Dr. Strangelove: Gen. Buck Turgidson reacts to Petraeus scandal

(Thanks, Bryan William Jones)


  1. It’s amusing to look back and realize that this was in many ways George C. Scott’s screen test for “Patton.”

      1. As I recall, General Ripper explains that he came to the conclusion that fluoridation was a plot to corrupt “our precious bodily fluids” when he felt weak and tired after “performing the act of physical love”. So yes, that’s exactly what he meant.

  2. I’m kinda confused about why there’s so much press about the Petraeus affair. The boss of the CIA slept around — so what? I can sorta see why he’d leave his job because of this, but I don’t understand why everybody is talking about it. Why are there so many posts about this on Boing Boing?

    1. Because Obama is rejiggering his administration and sexytimes keeps the flashlight away from his talks toward gutting Social Security. Sure, we need a change in military concerns, but what else is going on? Note that everybody besides attack-dogs Feinstein and Cantor are pretty much radio-silent these days.

      1. I’ve noted it. I’m apparently not getting the full insinuation. This is one actual problem, among many. I guess i assume that each party has a point person on this. I don’t see that fact alone as indicating someone is up to anything.

        I think if it had happened last week a lot of people, who were running for office last week, would have a lot to say.

        1. I think it’s highly convenient drama considering the circumstances of second-term mutation of the administration’s goals. That is to say that this just might be one of those things that transcends party. I mean, wouldn’t Petraeus lose face if he was simply asked for his resignation? 

          1. Patreus has bosses other than the President, so there are plausible scenarios in which one of them knew, and made exactly that request. Time will answer that question, more than likely.

            I’m still not understanding how this is convenient for the administration. Could you elaborate on that? One of which things that transcend party?

    2. I think there are so many because the Boingers find it interesting, which they keep saying in their posts. I’m content to take their stated opinion as their honest opinion. Not because I share it. Though i do. This is weird, interesting, and newsworthy.

      I believe that you are seeing so many posts about it on BB because you, like I, subscribe to their newsletter.

    3. Personally, I’m undecided what to make of this, and I go back and forth.

      On the one hand, I’m happy to indulge in schadenfreude, to see powerful people have their cultivated personas of brilliance and competence torn away. And, I’m glad to see a blow against their absurd, hypocritical sexual morality.

      On the other hand, Petraeus is part of a brutal war machine, and helped establish the bureaucratic machinery for semi-automated mass murder by drone strikes — an abuse of power of the first order. But shortly after the revelation of the creation of the NCTC and the “disposition matrix”, we’re laughing at Petraeus as silly old man having sexual affairs, rather than demanding that he and other leading officials be tried for war crimes. Not of course that any such trials are likely, but we could at least be making the powers-that-be more uncomfortable.

      The best available approach, I suppose, is both to mock Petraeus and company, and to call them out as murderers.

      1. And for those who believe that Obama isn’t as hawkish and brutal as Bush, getting rid of Petraeus is a good thing; it sounds as if he stonewalled the President’s work for a more sensible Iraq/Afghanistan policy.


        I don’t get the crush that everyone seems to have on Petraeus, I don’t care about his early morning runs or how rock hard his abs are, his leadership appears criminal.

        1. Stanley McChrystal dramatically reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan. He didn’t last long until he was replaced by Petraeus. And he was actually fired. Fired for being snarky about the President.

  3. Why did he resign?  There is the remote possibility that he is actually and genuinely ashamed and feels he is no longer appropriate for the position of responsibility he had.

    No, I don’t believe it either, but that’s the face value of his resignation explanation.

    1.  If I had leaked secrets to my mistress, who blabbed them, I would feel the way you said he says he does.

  4. – It’s 3 o’clock in the morning!
    – Weh-heh-heh-ll, the Air Force never sleeps.
    – Buck, honey, I’m not sleepy either…
    – I know how it is, baby. Tell you what you do: you just start your countdown, and old Bucky’ll be back here before you can say “Blast off!”

  5. Petraeus was a political execution.  A number of us have covered this from many angles (including Boing Boing) at Phi Beta Iota the Public Intelligence Blog.  I now believe that Benghazi was a Syrian government or Russian government sponosred attack to shut down CIA smuggling arms to Syrian rebels, the other piece was the car bomb that took out the key CIA front man, a Lebanese general, on 19 October.  I believe that Obama put the FBI on to the emails of all the right-leaning flag officers because he feared a false flag attack on Iran by Admiral Cosgrove then the new Admiral that was just relieved, and the FBI ended up finding all this personal dirt.  I do not believe Petraeus needed to resign, I believe he was pushed out the door by Clapper to make room for Vickers, and there is still a great deal more of this story to be known.  Our master post, the map of all assets 1-2 hours from Benghazi while White House sleft for sevel hours, including list and links for all our posts.  Enjoy.


Comments are closed.