Customer Discussions > Politics forum

NBC news said today that it was just THURSDAY that Obama was informed of the CIA Petraeus affair Mess. While Eric Cantor in Congress was informed in Late October by the FBI. Who believes that Weasel Obama did not know until AFTER the election?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 60 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 12, 2012 2:17:24 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 2:17:55 AM PST
DRM says:
Libya cover up all over again.

Conveniently NONE of this came out Before The Election.

And Slowbama has set up a government where MANY people know things before he FINALLY does.

Or is it he Really DID Know Earlier?

Either way, the lies, cover up, negligence, being out of touch, and corruption continues.

Weasel Time.

Posted on Nov 12, 2012 2:24:17 AM PST
DRM says:
Per http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/NATL-CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns-Cites-Extra-Marital-Affair-178159541.html

"Petraeus, 60, told President Barack Obama of the affair on Thursday and offered to resign, a senior official told NBC News. Obama accepted his resignation in a phone call Friday afternoon.

"In his mind, in his views, with his code of ethics and morals, he did a very dishonorable thing," a U.S. military official and long-time aide to Petraeus told NBC News. "This had nothing to do with Benghazi, nothing to do with his relationship with the White House," the official added in reference to the recent questions and criticism leveled at the general for his agency's response to the recent attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Libya."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 2:46:15 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
The NEW YORK TIMES reports that the FBI knew about this last summer. Maybe Eric Holder didn't mention it to Obama?

The FBI got into the investigation after Jill Kelley reported being receiving harassing e-mails. The e-mails were traced to a computer owned by Paula Broadwell, author of Petraeus' biography and reportedly his lover.

Jill Kelley works for Hillary Clinton's State Department providing liaison services to the Joint Special Operations Command in Florida. She is described in some blogs as an "arabist" who was born in Lebanon.

This raises the question of Clinton's role. She may have been the first to know. Indeed, she may have arranged it. At any rate, her testimony will be needed to unravel what's really going on.

My speculation is that she and Obama were among the first to know. Did Petreaus resign so that he could clear the decks and tell the truth about Benghazi without further fear of retaliation?

If so, he may have decided to sacrifice his reputation to save his honor. "Duty, Honor and Country" are more than a slogan to soldiers.

The prospect of lying under oath to serve a Commander In Chief who left men to die when they could have been saved must have impossible for him to bear. We'll see if honor trumps political expediency?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 2:57:36 AM PST
Intrepid says:
The Senate Intelligence chair wanted Petraeus to be kept on. The problem started reportedly when journalist mistress tried to hack his e-mail. That triggered an expanding FBI operation. Others in less sensitive positions were forced to resign under similar compromised situations.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 2:57:51 AM PST
What is it that you think Hilary Clinton arranged? The investigation? Kelley's involvement? Blackmailing Petraeus so that he wouldn't spill the beans on Benghazi?

Posted on Nov 12, 2012 3:02:47 AM PST
Menkaure says:
Why do you all continue to responding to DRM? Do you enjoy baiting the insanity?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:03:50 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 3:04:39 AM PST
Intrepid says:
As head of CIA wasn't it Petaeus duty to assess threat levels and make recommendations to protect the ambassador? He may also be falling on his sword for the administration. I don't see him as being a self-serving type.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:07:18 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
I haven't seen anything indicating that Paula Broadwell tried to hack Petraeus' e-mail, Intrepid. I thought they investigated after Jill Kelley complained to them.

They must have suspected a national security issue. I'd look at Jill Kelley for that (and Hillary Clinton). The FBI doesn't investigate harassment calls otherwise nor do they have any interest in affairs unless it involves a security risk.

I can't see any security risk coming from Broadwell. Maybe she went nuts, though?

That's why we need to find out what the facts of this really are.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:08:31 AM PST
What I read was the Broadwell's e-mails either contained or appeared to contain content from Petraeus' e-mail, raising concerns that she had hacked into it. But apparently it was shared with her.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:26:16 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 3:30:46 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
I think your question is excellent, Meghann. I'm speculating about this.

Hillary Clinton may not have any contact with Jill Kelley even though Kelley was employed by her department. That's something that merits further investigation, however.

Benghazi hadn't happened when Kelley reported the affair to the FBI. If Kelley went through State Department channels, Hillary would have known about it though. I would imagine that either she, or Eric Holder, or both, would have advised Obama. An affair isn't illegal, however, and I imagine the FBI looked into the national security issues. If Broadwell was coming unstrung, that could be an issue.
Kelley's connections would bear close scrutiny. The military post she served is the one used by the Special Operations Command. That's SEALS, Delta -- secret ops kind of stuff. You wouldn't want anybody in there who was less than 100% loyal.

If Petraeus didn't go along with the Administration (which is possible), knowledge of the affair could be used to influence him, especially after Benghazi left four dead including an Ambassador. I note that Petraeus issued a very carefully worded statement which initially seemed to support the Administration's narrative of a riot which got out of control.

Later, however, Petraeus very pointedly had a statement issued that the CIA never refused any requests for help from the embattled consulate. Indeed, one of the ex-SEALS killed there had come in with a small CIA team based in Tripoli from what I've read. It looks like Petraeus sent as much help as he could.

Panetta, however, didn't. And Panetta made another carefully worded statement about how you could not send troops in without knowing exactly what they were going to meet. That's true, but it ignored the fact that we had people on the ground already and they needed fire support, not a large-scale invasion. American aerial assets were available and they could have provided the fire support needed to knock out the al Qaeda mortar teams which eventually killed the two ex-SEALS. Air support probably could have dispersed the terrorists who initially overran the embassy too.

A couple of SEALS apparently shot their way into the embassy and shot their way out again, enough times to rescue twenty or thirty personnel. Al Qaeda is fanatical, but they're no match for SEALS, Delta or other American spec ops forces.

The dead Americans could have been saved. To me, that's the real issue.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:31:06 AM PST
There is a lot of speculation in there. But basically, you think that Clinton used her preexisting knowledge of the affair to try to force Petraeus to go along with the administration line on Benghazi and that Petraeus is just going to fall on his sword and ignore the attempt at blackmail?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:46:11 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
My posts are pretty much all speculation, Meghann. That's why we need Congress, or somebody, to find out what really happened.

Maybe Petraeus really did fall on his sword and resign rather than lie under oath to protect Obama and Clinton? He's a West Pointer and lying is a violation of their honor code. Broadwell was also a West Point graduate. "Duty, Honor, Country" is the West Point motto and they take it very seriously.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:48:51 AM PST
Well, if that is the case . . . he should be perfectly free to tell the truth now. In fact, we should expect his ringing denunciation of his former evil overlords any day now.

If he was being blackmailed and he quit in protest, then he has no reason to cover anything up.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:54:56 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 3:55:33 AM PST
Intrepid says:
Duty and honor are also part of fidelity and commitment within a marriage.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:55:30 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
I agree, Meghann. If General Petraeus is the kind of man I think he is, that's what will happen.

No officer worth his salt would leave his men to die and then lie to cover it up. I think he's a better man than that even if he did dishonor himself by cheating on his wife.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:56:15 AM PST
I guess the ranges of taking it seriously can range from "very" to "pretty much" to "kinda."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:57:43 AM PST
I would hope that no officer worth his salt would leave his men to die . . . period (barring, of course, those situations where it is a deliberate decision made to achieve some sort of legitimate advantage or objective that can't be gained any other way).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 3:58:28 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 5:02:43 AM PST
Intrepid says:
That is a problem when your job requires highest clearance (edit) for honor is not selective. It is all inclusive.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 4:04:20 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
Honor that's "selective" isn't honor, Intrepid.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 4:06:49 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
You lose people in combat. A good officer doesn't lose any more than the has to.

And, he never leaves them to die when he's got the resources to save them. That's the real issue Benghazi represents, especially among soldiers.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 4:20:33 AM PST
I believe that's the exact point that Intrepid is making. Honor isn't selective. If the argument hinges him on being a man of the highest honor and he isn't, there is a hole that needs to be addressed.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 4:27:47 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
I'm not trying to defend Petraeus for cheating on his wife. That's dishonorable.

If that's Intrepid's point, I agree with him.

Posted on Nov 12, 2012 4:30:35 AM PST
I'm almost positive that is what Intrepid meant: that honor wasn't selective, that it was all inclusive. A man who can't honor a vow he made to his wife is a dubious bet to honor vows he made to his soldiers or to his country.

All this valorization of West Point and soldiers sounds a bit empty next to the facts that we know so far.

Posted on Nov 12, 2012 4:32:10 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
I see DRM has gotten over his despair and found the courage to continue his campaign of ignorant lies.

Soldier on, DRM! Glad to see you back in the saddle of comic irrelevance.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 4:40:30 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
I'm not trying to "valorize" West Point, Meghann. That's how they are. It's life or death to them.

I realize that doesn't ring true elsewhere, though. I also realize that Petraeus and Broadwell aren't perfect and may have turned their backs (or whatever) on their Cadet experiences and training.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  9
Total posts:  60
Initial post:  Nov 12, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 14, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions