CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns (Page 2)

That's dumb.....if he gets a subpoena he testifies......period.  I'll give you this, the web addy is right on, "conspiracy theorist" indeed.  LOL

The Cantor story was front page on CNN.com today. If we're looking for conspiracies, I'd go for the Republicans digging for dirt on Obama appointees before the election, not realizing they were opening a can of worms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-usa-petraeus-investigation-idUSBRE8AC05Z20121113

Sad.

Edited by GomesBolt 2012-11-13 6:05 AM

Man, you can't make this stuff up.

Petraeus has affair with biographer.
Biographer gets jealous of other potential mistress and sends threatening emails.
Other potential mistress is sending thousands of inappropriate emails to other general in Afghanistan.
FBI agent pulled off case for becoming infatuated with women being investigated and sending shirtless photo's to other potential mistress.

I'm sensing the movie rights for this one going through the roof.

When it comes to security clearances sexual impropriety is one of the number one risks next to financial difficulties for denying clearances.  If you have a "secret" to hide from your family then you are susceptible to a foreign intelligence agency blackmailing you.  "Give me US secrets or we will tell your wife".   Same thing with lots of money troubles.  If you're about to lose your house and cars the offer of $100k for a little information is a lot more enticing.

Dude that's south Tampa they are special down there.  Don't blame the rest of us.

Your time line is a little off.  The FBI agent's shirtless pics were sent to Mrs. Kelley before the other events.  Mrs. Kelley's and this FBI agent's situation  is somewhat like rinsing a ladle under the faucet.  You try to rinse the ladle but the ladle turns the water right back on you. 

I guess I don't really want to know too much about the Tampa chapter of the CENTCOM swingers club. A whole lot of people are going to regret having ever corresponded with Mrs. Broadwell and Mrs. Kelley.

Apparently, the press is scrutinizing a statement that Mrs. Broadwell made in a speech about CIA prisoners being kept at Benghazi. The CIA holding prisoners would be a violation of Obama's executive orders.  CIA is flatly denying that prisoners were there.  That difference in the stories is probably a legitimate public interest concern to investigate further. That and all the salacious details will keep the story in the news for a while.  I wish the focus were on the deficit instead. 

Paula Broadwell retweeted the following on Aug 7.

"To be old & wise, you must first have to be young & stupid."

I shake my old gray head.

Where do the Depends fit into this? Did they wear them while emailing each other? I'm confused.

Are General Petraeus and Bill Clinton friends?

Just read this article:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-one-of-the-women-in-the-petraeus-scandal-a-spy-youll-never-believe-whos-making-the-case/

I'll admit that I sometimes get a little conspiratorial in my thinking, but I like the way the article summed it up:

Kelley’s actions are suspicious at best, and that if she was not in the employ of a foreign intelligence service, “the world’s spy agencies have collectively suffered a dereliction of duty.”

And Newt Gingrich?

And Rudy Giuliani?

And Arnold Schwartzenegger?

And......

Foxnews is the only one that will cover it.  ABC/CBS/NBC will be covering Michele's new dress or something important like that.

With the results of the election if the house were to impeach Obama I'm thinking that would not go over very well.  I'm just saying. 

It sounds like Petraeus gave talking points to Rice and the White House that it was a terrorist attack.  It also sounds like there were other intelligence reports that involved the anti-Islamist video that were disproved over time....unclear how that timeline fits in with Rice's appearance on the 5 Sunday news shows where she said that the attack "was in fact" a response to the video.  In my mind, if she goes on national television and says the attack "was in fact" (pretty strong statement by her) due to the video then she purposely misled the American public.  It would be different if she mentioned the terrorist attack angle along with the video angle but she and the WH chose not to do so.  According to the link above it sounds like Petraeus was taken by surprise by the talking points that Rice got elsewhere.

Endgame?  IMHO someone chose to mislead the public prior to an election.  The WH wanted to maintain the narrative in the election that Osama Bin Laden was dead and that his terrorst group was put out of business.  I have no doubt in my mind that Obama knew it was a terrorist attack...again my opinion only.  No doubt in my mind.  However, I'm sure that someone will take the fall, put up a story that allows Obama to declare plausible deniability or at least declare that there was confusion (but for 2 freaking weeks as you address the United Nations about the video???), and that person will resign.  If it was Hillary then that process is already in place.  IMHO the President of the U.S. just got away with lying to the American public. 

JMK, I can respond by asking this:

What was the point of the Watergate Commission?

What was the point of the Iran Contra Hearings?

What was the point of the 9/11 Commission?

What was the point of the Baker Commission (Iraq War)?

The answer is to learn from our mistakes or we will be doomed to repeat them.

You're asking "Even if the President knew and made up a story to get reelected, so what?" 

4 Americans, including an Ambassador and 2 American SEALS who were ordered not to go help the Ambassador are dead, a consulate was overrun, no help was sent. The Egyptian Embassy had the walls stormed and the gates breached.  That's not something to say "So what" about, that's something to make sure we identify why it happened and how can we keep it from happening. 

McCain, who I am not a big fan of, is absolutely right, you don't look at Benghazi in 4 different committees, you look at it in 1 committee and get all the questions asked and answered.  Why is that something to resist?  Instead, you'll have 4 committees presumably asking similar questions and get no answers.

The questions are focusing on the aftermath because of the old saying "It's not the crime, it's the coverup."  But the Commission will look at everything from why there was insufficient support on the ground, why FAST Teams weren't better positioned, why the MEU was not floating in a position to support anything that could happen (they were ashore in Djibouti). 

If you deny that you did anything wrong, usually you don't learn from it.  It's only when you acknowledge screwups that you actually internalize the learning lessons.