Jeez. I didn’t know about the Islamopandering BUT I think any decent person in the military would NOT take a prime position in the Obama-Putin administration. If you knew the good guts on Obama-Putin ANYONE would stay away. And he didn’t & got caught doing the thing that brings many a man down. Too bad, so sad.

I think the timing of this is ripe for Chicago thug tactics. It’s like the final scenes in Godfather one. After all the bloodshed the door to Obama-Putin’s office will be shut (with Valerie Jarrett in tow) and the ring kissing shall begin. It’s good to be KING!

Skunky on November 9, 2012 at 7:53 pm

Will this affect him testifying in the up coming Benghazi hearings?

RT on November 9, 2012 at 7:53 pm

I can’t say I’m exactly surprised.

A CIA director caught in a compromising position…. and that says a great deal more about the idiots on the Right who fawned over him than it does about Petraeus.

Good riddance!

NormanF on November 9, 2012 at 8:15 pm

IS this a metaphor for the total collapse and incompetence of the CIA?

JeffT on November 9, 2012 at 8:17 pm

This does stink. Smells like he doesn’t want to tstify about Benghazi. Hope they supoena his butt anyway.

codekeyguy on November 9, 2012 at 8:22 pm

I don’t want to sound paranoid but the timing is suspicious. I have a feeling that something is coming down the pike and he wants to be sure he is nowhere near it when it hits. I can’t believe this affair just came up in the last 2 or 3 days. I’m sure they could still subpoena him for anything that occurred while he was a director. He is anti-Israel so he should be comfortable in an Obama administration. We will see how this unfolds.

jerry doegen on November 9, 2012 at 8:34 pm

Thanks for this piece Debbie, and I didn’t know that Mr. Petraeus was an islamophillic dhimmi, arab apologist & Israel-loather? As I was listening to talk radio shows today, I didn’t hear any of the talk show hosts mentioned any of this in this article that DS mentioned, nor at the sametime I didn’t hear any of the talk show hosts shedding tears and feeling sympathy for Mr. Petraeus.

But I do remember back some years ago, left wing activists I believe on Capitol Hill called David Patreaus, “General Betray-us”, that I remember. Maybe, just maybe the left wing activists knew about Petraeus’ pandering to muslim world and the islamists and the arab regime in the ME? Then again, I’m not a conspirary theorists!

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on November 9, 2012 at 8:35 pm

Just another general turned SES ass-kisser that was afraid to tell the emperor he had no clothes on. Paid off for silence. He’ll get some cushy job at a left-wing college (redundant) teaching and spewing how bad the Americans are toward the dome-lopping muzzies. Oh, and Colin Powell, kiss my ass. Yeah, you served honorably, then turned into a race-is-stronger-than-country suck-ass.

WilliamMunny on November 9, 2012 at 8:40 pm

THANK GOD THIS JERK WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT ? ? ? I think you missed the mark on that comment. Affairs, appeasement, pandering to Muslims – these are some top qualifications to become a Presidential candidate from the Democratic party.

Mike on November 9, 2012 at 8:49 pm

I don’t know why so many talking heads are shocked. Ever story I’ve read about him paints a supermely arrogant, egomaniacal, fast-climbing political animal. My only question is how this affects his Benghazi testimony, and why it came AFTER the election when it seems the FBI’s been looking into it.

Sean M on November 9, 2012 at 9:01 pm

‘Back during the Iraq War, left-wing groups called him “Betray-us.” And, while they were attacking him for something else, his pandering to Muslims against Western interests backs that nickname up.’

Funny, that’s exactly what I was thinking. However, it did seem that those leftists that bestowed that nickname upon him thought he wasn’t pandering to the Muslims (and screwing Israel) enough.

ConcernedPatriot on November 9, 2012 at 9:24 pm

Resign over adultery, all by itself? I don’t buy it.

It’s been a long time since the government stopped firing people over on the theory that they might be “blackmailed” for “only” committing adultery.

It’s more likely that there are additional problems related to this dalliance. Perhaps he misused taxpayer money to buy someone’s silence, or tried to impact someone’s anticipated testimony (like – respectively – “gay martyr” Jim McGreevey and disbarred felon Bill Clinton).

Whatever he did may be old news, but the Benghazi investigation probably uncovered it accidentally. As others have already pointed out, resigning won’t excuse him from testifying – although it’s possible that they’ll shift his testimony to executive session.

Status Monkey on November 9, 2012 at 9:29 pm

Stupid is as stupid does. I’m not surprised. A few years ago I reviewed a slide pack on culture and Islam from CENTCOM. I emailed my source, almost asking him “who was the stupid idiot who made this?” Instead, I just asked who made it. My source typed one word back to me: “Petraeus.” The slides were loaded with stupid misunderstandings and pandering. I could hardly believe my eyes.

Russ on November 9, 2012 at 10:31 pm

Do we get to find out who his partner was? You never know…probably not the Lesbionic Woman, but who knows?

Little Al on November 9, 2012 at 10:50 pm

I don’t buy the “extramarital affairs” alibi. If extramarital affairs were a serious security vulnerability, what about Bill Clinton running around the Whitehouse with his DORK hangin out half the time? What about Obama and his extramarital affairs with other gay boys? No this has to do with House hearings next week. Obama had a mutiny on his hands during the Benghazi event. He fired two military commanders who refused orders to stand down, one of whom told him to go screw himself or words to that effect. Patreus is probably a 3rd mutineer that refused Obama orders.

joesixpack31 on November 9, 2012 at 11:08 pm

Though I’d make an attempt at humor! Here’s the link; http://cyclopswarrior.blogspot.com/2012/11/paulabroadwellcom-is-down-embedded.html

By the way Debbie, your quite a babe!

Warrior on November 9, 2012 at 11:47 pm

I hope the pussy was worth it. But we know otherwise…he’s the fall guy. This is all staged and rehearsed to insulate him from being drilled on Bhenghazi. He ran out of dodge with Obama’s insistance so we will never know the real truth behind the murders of our SEALS And Ambassador Stevens and others.

Ajax on November 10, 2012 at 12:14 am

Here she is:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/09/paula_broadwell_talks_gen_petraeus_on_the_daily_show_with_jon_stewart.html

JimBob on November 10, 2012 at 12:23 am

This is completely off topic regarding the Patreus scandal, but is more in line with this notion of pandering to Muslims. The reality of the matter is that the US is not pandering to Muslims, but rather to the Saudis. Ever since the first Gulf war they have been America’s most powerful ally in the region. The US relies more on the Saudis than they do Israel and that’s a reality. Yes Israel is still an ally, but they are not as indispensable as they were 25 years ago.

The Saudis despise Iran, but they don’t want to do any of the dirty work so they’re just sitting on their piles of money and keeping their fingers crossed that Iran and Israel destroy each other. Let’s not forget where most of the Hijackers on 9/11 came from and where Osama was from!! It takes $$$$ to have power in this world and no one has more of it than the Kingdom and as long as they can live their lives and have their slaves and be left alone they’ll reward (with $$$$) anyone that helps their cause. They fund every major terror organization, but the finger is always pointed at Iran, Pakistan and Afganistan. Don’t get me wrong Iran rightfully deserves some of the blame, but most terrorists are funded by oil money.

Kershaw on November 10, 2012 at 12:34 am

http://gawker.com/5959292/cia-director-david-petraeus-has-resigned-citing-an-extramarital-affair

“We hear he had a particular fondness for CBS News’ Lara Logan: He’s rumored to have asked his public affairs officer in Iraq to keep a folder of photographs of her handy on his computer. According to a source familiar with Petraeus, the general was occasionally seen late at night at the public affairs desk, looking through the photos. (No I am not kidding.)”

I wonder if those were some top secret pictures of Hot Lips Lara getting stripped and violated by 300 dirty brown slumdogs gangbang style in a dark alley just off Tahrir Square for a few hours back on February 11, 2011.

zod on November 10, 2012 at 12:47 am

Now Barry is covering up the cover-up. This is getting good. Only Barry’s brain dead supporters would actually believe Petreaus resigned because he cheated on his wife. That propaganda is for their consumption. There are really only two options why he resigned. One, he doesn’t want to lie under oath. Two, he doesn’t want to tell the truth under oath. Barry is circling the wagons around his Benghazi cover-up and he doesn’t trust Petraeus to tow the line under oath. Petraeus may be an islamapologist scumbag, but he isn’t part of the inner Chicago circle so he can’t be trusted.

Niles on November 10, 2012 at 1:19 am

Skunkys first comment was exactly right on. Plus what kind of an idiot does the cheating and is IN the intel business? Hadn’t realized quite how islamopandring he was, but it is pointed out clearly on this informative post. Never really respected anyone above a Colonel except Curtis E. Lemay USAF General. His vision for SAC kept the Russians at bay and his way of fighting future wars wouldn’t have cost us so dearly in military lives lost. He believed in using our superior air power, not 18 year olds blood.

samurai on November 10, 2012 at 1:30 am

Two of the most ambitious people in Washington DC, Hilary Rodham Clinton and Petreus, resign within days of each other, leaving the president-elect with no foreign policy and intelligence leadership, Coincidence? I doubt it. I think both of them want to be out of the way when the Benghazi affair bursts, and that they only delayed their resignation till their guy was safely voted in .

Laura Latini on November 10, 2012 at 2:51 am

Obama & co set this all op cs. Perteus knows too much.

jerry1800 on November 10, 2012 at 3:33 am

Buh-bye, Betray-Us Petraus. Don’t let the halal door hit ya on the way out.

And when you get outside, don’t be surprised if you get a whole bunch of pissed-off GW II vets giving you ONE MASSIVE BEATDOWN AFTER ANOTHER!

I forget – what did Petraeus do?

The Reverend Jacques on November 10, 2012 at 6:19 am

He resigns after the election. The public is informed after the election that the Iranians fired on one of our drones the week prior. None of this is any surprise. Think people.

Road Warrior on November 10, 2012 at 6:35 am

The whole thing is weird. First of all why was Betray-us made head of the C.I.A. They hated him there and for good reason. It’s a fact that the Agency is run by insiders who don’t always go along with the president. Research JFK and his murder for more on that topic. It’s obvious that he was an Obama ass kisser and was there to put the Agency under Obama’s control.Patraeus is probably lucky that he didn’t leave the C.I.A. in a body bag.

Jerry G on November 10, 2012 at 9:00 am

He’ll probably be on “60 Minutes” tomorrow night.

Kent on November 10, 2012 at 9:46 am

He acted like a Moslem too. He wanted to have two wives.

G. R. Scharoubim on November 10, 2012 at 10:06 am

Women in the military (combat) simply doesn’t work. They are not equal, and my point was proven at the highest possible level. A married four star general + one generic (married) vagina = a potentially compromising position. I hope their respective spouses are proud.

#1 Vato on November 10, 2012 at 10:26 am

Petraeus betrayed us kind of rhymes doesn’t it?

Bill Ford on November 10, 2012 at 10:41 am

right on, schlussel… as usual.

kirche on November 10, 2012 at 11:15 am

Well, I was right. It wasn’t the Lesbionic Woman. It was Paula Boardwell, whose biography of Petraeus was aptly titled “All In.”

Little Al on November 10, 2012 at 11:16 am

Thought it extremely odd when the Dems called him Betray-Us, but then turned around and wanted to appointment him to the CIA. GOP senators should have cried foul — but did not
utter a peep.

His CIA post was to keep him under the regime’s thumb, so Petraeus was another LaHood and Cohen.

Petraeus as PC and wimpy as most others who reach high levels in the military. Look a Colon under Bush, and those in charge now who see the Ft. Hood moslem terrorist attack as mere “workplace violence.”

An “affair?” Good thing he was only a CIA director, what if he
were PRESIDENT?

He must be required to testify at the Benghazi hearings!

Otto Schaden on November 10, 2012 at 12:09 pm

Besides his Islamo-pandering, Gen. “Betray-Us” also, a few years ago, not long before Gen. Stanley McChrystal was fired, proclaimed himself as supporting the end of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (and thus allow open homosexuals into the military). The repeal of “DADT” will also, in time, even further weaken our military forces (outside of Obama’s decimation of our military technological preparedness and the aforementioned allowing women in combat).

ConcernedPatriot on November 10, 2012 at 12:18 pm

my friend from sand box days is a col. who knows petraeus and debbie he said the same thing you did.that the gen. was a jew hating islamo pandering know it all.now we see that he cheats on his wife which says all i need to know about him.what is it with today’s women,why do they spread their legs for any one?do they have no self respect?i have been married for 42yrs and never thought of doing that.

bruce on November 10, 2012 at 12:31 pm

One side aspect of this is that it exposes the vacuousness of many esteemed book reviewers. Many people gave this book, aptly named “All In” laudatory reviews. Among them was David Gergen. I think most regular readers of this blog know he is an empty airhead, but his enthusiastic review of the book, clearly a piece of garbage that could not possibly be objective, exposes his pretensions, and the hollowness of the book industry. The positive reviews of this book are a great example of the Follow the Crowd mentality.

Little Al on November 10, 2012 at 1:55 pm

When a dog rolls over and exposes his belly to you, it is out of fear. It’s a purely submissive posture. The dog is saying, “don’t attack me, I won’t fight you for dominance, you are above me in the pecking order”. That is the ONLY purpose of that posture to other dogs. That is what Petraeus is saying in the photo.

David Lanham on November 10, 2012 at 3:30 pm

A lot of you on this site espouse what is essentially white nationalism. White nationalists traditionally hate the jews and vice versa. The bulk of white racists don’t fall into the category of nationalist, though, but they move to ‘good’ neighborhoods with ‘good’ schools, and they support Israel. But they are hypocrites, spouting platitudes about diversity as they run away from it. Jews are the same way; the more extreme, nationalist minority obviously not liking the white nationalist, with the larger, hypocritical segment paying homage to the forces of diversity that wish to destroy them. We can either wait for the hypocritical masses on both sides to develop a survival instinct, or the smaller, more nationalist minded groups on both sides can start to ask each other why they are fighting. We are part of the same western society, unlike other groups, which are antithetical and hostile to BOTH of us.

David Lanham on November 10, 2012 at 4:08 pm

Mossad is knee deep in the CIA scandal.
They partner with Google and have been able to
compromise US Intelligence apparatus.
That is why Pollard will rot in jail.

Commander Zero on November 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm

I have a lot of reading to do to try to catch up on this Benghazi/Petraeus affair (and to slog thru’ that to see what is real and what is nonsense) but I wanna ask people’s opinion on something floating around about the Benghazi incident. It may be far-fetched, it may be feasible…I just don’t know but if anyone knows anything about what I put below I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

-Has anyone heard that some of the men involved in the assault were dressed in Afghani style clothes? Some believe that the peeps that led the attacks were from Afghanistan. And take it even further and say they have direct ties to the Team 6 soldiers who died in that helicopter incident (which they proport to be payback for the Osama bin Laden killing. (????)

-It gets even more curious. That it could have been a kidnapping gone wrong. A double-operation gone wrong. An Obama plan gone wrong. That Stevens was supposed to be taken to that “consulate” in Benghazi and Obama contracted the kidnappers out so the surviving SEALS could save the day and shoot the “kidnappers”. 2 days before that first Presidential debate. The Afghanis didn’t care about the murders because Obama was breaking the law for contracting the taking of hostages. (???)

It sounds so out there but how could I know? Obama? Those soldiers killed in the helicopter incident? Importing of Afghanis to Pakistan to Egypt and then Libya?

With Obama-Putin in the mix & Moooooslims ANYTHING is possible but I don’t want to waste a second on things that are just untrue.

Skunky on November 10, 2012 at 7:38 pm

Petraeus reminds me of Mark Sanford. He also was once thought to be a rising star but he was pro-pali and ended up in disgrace. Remember this?
http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=897&lan=en&sp=0

ari-free on November 10, 2012 at 7:54 pm

Had Debbie posted that picture before? WTF? Kinda reminds me of the story she did a few months ago in which military males were being forced to wear “pregnant suits” as part of a course to make them “sensitive” to what pregnant women feel like. Petraeus looks like a total jack-ass since he is not being forced to dress like a towel-head.

CornCoLeo on November 10, 2012 at 8:22 pm

I agree with Debbie & others who have posted above that something does not gel and stinks big time. I am appalled at the picture of this fool dressing up in Muslim garb! What a complete fool! I heard on CNN that Betray-us went to see ARGO the night our navy SEALS & Ambassador were being slaughtered, even though he had been informed of the terrorist attack that was happening in real time. Not sure if that is true but actually I can easily imagine him doing that. They are also saying that when Susan Rice went on to all those Sunday morning shows spouting stupid lies; that it wasn’t “her fault” because she had been briefed in total from the CIA. HUH???? Susan Rice must be a really stupid person to have believed one iota of those lies, IF, there is any truth in that cover story.

I do have great concern about the behavior of many of the leadership in military. Why the hell they are not summarily fired, fined, jailed in the appropriate cases and DENIED their fat cat pensions is a total mystery to me. See these links:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/forcible-sodomy/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/ward/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/colonel-flameout/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

In the last 20 or so years not once have generals who have had very sub substandard military performance in the leadership of our troops in battle, been let go. Back in World War II, successful generals were generally promoted, while unsuccessful generals were relieved of their commands.

But that began to change during the Korean War. I recently read a book by Thomas Ricks who said that Maj. Gen. James Baldwin, who was relieved of duty in 1971 during the Vietnam War, was the last general to be fired for combat ineffectiveness.

One issue that received very little attention in this year’s presidential race is the war in Afghanistan. But according to Ricks, we should be paying attention — specifically to those in charge of the military there, because they can make the difference between long, expensive wars and decisive victories. That’s the lesson Ricks explores in his latest book, The Generals.

The book starts with George Marshall — a leader perhaps best known for his diplomatic role after World War II, but whose management style during the war was notable in part for his willingness to fire people. In Ricks book he says that in World War II, it was quite common to fire generals. Ricks says he was shocked to discover that Terry Allen, the general in charge of the 1st Infantry Division during the Sicily campaign, had been fired despite his success in the field.

“My jaw dropped,” Ricks says. “I had just come out of Iraq, where we were losing a war, where nobody gets fired, where combat ineffectiveness is just not relevant in judging a general. How could the U.S. military have changed so much?”

It all goes back to Marshall. Ricks calls him decent man, a good and even great man — but not a nice man. Ricks describes a scene a week after Pearl Harbor, when Marshall asks the young Dwight Eisenhower, then a brigadier general, how he’d fight the war in the Pacific. Eisenhower takes a few hours to write a memo laying out his strategy, and “when he gives the answer, hands the memo, that afternoon, to Marshall, Marshall looks at him, and Eisenhower wrote later, ‘The eyes were the coldest I think I’d ever seen.’ ”

But while he may have been cold, Marshall knew Eisenhower was up to the task. Ricks thinks it was very striking that Marshall devotes so much time to finding the right man for the right job. The legendary Gen. George Patton was senior to Eisenhower and seemed the natural choice to command Allied forces in Europe. “But Marshall knew George Patton well, and knew he was not the right man for that job … eventually he picks Eisenhower.”

Marshall was ruthless in pursuit of the right officers — he got rid of men left and right until he found the ones he wanted for the job. And that wasn’t so unusual; after Pearl Harbor, the commanding officers in Hawaii were drummed out of the service. But, Ricks writes, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, no one was fired, or even took responsibility for the attacks and subsequent setbacks.

At that point, Ricks says, Bush appointed Gen. David Petraeus to lead American forces in Iraq. He loves Petraeus and describes him as taking a radically different approach. It’s not just the surge of troops — the most important thing was a different attitude, which is, let’s start asking questions of the Iraqis. How can we do better? … Ricks thinks that Petraeus showed some real independence of thought … that he was an adaptive general. I think that is total bullshit! Adaptive in dressing up with the Muslims.

But we’re not going back to a Marshall-style approach anytime soon, Ricks says, partly because civilians, including our civilian leadership, are too unfamiliar with the way the military operates. I think until we hold our generals accountable for being effective, that we won’t see much change in the way our military is led; we won’t see that kind of adaptiveness that Ricks thinks we need in our leaders.

But things may be changing again. “When push came to shove, at the end of 2006, George Bush realized that simply listening to his generals was not working for him in Iraq, that we were really losing that war,” Ricks says. At the end of that year, Bush turned to a group of retired generals and civilian experts, and asked their advice. “And they said: You need to think about your generals differently. It can’t just be, ‘He’s a great American.’ You need to ask yourself, ‘Is this guy effective in his strategy?’ ”

That is the puzzle to me of the book. I think several things changed. First, our wars changed. World War II was an understood war; people knew why we were fighting, and they were, as a nation, behind the war. Subsequent wars were far murkier, with less well-defined opponents — guerrilla forces and peasant armies — and success was difficult to define. “What does success mean,” Ricks asks, “when you’re trying to get out of Iraq, when you’re trying to get out of Afghanistan?”

NancyB on November 10, 2012 at 8:41 pm

Anybody notice the suggestiveness of the title of the biography? “All in”? But, since he got caught, the title should be “Balls Deep”. I wonder, if our enemies start dipping themselves in shit, will our people start doing that too, when they meet with them?

RT on November 10, 2012 at 10:24 pm

I am glad that Debbie has published this article, as it seems a surprising number of people did not know that Petraeus has been an Islmo-panderer of the first order, a very dangerous thing for a CIA to director to be–for the security of the USA to begin with. That is because the media has done a good job of maintaining silence about Petraeus’s perfidies. (I hate to agree with the Move-On label of “Petraeus Betray-Us,” but it’s an apt one, even if Move-On applied it for the wrong reasons.)

In fact, the only reason I knew anything about this Islamo-pandering was because I occasionally check-into Internet blogs with positions opposed to my own, such as Leftist websites, Pro-Muslim websites, etc. — just to know what my opponents are thinking or talking about. I found some Jewish Leftist sites defending Petraeus’s statements by putting a spin on them and I found Pro-Muslim websites applauding Petraeus’s statements. That pretty much told me all I needed to know about Petraeus, and it also explained why Petraeus continue to be elevated in rank and by the media.

Amazingly, this stupid, dangerous man has even been touted in some circles as a future Presidential candidate. And if not for this twist of fate, involving some emails, and some adulturous conduct by Petraeus and Broadwell, that unsettling possibility could have become a reality.

Ralph Adamo on November 10, 2012 at 11:52 pm

Excellent post as usual, Debbie. I did not know about Petraeus’s Islamopandering until I read this post. This is only the latest example of why DS is such a valuable resource.

I was going to write a comment about Move-On’s “General Petraeus: Betray-us?” ad, but Ralph Adamo beat me to it, so I will instead just quote him.

“(I hate to agree with the Move-On label of ‘Petraeus Betray-Us,’ but it’s an apt one, even if Move-On applied it for the wrong reasons.)”

Amen!

JeffE on November 11, 2012 at 12:59 am

I’m sure Gen. Patraeus will make a fine living as a “consultant” in retirement.

Like you said, Debbie: No tears.

There is NO Santa Claus on November 11, 2012 at 1:27 am

He could still run for President. Marital infidelity didn’t stop Bill Clinton. Patraeus would have an easier time getting the Democratic nomination, but the Republicans too, prefer style over substance. Look at the way they are elevating a crook like Rubio. And do most people believe in marriage nowadays?

It is true that most security breaches have been among Democrats. But the Republicans are becoming a ‘me too’ party more and more. So it is logical to expect that they will incorporate more and more of the Democrats’ unsavory practices. And they have already been doing it — Vitter, Sanford, etc.

I wouldn’t vote for him, and maybe his longtime wife wouildn’t vote for him, but most people would probably see things differently. Look at the way some of these politicians have tried to stay in politics after being exposed (no pun intended). Some are successful and some aren’t, but more and more of them are trying to do it.

Little Al on November 11, 2012 at 1:49 am

This is as good a metaphor as any for what is happening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6EsyYWy2g

Worry01 on November 11, 2012 at 2:15 am