to General Petraeus, one more feather in the cap of our most
honored Iraq War hero and savior. The fact that conducting
such torture in murderous dirty wars constituted serious
Geneva and human rights violations made no difference to the
general, the Pentagon that sent the dirty war expert to Iraq
or the Bush Administration that endorsed the use of Iraqi
death squads. A Petraeus spokesman recently responded to the
charges by stating everything the general learned and knew
was passed onto to his chain of command in Washington as
well as to Iraqi leadership, thereby deploying the typical
CYA strategy, when in doubt conveniently spread the blame
onto others in order to make yourself look the least bad.
The fifteen month investigation launched by the
Guardian originated with a series of documents that
WikiLeaks posted submitted by Private Bradley Manning.
Apparently Manning had reacted to evidence he saw of death
squads, murder, torture, American air strikes and drone
attacks that in good conscience he felt that the world
deserved and needed to know the truth about these war crimes
America was sponsoring and committing. He is viewed by many
as the most important whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg’s
Pentagon Papers in 1971. Of course the military arrested him
and has tried him as a traitor to his country, accused of
placing Americans and Iraqi informants in harm’s way.
Manning simply saw the horrific abuses occurring and since
he had access to the evidential truth, he believed he was
doing the right moral action to reveal to the world the war
crime atrocities going on there in Iraq and Afghanistan. He
stood up to the evil corruption and fought back with the
truth to try and stop it. The American government has made
him both a martyr and scapegoat, calling him a traitor and
sentencing him to multiple decades in prison, when in fact 
it is our government that is clearly in the wrong. It is my
contention that Private Bradley Manning is the true war hero
and Petraeus the true enemy of all people on this planet
along with the thousands of other American war criminals.
The world could make a powerful statement against the true
criminals if in fact Private Manning receives the Nobel
Peace Prize for which he has been deservedly nominated.
One of the worst war crimes that Manning placed on
WikiLeaks exposed the largest US military air strike ever on
Yemen soil ordered by General Petraeus as the then Iraq War
commander on Obama’s watch. On December 17, 2009 a Tomahawk
cruise missile launched from a naval submarine off the coast
of Yemen killed forty-one people in a small rural village.
When it was discovered that the massacred victims were
innocent civilians from two families, all but three women
and children, America denied involvement and their puppet
Yemen government accepted full responsibility. These
military aggressions create both understandable hatred
toward the US government and instant enemies where there
were none, justifiably seeking revenge against America. Yet
this is the kind of firepower warfare that General Petraeus
welcomes and exploits with disastrous long term consequences
for nations around the world including our own. Yet Petraeus
simply writes these atrocities off as business-as-usual
collateral damage. “Oops, assassinated dark skinned Moslems
hardly matter anyway” undoubtedly is the prevailing mindset.
But instead, the boldface lying words actually coming out of
Petraeus’ mouth were that “of those killed only one wife and
two children of an al Qaeda operative were casualties.” So
much for living by his old West Point honor code.
With Petraeus’ college dissertation as his strategic
plan of action in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the general
clearly failed to heed his own advice and warnings. Granted,
he inherited the Vietnam replication on both those fronts
upon taking high command, but in each case he proceeded to
engage in the same protracted, slow, costly wind-down on
both fronts again similar to the last few years in Vietnam.
Throughout his career Petraeus always was careful to
craft a close, cozier relationship with the press than most
military commanders are comfortable with. So when Bush and
Cheney were busily dodging war crime bullets [and shoes],
badly needing a surge of their own sagging popularity, they
seized upon their company yes man to be their golden boy to
help bail them out with Petraeus’ strong endorsement of a
surge in Iraq as the perfect answer to the impending defeat
and emerging sectarian civil war they’d created. Of course
this came after my friend Abizaid resigned, objecting to
sending more troops to be killed in another winless, Nam-
like war. The embedded, ass-kissing, regime-kissing press
looking for any out subsequently jumped on the propagandist
bandwagon declaring the surge a brilliant tactical success
in lowering incidence of violence in Iraq. It was peace with
honor all over again. Petraeus was clearly both the
Administration’s and mainstream media’s main man, turning
him into the desperately needed darling of the Iraq War.
After all, Generals Colin Powell and West Pointer Stormin’
Norman Schwarzkopf were the darlings of the first Bush War
and it was American tradition to crown hero worship on a
general or two with each passing war. And because when wars
are lost, it’s impossible to turn a loser into a hero,
Petraeus was touted as the military genius that saved the US
from another humiliating war defeat. The press was selling
their man to the American public as our next greatest war
hero - despite the true reality he was a polished
politician-bureaucratic general who was opportunistically
playing both the game and his destiny equally well. Then
came the regime change and a new president was in power. So
when General Stanley McChrystal stuck his arrogant Bigfoot
in his Rolling Stone mouth, like Truman before him, Obama
had to do the presidential thing and recall his rambunctious
turncoat who got too honest sharing his true feelings with
the press. So Obama canned the man in Afghan land.
McChrystal’s dubious moment of truth reminded me of another
powerful famous West Pointer’s revealing moment of truth
right after Reagan got shot, his then Secretary of State
Alexander Haig took charge as only West Pointers can do,
declaring to the world, “I’m in charge here.” Guess in his
lust for power he had a brain freeze lapse of Civics 101,
forgetting that the Vice President takes over for the
President in such emergencies.
In the aftermath of McChrystal’s faux pas, since the
war in Iraq was beginning to phase down, once again our
golden boy with four stars Petraeus had yet another
president calling upon him to bail the country out of yet
another embarrassing jam. In June 2010 the Commander-in-
Chief selected General Petraeus to take over McChrystal’s
command of the war in Afghanistan. Of course by then the
thoroughly enamored, charmed press busily fawning over their
Iraq War hero darling was spreading rumors of his greatness
in the same breath and tradition of all the West Point glory
boys from our revered past - Lee, Grant, Patton, Eisenhower.
Some were even beginning to boldly talk publicly of King
David’s rise to the presidential throne.
Since Obama had campaigned in 2008 on a plan to expand
the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the President
sent 30,000 additional troops upon taking office and another
30,000 more on the ground in time for the spring thaw
fighting in 2010. In June that year the go-to guy and yes
man for surges first for Bush’s Iraq War and then Obama’s
Afghan war was none other than General Petraeus. Reacting to
the pressure of reducing civilian deaths, and having to
repeatedly apologize to President Karzai for his troops’
mistakes, General McChrystal had implemented restraints on
patrols that his soldiers had been increasingly resenting.
Petraeus arrived to make a statement sending the message to
the Taliban as well as President Karzai that he and America
meant business. So Mr. Tough Guy loosened restrictions
reverting to the original policy of shoot first, ask
questions later. Air strikes were immediately stepped up to
the 2001 level. Deployed Special Forces units were doubled.
While still the Iraq War commander, Petraeus had wrangled
Obama and eventually got what he wanted in 30,000 more
soldiers being sent to Afghanistan despite the President’s
West Point speech in December 2009 calling for a troop
pullout date by July 2011. But used to getting what he
wanted, now leading the charge in the Afghan War, Petraeus
was again able to manipulate Obama and Vice President Biden
to back off from their early departure deadline, extending
it to 2014. During the next fifteen months that General
Petraeus spearheaded offensives against the insurgent
Taliban forces, he proceeded getting America deeper and
deeper into a no-win conflict in Afghanistan. Rather than
engaging in nation building according to his own COIN
counterinsurgency manual, Petraeus went into rural provinces
outside Kabul armed with cash giveaways trying to forge
payoff alliances with the corrupt warlords and their local
militias, circumventing and alienating Karzai and his
national government altogether. Supporting murderous thugs
notorious for human rights violations in order to help the
US fight the Taliban seemed the most expedient strategy in
Petraeus’ mission to win over Washington into believing that
he was leading America to victory. The general boasted in a
hearing with the Armed Services Committee in June 2011 that
all the surge objectives had been achieved, stating that the
Taliban’s momentum was “arrested in much of the country” and
that progress was “significant.” General Petraeus falsely
stated that the southern provinces were stabilized and under
American and Afghan government control. The truth was
despite more US troops on the ground, the Taliban presence
throughout Afghanistan remained fully intact and in certain
provinces was growing even stronger. Another boldface
Petraeus lie was that the poppy fields producing the cash
crop opium had been significantly reduced when in fact the
harvest yield that year was the biggest ever.
But in the end, even golden boy’s lies could not
convince anyone. The American exit strategy has regressed to
the point that it is now all about saving face, just like in
Iraq and Vietnam before. Stuck neck deep in his own Afghan
shit he had created for himself, even King David as he was
called in Iraq found out the hard way that his magic touch
could not save the US with another surge in Afghanistan, as
hard as his lies tried to convince Congress and the American
people. By the time Petraeus was offered the CIA Director
job seven months after journalist Michael Hastings’ February
2011 Rolling Stone article giving the general and America a
badly needed reality check, the military lifer jumped at the
chance to abandon his failed Army mission in Afghanistan and
become a civilian. And what better job to groom a promising
future prospect for US presidency than to offer the one US
general with the rock star status the choice job of CIA
Director. As their golden boy, Petraeus was the perfect
shady glove fit between the military and the CIA that the
Bush neocons had been seeking all along. So just like the
West Point liars Generals Westmoreland and Creighton Abrams
did in Vietnam before him, once again we had another top
general lying to America about false progress in another
counterinsurgency war, pretending victory was surely at hand
when in fact it had long slipped away before the war had
ever begun. 
Meanwhile, clear-cut evidence that the US was in fact
losing the war in Afghanistan was mounting. Career officer
Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis who, on his second tour in
Afghanistan, traveled the entire countryside collecting
assessments from both privates and commanders on the ground
that completely refuted the glowing reports flowing from
Petraeus and his Pentagon brass. Called the savior of the
Iraq War, Petraeus was used to gaining points by touting
success of troop surges. So when Colonel Davis returned
from his Afghan duty at the end of 2011 amidst a crisis in
conscience, he elected to risk his career by going public
exposing the Petraeus lies. Though he drew press from the
New York Times that sent momentary shockwaves throughout the
military in early 2012, Obama, his then Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta and government spin doctors went into full
damage control alert to dispel Colonel Davis’ claims. But
the truth had already been let out of the bag for those with
eyes open wide enough to notice. Of course that did not stop
Congress from failing to even take Davis serious enough to
call for any investigative hearings on this gaping
discrepancy between the whistleblower’s embarrassing truth
about the stagnant losing cause in Afghanistan and Petraeus
and official Washington’s rosy spin propaganda.

General Petraeus’ war record of outsourcing first the US military and then the CIA as US intelligence kingpin has changed how America fights wars in the twenty-first century. As an apropos example of leadership by absentia that the general is notorious for, be it at Benghazi or the Iraq and Afghan warfronts, Petraeus’ implementation of the Human Terrain System (HTS) program while CENTCOM commander in charge of two war zones was and still is a complete disaster. Its 150 million dollar a year budget at taxpayers’ expense is designed to educate field commanders to make wise tactical decisions based on cultural knowledge and understanding supplied by social and political scientists conducting research in Iraq and Afghanistan. But regardless of how soft and seemingly benevolent a wolf in sheep’s clothing behaves, US Empire occupiers are still imperialistic oppressors and human life destroyers. Using poorly trained personnel from academia as so called civilian experts masquerading as cultural anthropologists compiling research data in the field setting no doubt seemed like a good idea at the time to Petraeus in another feeble attempt to win the hearts and minds of the indigenous population. And because it was King David’s “pet project,” not unlike his own COIN manual on fighting counterinsurgency war, like it or not, it was forced upon all commanders on down to division, brigade and regimental levels as standard operating procedure. This particular support program is run by another prominent private civilian contractor BAE Systems under the auspices of the US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). Beginning in 2007 the Human Terrain System has been deploying multiple teams throughout Afghanistan and Iraq, each team consisting of five or six members. During the ensuing years, Petraeus shepherded and mushroomed this unproven program into a golden fleece with over 30 teams still operating throughout Afghanistan. With AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM now regularly using HTS in Africa and Latin America, as of 2010 it has become a permanent US war fixture around the globe.
      This failed program has grown exponentially despite being doomed from the start. Having typically served two, three or four combat tours already, seasoned US military personnel understandably know more about the Afghan people and culture than do any ivory towered novices arriving there with no prior training or study of Afghan culture. At least three HTS workers have been killed-in-action. Moreover, even the American Association of Anthropologists has repeatedly condemned the program for misrepresenting the ethical practice, boundaries and purpose of its discipline. Over 700 anthropologists have signed a petition blasting HTS for militarizing anthropology as a thinly veiled modern-day extension of ethnocentric colonialism. After working to gain the trust of the native inhabitants, then turning whatever cultural information over to military intelligence that invariably exploits and betrays that trust by placing both the native population as well as HTS workers in harms way is grossly unethical and even sinister. Yet that’s exactly what this program does. Any claims of its efficacy by both HTS and military personnel have been overwhelmingly challenged and outnumbered. Hordes of former HTS team members have leveled harsh criticism that the program is ineffective, immoral and a huge waste of money. Independent journalist-author John Stanton interviewed 45 HTS employees and military officers in a book entitled General David Petraeus’ Favorite Mushroom: Inside the US Army's Human Terrain System (Wiseman, 2009)that completely lambasted the program. Stanton vividly illustrates its failure and insipid misusein advising one US military unit on proper Iraqi mealtime etiquette, i.e., “not only how to properly eat, but also the gestures during the meal, and especially how to observe the Ramadan feast.” HTS personnel have been accused of plagiarism, using internet search engines to gather their “legitimate” field data. In a transparent façade to bolster the lack of credentialed PhD-level “anthropologists,” Stanton claims that HTS funds may have been misused to permit its program participants advanced degrees. The HTS program director Steve Fondacaro has been described as “a great used car salesman.” Aside from Petraeus, Stanton blames an unholy trinity of West Point grads for mismanaging the program into oblivion, Fondacaro along with his deputy director among them. This Human Terrain System train wreck is just one more piece of damning evidence in a long career of incompetence demonstrating King David’s “ivy towered” love affair with superficial appearance over substance, perception over true reality and deception over integrity. The general turned CIA director has been nothing but a whore for the gluttonous military industrial complex that long ago President Eisenhower warned us about.
Show message history

More than four years after his heroics on a battlefield
in Afghanistan, Captain Will Swenson was finally awarded his
Medal of Honor (MoH) in mid-October 2013, the first living
Army officer since the Vietnam War to achieve this nation’s
highest honor. The reason it took so long was because the
captain who gained his officer commission through Officer
Candidate School openly chastised his superior officers back
at Army headquarters for not sending air support to his
troops trapped and ambushed in a valley where fifteen of his
coalition forces were killed. Watching his men die one by
one in a lopsided firefight surrounded by Taliban enemy,
Swenson’s urgent and desperate calls for assistance fell on
deaf ears. Justifiably outraged, Captain Swenson made sure
that the two commanding officers responsible for the lack of
response were reprimanded for their gross negligence that
cost so many lives needlessly lost. Throughout the 6-7 hour
ordeal at enormous peril to himself, Captain Swenson
repeatedly went over and above the call of duty trying to
save as many lives as he could.
But because the two higher-ups safely positioned back
at headquarters had connections in high places all the way
up the Army chain of command to then Afghanistan commander
General David Petraeus, they maliciously sought revenge
seeing to it that Captain Swenson would be denied his Medal
of Honor by willfully suppressing his nomination. Meanwhile
a Marine sergeant who also participated in that same battle
received the Medal of Honor from President Obama despite
evidence that facts in his case were exaggerated. The
sergeant even admitted that he would not be alive if it were
not for Captain Swenson’s heroic actions. Will Swenson
became so disenchanted with the military corruption and
injustice that he ultimately resigned from the Army in 2011
and returned home to Seattle.
Had it not been for an enterprising journalist at
McClachy news agency, Captain Swenson’s story would have
been effectively crushed and buried. Investigative
journalist Jon Landay followed up on lingering leaks of the
gross injustice and uncovered the sinister acts of revenge
and suppression tracing it up the Department of Defense
chain of command. When General Petraeus was asked about
Swenson’s Medal of Honor status, the known liar lied once
again claiming he had no recollection of any paperwork
regarding Swenson’s MoH case. Yet Petraeus’ signature was
found on some of the “lost” paperwork documentation that
included photographs, maps and numerous eyewitness accounts
of Captain Swenson’s heroism that fateful day in 2009. It
was learned that the two officers involved in the
suppression unlawfully attempted to downgrade the medal to a
Distinguished Service Cross. Of course they had to know that
only the standing US President could do that. But with the
pull they had with Petraeus in their corner, they were
confident that Swenson would never get his due. When the
full story of the cover-up was made public, Obama and
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel went into full damage
control mode, explaining that the embarrassing mistake was
simply an “accidental” case of bureaucratic misfiling. But
Captain Swenson, the McClachy journalist and the public that
read about the case all knew the real truth - that corrupt,
vindictive, high ranking officers from the top including
Petraeus on down to those two lowlife, grossly incompetent,
revengeful officers back at headquarters were all caught
red-handed punishing a well deserving hero who refused to
play their toxic politics game. The whole story is
graphically illustrated in the picture that paints a
thousand words below.


The Commander-in-Chief’s halfhearted,
feebly embarrassed smile fails to conceal his complicit hand
caught in the cookie jar of the morally bankrupt system he
commands and Captain Swenson’s scowl of truth exposes the
stench of hypocrisy at the top. Yet this subverted, in-your-
face tale of military injustice is just one more blemish on
the already stained career of America’s and West Point’s
poster boy of evil - David Petraeus.
Returning to our fallen rock star, I mean ex-CIA
Director, ex-top general, ex-future president, Mr. adulterer
himself David Petraeus, last November a day or so after Obama
won his second term election, of course we all were forced
to witness the media feeding frenzy circus over those two
upstanding West Pointers’ illicit love affair. Personally,
it was nobody else’s business except theirs and their
spouses. I admit though, I derived a certain amount of
vicarious pleasure, especially watching Paula Broadwell’s
earlier Jon Stewart interview chock full of delightful
innuendo and double entendre. She was playing the lead as
the fast rising star biographer so enthralled with her “all
in” sugar daddy fame. Petraeus vehemently denied breaching
national security by giving his lover access to classified
documents. Yet on her confiscated computer at home were
numerous classified documents. During the many months the
FBI was monitoring their emailed love notes, purposely
holding onto all this damaging dirt until after Obama’s
reelection, obviously America’s number one spy as CIA
Director was extremely vulnerable and could easily have been
blackmailed, further compromising national security. But all
players diligently tried to quell any doubts or suspicions
of that possibility. But since by nature of their jobs they
lie everyday, who the hell really knows.

Go to Chapter Nine (02)

Go to Index Page