Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 9, 2012, 8:06 p.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[DELETED]

5 Comments

5 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

I think I figured out what's going on here. I ain't sayin' though. This post is gone in 60 seconds.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Good story about the general;

"I served under him in the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq (OIF 1). During that campaign he ignored his Corps Commander's orders and took our division further and further into Iraq, racing to beat others into Baghdad. We (the 101st) didn't get there before the capitol fell, so we stopped south of there near Iskandariyah. While we were there elements of our division uncovered a HUGE stockpile of explosives, such as Semtex and PETN (at a place called al Qa'qaa). Petraeus ordered us north to Mosul, though, leaving those explosives to be looted by resistance fighters and used against us and our fellow Americans. Under his command we had the greatest number of casualties of any division in OIF 1, despite the XVIII Airborne Corps commander having told us to remain in Kuwait as a contingency "Quick Reaction Force." Petraeus had to have his next star, though, and his presidential palace in Mosul. (Shortly after we got there a Blackhawk was dispatched to Kuwait for pool cleaning supplies.)

As far as THIS incident, I think the only cause for concern is the blackmail risk to someone in that job. Otherwise I feel it's a matter between himself, his wife and any others who are directly involved. I am really glad, though, that I get to joke about his privates not maintaining their military bearing"

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think the main goal here was to get a way out of Petraeus testifying this upcoming week on Libya.

I dont think PTSD has anything to do with this. The fact that he will not be testifying now is the key. If he resigned becuase of this, and was still testifying, then yes, I would say perhaps. But no testify means cover up.

Its always a sex scandal. All these guys cheat, at least most of em probably. It only comes out in the press when its needed.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

They should be able to pick-up with the 2nd in command of the CIA - who happens to be #1 now.