Things were a little too busy here at the UCTMW World HQ yesterday.
Fortunately, there was time for some lengthy wake-up sex, that featured Slave applying Mistress's favorite power tools to her clean shaven folds for a couple of bead shaking cums before I claimed my carnal reward.
There was a bike ride in our sunny morning: summer had crept back for just two days, but the last of the fall leaves were still flame red.
Then Slave went to the Pussycats game, with our daughter, her Co-Ed friend, and, of all people, Jay, Mistress's former lover, who still is hanging about in our life, but no longer in the "FWB" capacity. Mistress has moved on.
Speaking of which, she's planning to work from home today for a while before heading off to the NYC area for a business event for two nights. I've been told to make sure I am "cage ready" this AM, and already have schmushed my balls and cock into the steel ring, which should provide Mistress with an extra hard cock for her entertainment in this AM's "bon voyage" sex, before I head to work.
Mistress did let it drop yesterday that she was considering "Mr. Perfect Cock's" (K) invitation for lunch today. (He works not far from our house). He's been wheedling his way back onto her radar screen, after she dumped him via text message about 9 days ago. No doubt he's had a little trouble getting Mistress's body and sexual skills out of his naughty little mind.
Last night, as we drove home from a charity event at someone's house, she announced that he's now suggesting they "lunch" at our house. Gee, I wonder what he has in mind? Of course, Mistrss is no fool in such matters, but seemed a little ambivalent about what to do.
I suspect it may turn on just how horny she may be by around 11:00 am or so. And I'll be sitting at my desk, all caged up, wondering what's going on. Maybe we need one of those nanny cams?
But despite our busy schedule yesterday, I did have a little time to research the allegations of one of our commenters yesterday, who believes that General Petraeus had not resigned because of a sexual scandal involving a jealous "biographer", but really to continue the cover-up of the whole Benghazi affair, and protect the President's ass.
Hmmmm. Could it be? I turned immediately to the best sources for unadulterated "news" with a blame Obama spin: The (http://drudgereport.com/ ) Drudge Report to collect various conspiratorial perspectives and then add it all up (though math is so 20th Century).
There was this theory: Petraeus actually started the affair months ago in anticipation of an excuse not to tell Congress what he might know about some attack on a US Embassy to occur at some unknown date in the future. But that seemed too simple. Why would a guy reported to be thinking about running for President as a Republican throw himself and his reputation under the bus just to save a Kenyan Socialist who had wormed his way into the White House?
This "he did it so he wouldn't have to testify" theory also seems dubious when you consider that fact that Congress HAS THE POWER TO SUBPOENA a witness, whether or not he happens to run the CIA. So sooner or later, he'll ahve to testify anyway (unless he suddenly and mysteriously disappears - look out for that one!)
No, it had to be something deeper, and darker. And it all began to add up when I learned that the "other woman" in this dark tale was a State Department employee, 37 years old, who is a "military liaison" station in Tampa, Fl.
With title like "liaison", with it's pseudo French affectations, I knew there was something sinister about her from the start. No wonder Paula Broadwell was suspicious. And who did she work for? Hillary Clinton, long rumored to be a closet Lesbian. One can only imagine those long nights of sultry sapphic indulgence in that tiny private cabin on the Secretary of State's airplane as it winged its way to Jakarta or Abu Dabi on yet another apology tour.
It was all becoming clearer: where were the "deciders" in the early morning hours of September 11, 2012 as our poor diplomats in Benghazi were calling for drones strikes and back-up under withering assault from those Al Queda affiliated terrorists?
In a CIA safe house in Georgetown, that the sinister but oh-so buff Paula Broadwell had turned into a dungeon in which she could extract secrets and vital fluids from the most important men and women in Washington. General Petraeus was locked in a metal dog cage, forced to watch as his "biographer" used a variety of floggers, cains and crops to force our "President", strapped naked to a St. Andrews' cross, to reveal the nuclear trigger codes and the whereabouts of his actual birth certificate.
Seated on a throne nearby, and patiently awaiting her turn with the crop, was our Secretary of State, dressed in a black leather pants suit with a cut out to give full access to her clean shaven "lady bits". She who must be obeyed had a tight grip on the leash of her kneeling and collared liaison who was skillfully applying her tongue and lips to pleasure the world's most famous diplomat.
No wonder no one picked up that urgent 3 am phone call.
In earlier interviews, Broadwell described meeting Petraeus in 2006 at Harvard, where she was working on a dissertation about leadership. She said they soon started e-mailing and discussing her research.
forces in Afghanistan in June 2010, he invited her to Kabul, and she decided to turn her dissertation into a biography. She made repeated trips to Afghanistan to spend time observing Petraeus.
In describing Petraeus in a CBS News interview two months ago, she said: “He, at the end of the day, is human and is challenged by the burdens of command. . . . So, he has this mask of command — you think he’s really confident — but I got to see a more personal side. He’s confident, but he’s also very compassionate about the loss of troops and sacrifices we’re making in Afghanistan.”
Ah, yes. She can see through that "mask of command". In fact, as a West Point grad who is clearly pretty buff, she has a whiff of Domme about her that maybe the General found appealing at the end of a long day giving orders to the grunts. And one can speculate how that email exchange evolved into an invitation to check out his bachelor barracks out in Kabul, half a world away from their respective spouses, where the whiff of danger from the possibility of a Taliban ambush can make even the most devoted husband or wife throw caution to the wind and surrender to the immediacy of the moment.
Actually, it all seems pretty natural, doesn't it? Ike and Kay Sommersby, his loyal WAC jeep pilot, apparently had something like this going on as he saved the world from Hitler during the Big One. Somehow that did not disqualify the simple soldier from Abilene from two terms at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
But we are a lot nosier and apparently more judgmental these days. And it seems that E-mail played a role in exposing this trsyt, forcing the General to offer his resignation when he knew the scandal was about to explode around him, like one of those suicide vests he was able to dodge in Kabul.
It's sad when the Washington scandal machine is more dangerous to an American soldier than the Taliban.
Should Obama have rejected the proferred resignation? Who's to say. But maybe by falling on his sword, gthe General will turn what would have been months of speculation and judgmental tut-tutting into a few days of media hype before Paula Broadwell's name becomes a trivia question answer to go along with Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers and other "Bimbo erruptions" of the past. But she's a little different isn't she? married to a Doctor, with two kids of her own, an author and West Point Grad. She's hardly your standard issue bimbo. But will the press and public notice the difference?
No doubt the former General will fade from public view for a few months, only to suddenly re-emerge as an "expert" talking head on CNN or FOX the next time there is an international crisis, earning a few hundred grand in appearance and speaking fees. Wesley Clark will drop one rung on the "Former Generals" booking list for all those cable news producers out there desperate for content.
It all seems a little unfair. The approach of the French to such matters seems much healthier: why take away a talented man or woman from public life based on what happens in their bedrooms (or command tents)?