So it seems we know more about Patraeus' love life in two days than the Obama Administration is telling us they knew about Benghazi in nearly 2 months or Fast and Furious after 2 years. Where's the accountability? It's rediculous the amount of outright lying by Obama and team.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: So it seems we know more about Patraeus' love life in two days than the Obama Administration is telling us they knew about Benghazi in nearly 2 months or Fast and Furious after 2 years. Where's the accountability? It's rediculous the amount of outright lying by Obama and team.
Stephen Dawson wrote: Many right wing nuts on MM have expressed this silly notion.
Kind of like the kid who is jealous of his more successful, more popular brother.
As for the OP, another pointless comparison of apples and oranges. How does a complex intelligence programme compare to a govt. official having an extramarital affair?
Viking Models
Posts: 1,553
Huntington Beach, California, US
Katarina N. wrote:
Kind of like the kid who is jealous of his more successful, more popular brother.
As for the OP, another pointless comparison of apples and oranges. How does a complex intelligence programme compare to a govt. official having an extramarital affair?
it's dirtying the witness. Now petraeus will have too much mud on his face to testify effectively about Benghazigate. And now that he is a civilian, he does not have to testify.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,625
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
I was wondering how long it would take someone to link the alleged US arms trafficking to Syrian rebels (through the US Consulate in Libya), to the Fast and Furious mess.
The real story is not the sex scandal, even though that's what the mainstream media will likely focus its' attention on. It's about who the US is supplying arms to...and it looks like the administration may have been caught, twice, selling arms to the "wrong" people.
Viking Models
Posts: 1,553
Huntington Beach, California, US
Mike Kelcher wrote: I was wondering how long it would take someone to link the alleged US arms trafficking to Syrian rebels (through the US Consulate in Libya), to the Fast and Furious mess.
The real story is not the sex scandal, even though that's what the mainstream media will likely focus its' attention on. It's about who the US is supplying arms to...and it looks like the administration may have been caught, twice, selling arms to the "wrong" people.
This mess is interesting, at least.
People are always more interested in who is boinking who. News has been Jerry Springered for quite a while now.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: So it seems we know more about Patraeus' love life in two days than the Obama Administration is telling us they knew about Benghazi in nearly 2 months or Fast and Furious after 2 years. Where's the accountability? It's rediculous the amount of outright lying by Obama and team.
it's dirtying the witness. Now petraeus will have too much mud on his face to testify effectively about Benghazigate. And now that he is a civilian, he does not have to testify.
It will be interesting to see how far this goes. With more top generals ousted in the last week than any time in history, it's looking like Obama is orchestrating some sort of military coup to cover up his actions.
It will be interesting to see how far this goes. With more top generals ousted in the last week than any time in history, it's looking like Obama is orchestrating some sort of military coup to cover up his actions.
Viking Models
Posts: 1,553
Huntington Beach, California, US
Jay Dezelic wrote:
It will be interesting to see how far this goes. With more top generals ousted in the last week than any time in history, it's looking like Obama is orchestrating some sort of military coup to cover up his actions.
Yes, he will never be as effective as Stalin, but he's trying. It might even be deeper than that. The only good thing I can find about Barry O' is his refusal to kiss Netanyahoo's ass.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Viking Models wrote: it's dirtying the witness. Now petraeus will have too much mud on his face to testify effectively about Benghazigate. And now that he is a civilian, he does not have to testify.
Why wouldn't he? Now that's he's a civilian, what leverage would the administration have over someone they just kicked to the curb?
Jay Dezelic wrote: It will be interesting to see how far this goes. With more top generals ousted in the last week than any time in history, it's looking like Obama is orchestrating some sort of military coup to cover up his actions.
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,311
Santa Cruz, California, US
Jay Dezelic wrote:
It will be interesting to see how far this goes. With more top generals ousted in the last week than any time in history, it's looking like Obama is orchestrating some sort of military coup to cover up his actions.
LOL
so now this is a coup by Obama?
what, did he use his superhuman Kenyan socialist mind powers to cause the general to boink his mistress???
GK photo
Posts: 24,881
Laguna Beach, California, US
Jay Dezelic wrote: With more top generals ousted in the last week than any time in history, it's looking like Obama is orchestrating some sort of military coup to cover up his actions.
which generals were "ousted?"
a coup??? dude, wtf are you talking about? coups are "started" by a military, not perpetrated against them.
Viking Models wrote: Yes, he will never be as effective as Stalin, but he's trying. It might even be deeper than that. The only good thing I can find about Barry O' is his refusal to kiss Netanyahoo's ass.
I have heard comparisons of Obama actions to Stalin's purging and I think it's total BS. Nobody is being killed. It is a far closer comparison to the watergate coverup if they can link specific knowledge to Obama. If so, it is quite probable that he can be impeached like Nixon was. Maybe that's the way the good-old-boys had planned all along to get Biden in the driver's seat. Biden was unelectable otherwise.
There are just some amazing claims being made in this thread that are factually incorrect.
1. "More top generals ousted". Hardly.
--Petraeus isn't a general, he's retired.
--Allen retains his command of ISAF. What's on hold is his transfer to NATO. This email thing with Kelley needs to be resolved. 10,000 emails to a civilian? That's a couple of messages a day. Carter Ham left Africom in a scheduled event and has nothing to do with Libya. But don't take my word for it: " “The speculation that Gen. Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false,” Gen. Dempsey said in a statement Monday."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … departure/ And Admiral Gaouette was removed (and he's not anywhere near Libya) for his actions as an officer: "Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, a San Diego native, was reassigned from his job atop the Stennis group pending the results of a Navy inspector general investigation, according to a Navy news statement Saturday. The reason given for the investigation was allegations of “inappropriate leadership and judgment.” Officials have stressed that the accusations are not about personal misbehavior, such as drinking or sexual harassment. On Wednesday, Rear Adm. John Kirby, chief of naval information at the Pentagon, called the speculation about the consulate flat wrong.“Rumors of this having anything to do with Libya and the Benghazi attack are simply false and ridiculous,” Kirby said. Research of the Stennis’ location indicates that the aircraft carrier was oceans away from the scene on Sept. 11."
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct … ver-libya/
How many top generals were "ousted" this week? To my knowledge, NONE. So I wonder how that stacks up historically?
2. Petraeus is a republican. He's been mentioned as a GOP senatorial candidate or Presidential candidate. Now he's a private citizen. That means he can't be compelled as a government employee to testify before Congress. But individual citizens can always be subpoenaed by Congress to testify. This has been done repeatedly. And as long as Congress issues immunity from prosecution, the individuals can't claim the right of self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions. Petraeus' resignation would actually increase the likelihood that the "truth would out" for those of you who believe in paranoia. Plus, the people fixating on Petraeus' resignation as some sort of administration coverup, Mike Morell was the DD for the CIA. Anything Petraeus would know about Benghazi, Morell would know. Morell has already testified (under oath). He's a career employee, has no loyalty to Obama.
3. Comparisons to Nixon and the watergate coverup are just plain silly and embarrassing to the individual making those claims. First, there's no evidence of any kind of a coverup by the administration or the CIA except the security elements (ie: the administration did not originally indicate that what was first referred to as the "safe house" and then "the Annex" was a CIA facility until GOP congressmen accidentally pointed out that the "annex" was a secure and secret facility. Second, Nixon committed a host of felonies or suspected felonies (setting up a slush fund to get arrested individuals to not cooperate? destroying documents requested by a special prosecutor?).
Some of you who think this stuff really need to get a grip. When all is said and done, the CIA will look bad and the buck is going to end up resting with Petraeus and yet absolutely NONE of what will be discussed or second-guessed will have kept Stevens, Smith and the 2 security officers alive.
GK photo
Posts: 24,881
Laguna Beach, California, US
afplcc wrote: There are just some amazing claims being made in this thread that are factually incorrect.
1. "More top generals ousted". Hardly.
--Petraeus isn't a general, he's retired.
--Allen retains his command of ISAF. What's on hold is his transfer to NATO.
sheesh, you're ruining everyone's fun. we wanted him to account for that statement!
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,311
Santa Cruz, California, US
Katarina N. wrote: Usually it's the military overthrowing the government, not the other way round.
Jay Dezelic wrote: Usually, but not always. It depends how radically different the new leadership is, and how loyal the military is to traditional protocol.
GK photo
Posts: 24,881
Laguna Beach, California, US
Jay Dezelic wrote: Usually, but not always. It depends how radically different the new leadership is, and how loyal the military is to traditional protocol.
so, what is this? a coup? a purging? a reverse overthrow? demilitarization?
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,311
Santa Cruz, California, US
Jay Dezelic wrote: Usually, but not always. It depends how radically different the new leadership is, and how loyal the military is to traditional protocol.
GK photo wrote: so, what is this? a coup? a purging? a reverse overthrow? demilitarization?
I like reverse overthrow, it does have a certain ring to it.
Jay Dezelic wrote: Usually, but not always. It depends how radically different the new leadership is, and how loyal the military is to traditional protocol.
Given that the US has 1000+ officers in general/admiral ranks, that's a lot of purging Obama has to do if he wants to replace them all with Democrats. It's not a smart thing to do when one fights a war, as Stalin learned when the puny Finns kicked the Red Army's butt in WWII.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Viking Models wrote: How did contempt of congress work with Holder?
Funny you should ask. He managed to dodge prison time because neither side wanted a legislative-executive court showdown, which would have been nasty and could have weakened at least one side's powers. By exiting the administration, Petraeus has been stripped of that bit of protection, should he have wished to avail himself of it (of which, of course, there's no evidence).
Stephen Dawson wrote: Two Obama-hate postings within a few minutes of each other is notable.
Perhaps someone did not get "their" country back?
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: I guess you didn't see the recent rules about SB. Maybe you could stay on topic and stop the personal attacks.
LOL I think SD was dead on with the real topic...
but, to humor you...
General Petraeus's affair doesn't necessarily have to be gotten right. All they have to do is conclude that intelligence wasn't leaked to his girlfriend.
Now, suppose it comes out that the reason Benghazi went the way it did was because Petraeus was naked skyping with what's_her_head from 10:30pm to 4am and couldn't be reached?
Suppose we dig really deep and find out that most of the military brass fucks around? Hell, maybe the whole CIA fucks around. Maybe they were fucking right when Benghazi got attacked and all got caught with their pants down.
And how does Jill Kellie drive around with a Korean Honorary Consul license plate down in Florida? Who's the general in command of the pacific? Does she have that because what she really is a call girl for foreign theater generals? Who authorized it at the State Dept??
Why does Broadwell also drive around with a Honorary Consul license plate?
WhyTF does Allen write a note on Jill Kellie's behalf, regarding the custody battle of her kids? Why does the judge in her case think she's the biggest fucking liar he's ever seen? Any why, if she's devoid of any personal character whatsoever, are generals hanging around her?
You know why? Because generals are horny little bastards too, that's why. Because people usually have the affair before they come clean for having an affair, that's why. Because people having affairs do not think clearly, that's why.
What I want to know is: why do you wish to pin this shitty behavior on the hard working black guy?
Given that the US has 1000+ officers in general/admiral ranks, that's a lot of purging Obama has to do if he wants to replace them all with Democrats. It's not a smart thing to do when one fights a war, as Stalin learned when the puny Finns kicked the Red Army's butt in WWII.
It seems like more of a botched coverup attempt than any kind of long-term strategy. The "who knew what when" along with the top-level security breeches needed to be delayed and spun as not to negatively effect Obama's campaign.
Jay Dezelic wrote: Usually, but not always. It depends how radically different the new leadership is, and how loyal the military is to traditional protocol.
I like reverse overthrow, it does have a certain ring to it.
What's the reverse of an overthrow--an under catch?
Look gang, there's all this paranoia. Obama is holding a press conference as we speak. He was asked at least two questions about Petraeus. And Petraeus is still supposed to testify before the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. As is Acting Director Mike Morell.
| 
| 
| edu