PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security CIA Director David Petraeus stepping down...


KChiefer
11-09-2012, 02:05 PM
...supposedly due to extramarital affair.

Carrie Mathison is such a minx!

-------------------------
3:02PM EST November 9. 2012 - NBC reported Friday that CIA director David Petraeus has resigned from the CIA, citing an extramarital affair.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell said the resignation was submitted in a letter dated Friday and was accepted by the White House.

In a letter, Petraeus noted that he had been married for 37 years and had exercised "extremely poor judgment' in conducting an extramarital affair.

Petraues took over as head of the CIA in September of 2011 following his tour as head of allied forces in Afghanistan.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/

listopencil
11-09-2012, 02:09 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/

The_Grand_Illusion
11-09-2012, 02:14 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/

Do you think this is a cover story or the up coming Benghazi investigations? He did push the same false narrative the administration did after the attack.

TGI

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 02:15 PM
Carrie Mathison is such a minx!

Pics, worthless without.

HonestChieffan
11-09-2012, 02:17 PM
Well, bye.

Amnorix
11-09-2012, 02:18 PM
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!! Over an extramarital affair?! Who gives a flying fuck. The guy is obviously one of the best counter-terrorism / military minds in our country's history and he's going to leave office cuz he found some pussy on the side?!

Fucking ridiculous. He's not running for office so unless Suzy the Slut is a fucking Chinese agent who gives a crap? JFC.

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 02:20 PM
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!! Over an extramarital affair?! Who gives a flying ****. The guy is obviously one of the best counter-terrorism / military minds in our country's history and he's going to leave office cuz he found some pussy on the side?!

****ing ridiculous. He's not running for office so unless Suzy the Slut is a ****ing Chinese agent who gives a crap? JFC.

Being the CIA Director Iím sure he could quietly make this go away if he really wanted too. He wants out, for whatever reason.

KChiefer
11-09-2012, 02:21 PM
Pics, worthless without.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/71098_23518548072_1549681_n.jpg

blaise
11-09-2012, 02:22 PM
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!! Over an extramarital affair?! Who gives a flying ****. The guy is obviously one of the best counter-terrorism / military minds in our country's history and he's going to leave office cuz he found some pussy on the side?!

****ing ridiculous. He's not running for office so unless Suzy the Slut is a ****ing Chinese agent who gives a crap? JFC.

There has to be more. Maybe he told her things he shouldn't.

Donger
11-09-2012, 02:25 PM
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!! Over an extramarital affair?! Who gives a flying ****. The guy is obviously one of the best counter-terrorism / military minds in our country's history and he's going to leave office cuz he found some pussy on the side?!

****ing ridiculous. He's not running for office so unless Suzy the Slut is a ****ing Chinese agent who gives a crap? JFC.

I'd be willing to bet that this happened when he was still an army officer.

dirk digler
11-09-2012, 02:26 PM
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!! Over an extramarital affair?! Who gives a flying fuck. The guy is obviously one of the best counter-terrorism / military minds in our country's history and he's going to leave office cuz he found some pussy on the side?!

Fucking ridiculous. He's not running for office so unless Suzy the Slut is a fucking Chinese agent who gives a crap? JFC.

Military men like him have honor and he broke the honor code so he is doing the right thing.

beer bacon
11-09-2012, 02:26 PM
CIA and other intelligence communities are a bit more severe about extramarital affairs because it opens the door to blackmail. I don't know if this would extend all the way up to the head of the CIA.

HonestChieffan
11-09-2012, 02:26 PM
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!! Over an extramarital affair?! Who gives a flying ****. The guy is obviously one of the best counter-terrorism / military minds in our country's history and he's going to leave office cuz he found some pussy on the side?!

****ing ridiculous. He's not running for office so unless Suzy the Slut is a ****ing Chinese agent who gives a crap? JFC.

Have your own little war on women there big boy? Suzy the slut? Its Suzy's fault? Ole Dave was just being one of the boys, right?

Holder could move into the job

dirk digler
11-09-2012, 02:27 PM
CIA and other intelligence communities are a bit more severe about extramarital affairs because it opens the door to blackmail. I don't know if this would extend all the way up to the head of the CIA.

that too

listopencil
11-09-2012, 02:29 PM
Hey, look. Time for a Benghazi update.

1) The embassy in Benghazi was attacked in what now appears to be an operation by a terrorist organization. This was announced at the time by the POTUS and Secretary of State as a general protest gone wrong, but there is reason to believe that they had the correct information at the time.

2) The CIA sent field operatives to thwart the operation but they were poorly prepared, poorly manned and poorly equipped to deal with it.

3) Military assets were available in the area but were not used. The Secretary of Defense stated that his senior man in the area strongly believed that intervention by the military would not be prudent. Contrarily, his senior man said that he didn't use those assets because he was not ordered to.

4) So far the senior Navy officer in the area was removed from his command and brought back to the US pending an investigation into "inappropriate judgement." The senior man in the area that the SecDef referred to suddenly announced his retirement within a month of the attack. The director of the CIA just stepped down citing an extramarital affair, and as of 11/09/12 will no longer testify at the investigation next week. As of 11/14/12 NBC has reported that Petraeus will testify.

5) Petraeus has testified that the CIA's official stance was that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack.


Sure. It must all be a coincidence.

stevieray
11-09-2012, 02:30 PM
Have your own little war on women there big boy? Suzy the slut? Its Suzy's fault? Ole Dave was just being one of the boys, right?

Holder could move into the job

maybe he doesn't mind if somone sleeps with his wife, it's just a little side action...no big deal.

stevieray
11-09-2012, 02:34 PM
Military men like him have honor and he broke the honor code so he is doing the right thing.

I agree...pretty honorable to own up to it, instead of being exposed.

dirk digler
11-09-2012, 02:35 PM
From a Petraeus statement: "Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA. After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours."

aturnis
11-09-2012, 02:35 PM
Pussy. Didn't stop Clinton...

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 02:36 PM
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/71098_23518548072_1549681_n.jpg

Is that really her? Sheís not unfortunate looking but not what I would consider wrecking a marriage and career over either.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 02:37 PM
Do you think this is a cover story or the up coming Benghazi investigations? He did push the same false narrative the administration did after the attack.

TGI

Could be a lot of things. It could be that he a sudden attack of honor and decided to come clean, giving up his dream job. It could be that he's using this as an excuse to get out a situation that he doesn't like, that he simply doesn't want to be the CIA director anymore for any number of reasons. It could be that someone threatened to spill the beans because his testimony in an investigation would not be favorable to them.

fan4ever
11-09-2012, 02:38 PM
Pussy. Didn't stop Clinton...

Well, we are talking about such things as honor. I know, Democrats scoff at the notion.

dirk digler
11-09-2012, 02:39 PM
I agree...pretty honorable to own up to it, instead of being exposed.

I agree

Donger
11-09-2012, 02:43 PM
Sounds like Morell is going to be acting D/CIA.

KChiefer
11-09-2012, 02:46 PM
Is that really her? Sheís not unfortunate looking but not what I would consider wrecking a marriage and career over either.

That's her. Here's a photo of her going under cover in 16th century Italy.

http://www.meredith.edu/english/walton/images/romeo_juliet_baz.jpg

There's some topless pics, but I'll keep those out of DC.

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 02:50 PM
That's her. Here's a photo of her going under cover in 16th century Italy.

http://www.meredith.edu/english/walton/images/romeo_juliet_baz.jpg

Wow, versatile.

There's some topless pics, but I'll keep those out of DC.

http://www.robbinssports.com/images/wooden-golf-tees-white.jpg

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 02:50 PM
Military men like him have honor and he broke the honor code so he is doing the right thing.Everyone loves him down here. No one is believing the "affair" story.

The_Grand_Illusion
11-09-2012, 02:50 PM
Could be a lot of things. It could be that he a sudden attack of honor and decided to come clean, giving up his dream job. It could be that he's using this as an excuse to get out a situation that he doesn't like, that he simply doesn't want to be the CIA director anymore for any number of reasons. It could be that someone threatened to spill the beans because his testimony in an investigation would not be favorable to them.

Thanks, your's and LVNHACK's input in the Benghazi threads have been invaluable since you've both been/being there done that. Same with my Bro.

Sounds like this wasn't expected but who knows. I guess we'll see how it plays out in the upcoming Benghazi hearings.

TGI

WoodDraw
11-09-2012, 02:50 PM
CIA and other intelligence communities are a bit more severe about extramarital affairs because it opens the door to blackmail. I don't know if this would extend all the way up to the head of the CIA.

This. If he was Secretary of Commerce, who gives a fuck? But can't happen at the CIA. At the very least you have to disclose it, and at that point I'm sure he thought fuck it, I'll resign. Not exactly a good example to set.

Shows poor judgement, but sad to see him go like this.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 02:51 PM
CIA and other intelligence communities are a bit more severe about extramarital affairs because it opens the door to blackmail. I don't know if this would extend all the way up to the head of the CIA.It's everyone with clearance. It's okay to have an affair as long as you tell the Security office and who you are having the affair with and that person checks out as not having ties to someone thay would act agaisnt the USA's interests.

fan4ever
11-09-2012, 03:00 PM
This. If he was Secretary of Commerce, who gives a ****? But can't happen at the CIA. At the very least you have to disclose it, and at that point I'm sure he thought **** it, I'll resign. Not exactly a good example to set.

Shows poor judgement, but sad to see him go like this.

Well honorable men still make mistakes, and honorable men take responsibility for them.

cosmo20002
11-09-2012, 03:00 PM
...supposedly due to extramarital affair.

Carrie Mathison is such a minx!

-------------------------
3:02PM EST November 9. 2012 - NBC reported Friday that CIA director David Petraeus has resigned from the CIA, citing an extramarital affair.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell said the resignation was submitted in a letter dated Friday and was accepted by the White House.

In a letter, Petraeus noted that he had been married for 37 years and had exercised "extremely poor judgment' in conducting an extramarital affair.

Petraues took over as head of the CIA in September of 2011 following his tour as head of allied forces in Afghanistan.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/

So...this makes it more likely Obama murdered those people or less likely or what?

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:04 PM
So...this makes it more likely Obama murdered those people or less likely or what?WTF? Are there people out there saying that Obama killed those people in Libya on purpose?

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:04 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/02/Ex-SEAL-Obama-Never-Gave-Cross-Border-Authority-Orders-To-Aid-Americans-Under-Siege-In-Libya

As more information comes to the light about the Obama administration's Benghazi cover-up, a former Navy SEAL officer who once took a military detachment to Libya suggests President Barack Obama was either AWOL -- essentially an "empty chair" -- or deliberately denied Americans under siege in Benghazi the aid they needed by not authorizing "cross-border authority," without which rescue operations could have taken place.

-snip-

General David Petraeus has said the stand-down order did not come from the CIA and, as Bracken notes, "only the national security team at the White House" outranks the CIA. "That means President Obama, and nobody else," Bracken writes. "Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him."




There is more in the story above. As I understand it the chain of command is POTUS-DNI-Patreus. The DNI could be likened to the SecDef when talking about the Navy and Army. If someone has a clearer understanding of the chain of command please feel free to chime in.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:07 PM
So...this makes it more likely Obama murdered those people or less likely or what?

You're confusing "negligence" with "intent".

beer bacon
11-09-2012, 03:10 PM
I know lots of conservatives were upset that the right wing media lied to them about the polls being skewed in Obama's favor. Has anyone started to realize that most of the other nonsense in the right wing media is bullshit propaganda as well? I'm looking at you listopencil. This stuff on Obama cackling with glee as Americans are killed in Benghazi, and then covering it up, is ridiculous to people outside the conservative news bubble.

HonestChieffan
11-09-2012, 03:12 PM
I hope he got to keep his credit card for a few days

blaise
11-09-2012, 03:14 PM
WTF? Are there people out there saying that Obama killed those people in Libya on purpose?

Yeah it's all the rage. It's not just cosmo being a spaz or anything.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:16 PM
I know lots of conservatives were upset that the right wing media lied to them about the polls being skewed in Obama's favor. Has anyone started to realize that most of the other nonsense in the right wing media is bullshit propaganda as well? I'm looking at you listopencil. This stuff on Obama cackling with glee as Americans are killed in Benghazi, and then covering it up, is ridiculous to people outside the conservative news bubble.

Cool, while you're looking at me read this: I'm a registered Libertarian. I don't live in the "bubble." I don't agree with Mitt Romeny's stances on a wide variety of issues. He wasn't my candidate. If you took the time to actually read what I posted instead of assuming that I am some kind of blinded partisan you'd see that. Not once have I even implied what you are saying here. I'm stating that the entire scenario stinks to high heaven. Before, during and after the fact.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:19 PM
Yeah it's all the rage. It's not just cosmo being a spaz or anything.:eek: Holy shit reallly? WTF? What reason did he have to murder them?

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:20 PM
Yeah it's all the rage. It's not just cosmo being a spaz or anything.

Link?

blaise
11-09-2012, 03:21 PM
Link?

cosmo has it.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:21 PM
Well honorable men still make mistakes, and honorable men take responsibility for them.Only when forced to do so. Google General Sinclair s comments on taking others down.

Brock
11-09-2012, 03:23 PM
Honor, yeah sure. He was probably going to be outed if he didn't quit.

cosmo20002
11-09-2012, 03:26 PM
WTF? Are there people out there saying that Obama killed those people in Libya on purpose?

Out there and in here. On purpose or was simply indifferent about it.

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 03:29 PM
:eek: Holy shit reallly? WTF? What reason did he have to murder them?

They knew who the man behind the curtain is.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:30 PM
Out there and in here. On purpose or was simply indifferent about it.

For what it's worth, I think that's stupid and unfair. I don't believe Obama intentionally caused the deaths of those people in Benghazi. I believe that he was in the position to mobilize assets and choked.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:30 PM
Out there and in here. On purpose or was simply indifferent about it.Is this the we faked the moon landing crowd?

blaise
11-09-2012, 03:31 PM
Who are the people here saying Obama ordered murders in Benghazi? Which posters are those?

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:32 PM
Have your own little war on women there big boy? Suzy the slut? Its Suzy's fault? Ole Dave was just being one of the boys, right?

Holder could move into the job

Shut up homo.

cosmo20002
11-09-2012, 03:33 PM
:eek: Holy shit reallly? WTF? What reason did he have to murder them?

A common right-wing narrative is that Obama simply didn't care and is therefore complicit in the murder. That he knew they were under attack, that he had resources to save them, and that he deliberately withheld these resources.

Why would he do this? Who the hell knows? He's just evil, I guess.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:33 PM
Who are the people here saying Obama ordered murders in Benghazi? Which posters are those?This. Who are these idiots?

blaise
11-09-2012, 03:35 PM
This. Who are these idiots?

Ask cosmo.

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:35 PM
Does he still have to testify next week?

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:35 PM
So...this makes it more likely Obama murdered those people or less likely or what?

Shut up homo.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 03:36 PM
This. Who are these idiots?

LMAO Dude.

cosmo20002
11-09-2012, 03:38 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/02/Ex-SEAL-Obama-Never-Gave-Cross-Border-Authority-Orders-To-Aid-Americans-Under-Siege-In-Libya

As more information comes to the light about the Obama administration's Benghazi cover-up, a former Navy SEAL officer who once took a military detachment to Libya suggests President Barack Obama was either AWOL -- essentially an "empty chair" -- or deliberately denied Americans under siege in Benghazi the aid they needed by not authorizing "cross-border authority," without which rescue operations could have taken place.

-snip-

General David Petraeus has said the stand-down order did not come from the CIA and, as Bracken notes, "only the national security team at the White House" outranks the CIA. "That means President Obama, and nobody else," Bracken writes. "Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him."

There is more in the story above. As I understand it the chain of command is POTUS-DNI-Patreus. The DNI could be likened to the SecDef when talking about the Navy and Army. If someone has a clearer understanding of the chain of command please feel free to chime in.

You might also mention that the consulate that was attacked was primarily a CIA post and they controlled it. Adds a little intrigue to the CIA director resigning, no?

cosmo20002
11-09-2012, 03:40 PM
Is this the we faked the moon landing crowd?

I think it is a little wider than that. The Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim crowd, I would guess.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:40 PM
You might also mention that the consulate that was attacked was primarily a CIA post and they controlled it. Adds a little intrigue to the CIA director resigning, no?

Yeah, it does. I was under the impression that all of our embassies fall under the CIA.

Reaper16
11-09-2012, 03:42 PM
Does he still have to testify next week?

I don't see why he wouldn't be able to. I could be totally wrong, but a former person in command seems like a candidate to testify to me.

cosmo20002
11-09-2012, 03:42 PM
Who are the people here saying Obama ordered murders in Benghazi? Which posters are those?

I didn't say ordered, although they may think that.

Look through the threads if you like. Maybe I will later. Plenty call him a murderer in regards to the Benghazi deaths.

Or, Goolgle something like Obama Benghazi murderer. If the right-wing sites are saying it, you know it will be said here.

Baby Lee
11-09-2012, 03:42 PM
Have so many scandals erupted within the week after a presidential election?

Patreus
Holder
Hillary
Geitner
Drone fired on

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:43 PM
Yeah, it does. I was under the impression that all of our embassies fall under the CIA.WRONG!:shake:

blaise
11-09-2012, 03:43 PM
I like how Petraeus steps down and to cosmo it becomes an issue of right wing conspiracy.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:43 PM
The CIA has a listing of embassies on their website:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2007.html

Is it not true that all of our embassies are controlled by the CIA?

The_Grand_Illusion
11-09-2012, 03:44 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/02/Ex-SEAL-Obama-Never-Gave-Cross-Border-Authority-Orders-To-Aid-Americans-Under-Siege-In-Libya

There is more in the story above. As I understand it the chain of command is POTUS-DNI-Patreus. The DNI could be likened to the SecDef when talking about the Navy and Army. If someone has a clearer understanding of the chain of command please feel free to chime in.

Not sure if this will help but here is Col. David Hunt's complete radio interview after the Ryan/Biden debate. He was very angry because he knew Biden had lied in the debate. He explains how some things work in the chain of command and knew right away something wasn't right when he found out the emergency button in Benghazi had been tripped. It's pretty long but informative.

TGI

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:45 PM
The CIA has a listing of embassies on their website:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2007.html

Is it not true that all of our embassies are controlled by the CIA?Already answered. No.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:45 PM
Not sure if this will help but here is Col. David Hunt's complete radio interview after the Ryan/Biden debate. He was very angry because he knew Biden had lied in the debate. He explains how some things work in the chain of command and knew right away something wasn't right when he found out the emergency button in Benghazi had been tripped. It's pretty long but informative.

TGI


Thanks.

cosmo20002
11-09-2012, 03:46 PM
Yeah, it does. I was under the impression that all of our embassies fall under the CIA.

I would doubt it, but i guess I don't know for sure. It is supposed to be a diplomatic outpost, not a spy HQ.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:47 PM
Already answered. No.

Yeah I was looking at the CIA website when you posted. Where do our embassies fit in then?

listopencil
11-09-2012, 03:49 PM
I would doubt it, but i guess I don't know for sure. It is supposed to be a diplomatic outpost, not a spy HQ.

Meh. When I think of embassies I picture what went on during the Cold War. I assume that they function, among other things, as covert CIA field offices.

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 03:53 PM
Yeah I was looking at the CIA website when you posted. Where do our embassies fit in then?I think I shouldn't answer that question. Surely the intrawebs can tell you.

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:55 PM
Yeah, it does. I was under the impression that all of our embassies fall under the CIA.

No, they don't.

Donger
11-09-2012, 03:57 PM
Yeah I was looking at the CIA website when you posted. Where do our embassies fit in then?

State Department, although it's apparently not uncommon for embassies and consulates to have a few CIA folks running around as well.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 04:00 PM
I think I shouldn't answer that question. Surely the intrawebs can tell you.

LMAO

listopencil
11-09-2012, 04:01 PM
State Department, although it's apparently not uncommon for embassies and consulates to have a few CIA folks running around as well.

So...the embassies are under the control of the Secretary of State then. Hillary Clinton. The woman who promised that the maker of the video would be arrested and brought to justice.

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 04:02 PM
LMAO

OpSec. If he told you heíd have to kill you.

Donger
11-09-2012, 04:03 PM
I think I shouldn't answer that question. Surely the intrawebs can tell you.

Double O Negative.

Donger
11-09-2012, 04:03 PM
So...the embassies are under the control of the Secretary of State then. Hillary Clinton. The woman who promised that the maker of the video would be arrested and brought to justice.

Yes, absolutely.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 04:05 PM
OpSec. If he told you heíd have to kill you.

LMAO November Oscar Oscar Bravo

Donger
11-09-2012, 04:11 PM
I don't see why he wouldn't be able to. I could be totally wrong, but a former person in command seems like a candidate to testify to me.

[Updated at 4:52 p.m.] Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify next week before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the fatal attack in Benghazi instead of David Petraeus, according to the office of that committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 04:13 PM
Yes, absolutely.


Shit. I almost wish I could go back to not knowing that.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 04:13 PM
[Updated at 4:52 p.m.] Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify next week before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the fatal attack in Benghazi instead of David Petraeus, according to the office of that committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein.


Wow.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 04:16 PM
[Updated at 4:52 p.m.] Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify next week before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the fatal attack in Benghazi instead of David Petraeus, according to the office of that committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Someone has to stand up to this. How can Petraeus' testimony be fungible?

listopencil
11-09-2012, 04:17 PM
Someone has to stand up to this. How can Petraeus' testimony be fungible?

Shut up, you blinded partisan.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 04:18 PM
Shut up, you blinded partisan.

Shit. Do I have to go to Thought School?

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 04:24 PM
:eek: Holy shit reallly? WTF? What reason did he have to murder them?

I took that as sarcasm.

Sorter
11-09-2012, 04:25 PM
That's her. Here's a photo of her going under cover in 16th century Italy.

http://www.meredith.edu/english/walton/images/romeo_juliet_baz.jpg

There's some topless pics, but I'll keep those out of DC.

LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 04:27 PM
You might also mention that the consulate that was attacked was primarily a CIA post and they controlled it. Adds a little intrigue to the CIA director resigning, no?

I remember reading that Ambassador was really CIA. He was also working with AQ-linked jihadi rebels during the Nato incident. We're probably never gonna know the whole truth.

The Rick
11-09-2012, 04:28 PM
I'm sure the timing is purely coincidental. :rolleyes:

listopencil
11-09-2012, 04:28 PM
Shit. Do I have to go to Thought School?


Yes, how dare you question Our Fearless Leader. You know that He doesn't shit or piss, His birth led to a spontaneous breakout of rainbows, and He shot a 38 under par with 11 holes-in-one the first and only time he ever golfed. He would never allow this to happen.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 04:29 PM
Yes, how dare you question Our Fearless Leader. You know that He doesn't shit or piss, His birth led to a spontaneous breakout of rainbows, and He shot a 38 under par with 11 holes-in-one the first and only time he ever golfed. He would never allow this to happen.

Was also the first man to ever see a sasquatch.
And marry it.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 04:29 PM
I remember reading that Ambassador was really CIA. He was also working with AQ-linked jihadi rebels during the Nato incident. We're probably never gonna know the whole truth.

I've heard a ton of rumors including that there was a cache of weapons nearby that was the actual target.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 04:30 PM
Was also the first man to ever see a sasquatch.
And marry it.

It's part of His plan to encourage a taller American population.

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 04:35 PM
Was also the first man to ever see a sasquatch.
And marry it.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/awrfIReVQtA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

vailpass
11-09-2012, 04:38 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/awrfIReVQtA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That was one of my favorite stand up routines of all time. I even saw him do it live in little ol' Cedar Rapids Iowa.

Goony goo goo!

BigRedChief
11-09-2012, 04:40 PM
Okay, I heard the name in the public domain. Here's your adultress, paula broadwell. His biographer,

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 04:42 PM
That was one of my favorite stand up routines of all time. I even saw him do it live in little ol' Cedar Rapids Iowa.

Goony goo goo!

:thumb: *WOOF* Now THATíS a fire. Eh, roll Charlie around heíll be alright.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 04:43 PM
Okay, I heard the name in the public domain. Here's your adultress, paula broadwell. His biographer,

Her?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IElsLkrJyo8/TyH8TZ1_KiI/AAAAAAAACO8/BUoY-KmpyS4/s1600/paula_broadwell.jpg

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 04:44 PM
Okay, I heard the name in the public domain. Here's your adultress, paula broadwell. His biographer,

You mean it isnít the scrawny chick from a cheesy Leo DiCraprio flick? Iíve been lied too.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 04:46 PM
You mean it isnít the scrawny chick from a cheesy Leo DiCraprio flick? Iíve been lied too.

KChiefer lied, people...jerked off?

Donger
11-09-2012, 04:49 PM
Heh. She's under FBI investigation for trying to access Petraeus' email.

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 04:49 PM
KChiefer lied, people...jerked off?

Thatís the pisser, he didnít even come back with the topless picks.
I mean, bring up shit like that then leave a brother air humping. Whatís happened to this place? :cuss:

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 04:50 PM
Heh. She's under FBI investigation for trying to access Petraeus' email.

O.M.G. That doesn't sound good.

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 04:50 PM
Heh. She's under FBI investigation for trying to access Petraeus' email.

Wait, what? Shit's get'n real.

listopencil
11-09-2012, 04:57 PM
Heh. She's under FBI investigation for trying to access Petraeus' email.

Holy shit. This just keeps getting worse and worse.

KChiefer
11-09-2012, 05:11 PM
That’s the pisser, he didn’t even come back with the topless picks.
I mean, bring up shit like that then leave a brother air humping. What’s happened to this place? :cuss:

More of her covert ops timetraveling...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xay5u9_claire-danes-getting-her-tit-out_sexy

Pretty sure she got nekked in Homeland too. NSFW OMG...a nipple at 1:03.

La literatura
11-09-2012, 05:13 PM
This is terrible news.

Donger
11-09-2012, 05:15 PM
Eh.

About three and a half minutes into the clip, Jon Stewart and Broadwell discuss Petraeus' habit of running with her to get to know her while she was embedded with him in Afghanistan.

"That was the foundation of our relationship," she says.

Stewart then asks if other people in his embed "resent [Petraeus'] success" and reputation.

"He realizes he's seen as an extremely ambitious individual. You want somebody who's ambitious and drive, and who has a will to win. ... He goes all-in to what he does."

At six minutes, she brings up her husband when discussing Petraeus' lack of long-term planning.

"My husband wants me to say he is, because it'll sell more books," she says. "I'm sorry, honey! I couldn't do it!"

"That was the most awesome sellout I've ever seen in my life," Stewart says. "...So integrity's running in the whole family, I guess."

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:406888" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-25-2012/paula-broadwell">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

patteeu
11-09-2012, 05:36 PM
:eek: Holy shit reallly? WTF? What reason did he have to murder them?

Link?

ROFL Would it help you guys get to know blaise if he added a memorable avatar instead of using the stripped down, generic look?

stonedstooge
11-09-2012, 05:37 PM
Looks like we have our patsy

JohninGpt
11-09-2012, 05:43 PM
Resigning doesn't hurt nearly as bad as falling on your sword.

WoodDraw
11-09-2012, 05:56 PM
Oii - with a reporter. That's not good.

And LOL at the Republican conspiracy brigade.

ROYC75
11-09-2012, 06:20 PM
There is nothing to see here folks, the clock done ran out and the cover up goes on.

stonedstooge
11-09-2012, 06:24 PM
Could have the call been his? He may have been the one to fuck up

ROYC75
11-09-2012, 06:26 PM
Could have the call been his? He may have been the one to **** up

Could well be, only they all know and chances of any of us finding out soon is slim to none.

RedNeckRaider
11-09-2012, 06:28 PM
There is nothing to see here folks, the clock done ran out and the cover up goes on.

Speaking of covering things how is the Sandy coverage going? How many are still out of power and without any support? If Barry was not a lefty they would be talking about this being worse than Katrina~

dirk digler
11-09-2012, 06:42 PM
The affair was outed because of the FBI investigation..supposedly

From the Associated Press (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-fbi-investigation-affair-revelation_n_2104429.html?1352502414):
Officials say revelations about the affair that led to Friday's resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus were discovered in the course of an FBI investigation. The officials, briefed on what led to the CIA director's sudden resignation, spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.
It was unclear what the FBI was investigating or when it discovered the Petraeus affair.

Easy 6
11-09-2012, 06:44 PM
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!! Over an extramarital affair?! Who gives a flying ****. The guy is obviously one of the best counter-terrorism / military minds in our country's history and he's going to leave office cuz he found some pussy on the side?!

****ing ridiculous. He's not running for office so unless Suzy the Slut is a ****ing Chinese agent who gives a crap? JFC.

Yeah, this.

I guess maybe *gasp* he's one of those rare individuals who'd now rather drop everything to fix his marriage, than hang onto his powerful position... if so, it makes me wish he'd kept the post even more.

dirk digler
11-09-2012, 06:45 PM
Obama tried to talk him out of it

Tom Ricks (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/09/why_does_petraeus_have_to_go) has a behind the scenes look: “I am told that President Obama tried to talk Petraeus out of resigning, but Petraeus took the samurai route and insisted that he had done a dishonorable thing and now had to try to balance it by doing the honorable thing and stepping down as CIA director.”

stonedstooge
11-09-2012, 06:46 PM
Yeah, this.

I guess maybe *gasp* he's one of those rare individuals who'd now rather drop everything to fix his marriage, than hang onto his powerful position... if so, it makes me wish he'd kept the post even more.

You see his wife? Damn

tk13
11-10-2012, 01:02 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/magazine/a-message-from-beyond.html?_r=1&

Question #2. This is from July. You figure it out.

Chiefspants
11-10-2012, 01:49 AM
Petraeus' bio now has an unfortunate title, to say the least.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1199869!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/broadwell-book-1.jpg

BigRedChief
11-10-2012, 07:34 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/magazine/a-message-from-beyond.html?_r=1&

Question #2. This is from July. You figure it out.WTF? how in the hell didnt this break back then? Does no one read this guy's writings?

BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 08:20 AM
His record is not pretty. (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/03/petraeus_projection/)
His strategy is not heroically turning the tide on terror. Adm. Dennis Blair and his other colleagues in intelligence say the same.

Easy 6
11-10-2012, 03:48 PM
You see his wife? Damn

Pretty bad, is she?

BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 04:00 PM
Pretty bad, is she?

You be the judge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9668517/David-Petraeus-in-shock-resignation-from-CIA-after-FBI-investigation-reveals-affair.html

BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 04:01 PM
But the woman he had the affair with was married to a radiologist.

Easy 6
11-10-2012, 04:25 PM
You be the judge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9668517/David-Petraeus-in-shock-resignation-from-CIA-after-FBI-investigation-reveals-affair.html

Well, i'm sure she's a very sweet lady.

BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 04:26 PM
Well, i'm sure she's a very sweet lady.

Personality matters but I prefer money myself! :p

Easy 6
11-10-2012, 04:34 PM
Personality matters but I prefer money myself! :p

Women.

Always trying to act so deep, but we know whats really in your hearts:D

patteeu
11-10-2012, 04:37 PM
You be the judge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9668517/David-Petraeus-in-shock-resignation-from-CIA-after-FBI-investigation-reveals-affair.html

If looking like that was grounds for an affair we'd have a lot more aging guys stepping out than we do. She's just not young anymore. it happens to most women. What Petraeus did is disgraceful, at least on the surface.

patteeu
11-10-2012, 04:39 PM
If looking like that was grounds for an affair we'd have a lot more aging guys stepping out than we do. She's just not young anymore. it happens to most women. What Petraeus did is disgraceful, at least on the surface.

The gal is just as bad, btw.

Easy 6
11-10-2012, 04:42 PM
Tripps a bitch, Hillarys a bitch, but slick daveys cool cuz he's out gettin BJs's!

BigRedChief
11-10-2012, 04:59 PM
You be the judge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9668517/David-Petraeus-in-shock-resignation-from-CIA-after-FBI-investigation-reveals-affair.htmlWTF are you guys making fun of someone because they got old? WTF are you thinking? If a guy gets old and his wife gets old , he gets to go fuck a younger women? Because????

She looked real bangable back in the day.
http://media.heavy.com/media/2012/11/Holly-Knowlton.jpg

BigRedChief
11-11-2012, 06:19 PM
WTF are you guys making fun of someone because they got old? WTF are you thinking? If a guy gets old and his wife gets old , he gets to go fuck a younger women? Because????

She looked real bangable back in the day.
http://media.heavy.com/media/2012/11/Holly-Knowlton.jpgHere's what I've heard down here in Tampa.


The Kelley's head the Wonded Warrior foundation here in Tampa. They are friends with Petreaus. Jill Kelly was getting threatning letters from Broadwell. Everyone is assuming Jill was threatning to tell Petreaus's wife.
Jill went to the FBI.
While the FBI was investigating broadwell's emails, they found the emails suggesting an affair with Petreaus.
They went to him and he denied it.
They went to Eric cantor and told him. Why they went to him? WTF knows.
The FBI got evidence in Broadwell's email that she had been given the password to Gen. Petreaus personal gmail account.
Nothing security ir job related was ever sent or recieved from that gmail account but it called into question security, not just a private affair. They told the CIA.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:23 PM
Well that was the only picture I could find. I said the guys could be the judge. Currently could explain his straying.

From that angle she is cute. Instead he looks goofy.

VAChief
11-11-2012, 06:32 PM
Personality matters but I prefer money myself! :p

Taker!:p

theelusiveeightrop
11-11-2012, 07:27 PM
Pussy is powerful thing. Damn.

patteeu
11-11-2012, 08:37 PM
Here's what I've heard down here in Tampa.


The Kelley's head the Wonded Warrior foundation here in Tampa. They are friends with Petreaus. Jill Kelly was getting threatning letters from Broadwell. Everyone is assuming Jill was threatning to tell Petreaus's wife.
Jill went to the FBI.
While the FBI was investigating broadwell's emails, they found the emails suggesting an affair with Petreaus.
They went to him and he denied it.
They went to Eric cantor and told him. Why they went to him? WTF knows.
The FBI got evidence in Broadwell's email that she had been given the password to Gen. Petreaus personal gmail account.
Nothing security ir job related was ever sent or recieved from that gmail account but it called into question security, not just a private affair. They told the CIA.


Jill Kelley - woman who received emails

Jill Kelly - porn star

LiveSteam
11-11-2012, 08:38 PM
Jill Kelly - porn star

I love her

BigRedChief
11-11-2012, 09:37 PM
Jill Kelly - porn starI don't know her, I never watch porn. Is she a good actress? :rolleyes:

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 12:57 AM
I don't know her, I never watch porn. Is she a good actress? :rolleyes:

phwwwwwaw you never watch porn

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 08:16 PM
Some interesting takes on this:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ih44m6Zrsws" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

listopencil
11-12-2012, 09:42 PM
Some interesting takes on this:

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ih44m6Zrsws" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Man. This is a giant mess.

NewChief
11-13-2012, 07:59 AM
This thing is turning reality TV-esque: "Real Mistresses of the Pentagon." Good grief. I had no idea there were military groupies.

patteeu
11-13-2012, 08:13 AM
This thing is turning reality TV-esque: "Real Mistresses of the Pentagon." Good grief. I had no idea there were military groupies.

It's getting interestinger and interestinger.

HonestChieffan
11-13-2012, 08:28 AM
Now there is another General involved??? Wtf is going on? CIC golfing while his boys seem to be doing their own thing

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 08:31 AM
Now there is another General involved??? Wtf is going on? CIC golfing while his boys seem to be doing their own thing

...and known about months ago by the president and squelched for the election.
That's an advantage of incumbency...so it balances out all that gerrymandering incumbency advantage. Something for everyone, I guess.

La literatura
11-13-2012, 08:39 AM
Dammit Obama!

King_Chief_Fan
11-13-2012, 09:55 AM
...supposedly due to extramarital affair.

Carrie Mathison is such a minx!

-------------------------
3:02PM EST November 9. 2012 - NBC reported Friday that CIA director David Petraeus has resigned from the CIA, citing an extramarital affair.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell said the resignation was submitted in a letter dated Friday and was accepted by the White House.

In a letter, Petraeus noted that he had been married for 37 years and had exercised "extremely poor judgment' in conducting an extramarital affair.

Petraues took over as head of the CIA in September of 2011 following his tour as head of allied forces in Afghanistan.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/

another sacrificial lamb to cover up some of Obama's crap

Brock
11-13-2012, 09:57 AM
another sacrificial lamb to cover up some of Obama's crap

LMAO Sure.

vailpass
11-13-2012, 11:38 AM
You be the judge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9668517/David-Petraeus-in-shock-resignation-from-CIA-after-FBI-investigation-reveals-affair.html

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT BURNS!!!!!!!!!!!

There isn't a court in the land that would convict Patreus for sampling from the dessert cart.

stonedstooge
11-13-2012, 01:43 PM
So Holder knew about the probe for several weeks, but never told the White House. OK another unbelievable scenerio

vailpass
11-13-2012, 01:44 PM
So Holder knew about the probe for several weeks, but never told the White House. OK another unbelievable scenerio

Holder is another one that needs to be tried and put up against the wall for crimes against the American people.

listopencil
11-13-2012, 01:58 PM
This thing is turning reality TV-esque: "Real Mistresses of the Pentagon." Good grief. I had no idea there were military groupies.


You would be surprised.

listopencil
11-13-2012, 02:00 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_2M7ckkxQLU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
11-13-2012, 02:04 PM
General John Allen, the guy who replaced Petraeus as the commander of American and Allied troops in Afghanistan has apparently been sending emails to the woman who indirectly blew the whistle on Petraeus and his mistress (which is what New Chief was referring to, I presume). According to reports, he's sent 20,000 to 30,000 pages worth of emails and other documents to this Jill Kelley gal. That's a lot of correspondence. John Hinderaker of Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/we-live-in-a-world-gone-mad.php) puts it in perspective:

The story I want to return to is the one involving another general, John Allen, who succeeded Petraeus as the commander of American and allied troops in Afghanistan. As a form of collateral damage, apparently, the FBI has found that General Allen, like the FBI agent, is obsessed with Jill Kelley. She must be quite a woman! Allen reportedly exchanged “20,000 to 30,000 pages of emails and other documents” with Mrs. Kelley. Ponder that for a moment: 20,000 to 30,000 pages? In Search of Lost Time is only 3,200 pages long. If you assume a standard 250 words to a page, you can fit the complete works of William Shakespeare into around 3,540 pages. The Bible can be printed, in most editions, in under 1,500 pages. So what on earth were General Allen and Mrs. Kelley writing so as to fill up 20,000 to 30,000 pages? Poetry? Love notes? The longest military treatise ever? Assume it took General Allen a mere five minutes to either read or write one page–no doubt a low estimate, when it comes to writing–and use the mid-point of 25,000 pages. That would mean that Allen devoted 125,000 minutes to his correspondence with Mrs. Kelley, or 2,083 hours–in other words, a full work year (40 hours times 52 weeks). No wonder we aren’t winning in Afghanistan!

I used to think the armed forces were an oasis of sanity in an otherwise-crazy world, but that view obviously needs to be reconsidered.

Holy cow! LMAO

blaise
11-13-2012, 02:23 PM
He must have included her on some distribution list or something. That's crazy.

cosmo20002
11-13-2012, 02:26 PM
General John Allen, the guy who replaced Petraeus as the commander of American and Allied troops in Afghanistan has apparently been sending emails to the woman who indirectly blew the whistle on Petraeus and his mistress (which is what New Chief was referring to, I presume). According to reports, he's sent 20,000 to 30,000 pages worth of emails and other documents to this Jill Kelley gal. That's a lot of correspondence. John Hinderaker of Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/we-live-in-a-world-gone-mad.php) puts it in perspective:

Holy cow! LMAO

Maybe they were going over Obamacare page by page.

BucEyedPea
11-13-2012, 02:27 PM
General John Allen, the guy who replaced Petraeus as the commander of American and Allied troops in Afghanistan has apparently been sending emails to the woman who indirectly blew the whistle on Petraeus and his mistress (which is what New Chief was referring to, I presume). According to reports, he's sent 20,000 to 30,000 pages worth of emails and other documents to this Jill Kelley gal. That's a lot of correspondence. John Hinderaker of Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/we-live-in-a-world-gone-mad.php) puts it in perspective:



Holy cow! LMAO

Lew commented that Rush made a valid point on this:

Limbaugh Actually Makes a Valid Point
In discussing one general's perhaps 30,000 love letters, Rush said: "Didn't he do any work?" The answer is no. No bureaucrat, in a government suit or not, does much work at all. That's one of the benefits of living off the taxpayers by force.

LMAO

La literatura
11-13-2012, 03:23 PM
To put that number into perspective, it's almost 3 months of BucEyedPea posts which contain the word "strawman" or "Did you say something?" from each of her three registered forums.

dirk digler
11-13-2012, 03:38 PM
Lew commented that Rush made a valid point on this:



LMAO

I am glad that Rush thinks so highly of our lazy military leaders. Must be all the meth he has taken of late.

WoodDraw
11-13-2012, 03:52 PM
So the FBI agent involved in launching the investigation had sent shirtless pictures of himself to Kelley. This whole thing just keeps getting funnier.

Get this group a reality show.

HonestChieffan
11-13-2012, 03:57 PM
And Holder is staying and that nitwit Rice will be Sec of State. My heavens.

vailpass
11-13-2012, 04:00 PM
So the FBI agent involved in launching the investigation had sent shirtless pictures of himself to Kelley. This whole thing just keeps getting funnier.

Get this group a reality show.

You just know Brett Favre is going to surface in this thing at some point.

J Diddy
11-13-2012, 04:07 PM
I am glad that Rush thinks so highly of our lazy military leaders. Must be all the meth he has taken of late.

I thought it was hydros for ol Rush

dirk digler
11-13-2012, 04:09 PM
I thought it was hydros for ol Rush

I think so too..now that I think about it there is probably not that many 400lb meth heads

dirk digler
11-13-2012, 04:32 PM
And Holder is staying and that nitwit Rice will be Sec of State. My heavens.

You are still scraping sand out of your vagina I see. Keep digging you will eventually feel better just ask Romney.

KChiefer
11-13-2012, 05:57 PM
I thought it was hydros for ol Rush

It was Oxy IIRC.

-----

Give Carrie a night without her lithium and she'll sort all these docs and dick pics out.

BigRedChief
11-13-2012, 08:44 PM
This thing is turning reality TV-esque: "Real Mistresses of the Pentagon." Good grief. I had no idea there were military groupies.Women attracted to powerful men?:hmmm: Who would have thunk it.

Joe_Camel
11-14-2012, 07:52 AM
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8624514/chuck-klosterman-david-petraeus-scandal-living-cia-conspiracy-theory

I Lived a CIA Conspiracy Theory
Did I accidentally force David Petraeus to resign? No. Do people believe I did? Maybe.
By Chuck Klosterman on November 13, 2012

I had an interesting weekend. Maybe you did, too. It's always a mixed bag, you know? Some Friday nights are drunken and exhilarating; other Friday nights are empty and reserved. And then, of course, there are those Friday nights when random people believe you accidentally forced the resignation of the head of the CIA.

We've all been there.

I'm not sure what I should write about the previous 72 hours of my life, or even if I should write anything at all. Technically, nothing happened. But I've been asked to "explain" how and why a certain non-event occurred, and I will try my best to do so. If you already know what I'm referring to, you will likely be disappointed by the banality of the forthcoming details. If you have no idea what I'm referring to, I will now attempt to explain what a bunch of other people desperately wanted to believe, mostly for their own amusement. It's a good story (not a great one, but a good one).

On Friday evening, I started watching a movie in my living room just after 9 p.m. This particular movie was 184 minutes long. I didn't want to be distracted, so I turned off my phone. When the film was over, my wife mentioned that she had just received an odd, alarmist e-mail from a mutual friend of ours. I subsequently turned on my phone and instantaneously received a dozen text messages that ranged from the instructional ("You're on the Internet") to the inscrutable ("This totally makes up karmically for that time you caused Billy Joel to go to rehab"). I had no idea what any of this meant (or even what it could mean). But what had transpired was this: At 9:09 p.m., the managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine had tweeted the words "interesting letter" to his 48,000 followers, along with a link to an article published in the New York Times Magazine on July 13. What happened after that is totally bizarre and stupidly predictable.

It was an honor to be involved.

First, some necessary background: Since June, I've been writing a column for the New York Times Magazine called "The Ethicist." The existence of this column predates my involvement by many years (I'm now the third person who's occupied this particular title). "The Ethicist" is structured like a conventional advice column, but that's not really what it is; it's more like a collection of nonfictional thought experiments based on questions from the public. The ongoing goal is to isolate moral dilemmas within the day-to-day experience of modern life and to examine the potential ramifications of those quandaries in a readable, objective way.

On July 13, this was one of the letters we published:



My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be "true to my heart" and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD
It's a compelling letter. Who it was specifically about wasn't something I even considered at the time (because these questions are supposed to be examined in a vacuum). This was my response:

Don't expose the affair in any high-profile way. It would be different if this man's project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn't appear to be the case. The only motive for exposing the relationship would be to humiliate him and your wife, and that's never a good reason for doing anything. This is between you and your spouse. You should tell her you want to separate, just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman. The idea of "suffering in silence" for the good of the project is illogical. How would the quiet divorce of this man's mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He'd probably be relieved.

The fact that you're willing to accept your wife's infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it's so over-the-top honorable that I'm not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you're even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times. Your dilemma is intriguing, but I don't see how it's ambiguous. Your wife is having an affair with a person you happen to respect. Why would that last detail change the way you respond to her cheating? Do you admire this man so much that you haven't asked your wife why she keeps having sex with him? I halfway suspect you're writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what's really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That's not ethical, either.
On November 9, Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus was forced to resign his post as result of an extramarital relationship with Paula Broadwell, his likewise married biographer. It appears that Broadwell broke into Petraeus's Gmail account on the suspicion that Petraeus was having a second affair with a third woman (and that this third woman became so alarmed she contacted the FBI). These details can be better explained elsewhere, and they obviously have nothing to do with me. But the rediscovery of this curious letter did prompt a lot of political obsessives to ask a speculative (but not implausible) question: Was the anonymous man who wrote that July 13 letter Paula Broadwell's husband?

It's important to remember that there is no evidence whatsoever that this was the case. None. It is 100 percent conjecture. The generic details in the letter fit the circumstances of the affair, and ó because the writer is so adamant about the government executive's import ó it does seem like it could feasibly apply to a man of Petraeus's stature. Other intersections were less meaningful but equally strange (for example, Broadwell and I both grew up in North Dakota).1 In fairness, it should be noted that ó technically ó the connection between the letter and Petraeus was always framed as a rumor. Nobody claimed to have proof of anything. The only problem is that rumors are now reported with the same tone and structure as hard news, and modern readers (no matter what they claim) have been trained to consume gossip and fact in the exact same way.

I went to bed on Friday very late. When I awoke on Saturday, I got the strong sense that most people aware of this theory assumed it was (probably) true. The various media reports were all roughly identical: To his credit, David Haglund of Slate was the one reporter who did attempt to immediately e-mail me for comment (but by the time I received the message he had already published the story). The Atlantic wrote a nice follow-up and noted that Slate had unsuccessfully tried to contact me, thereby defining me as "notoriously hard to get ahold of."2 There was a sidebar in the New York Daily News that compared the "Ethicist" letter to Penthouse and claimed I had advised the victimized spouse to suffer in silence, which is the polar opposite of what I told him to do. Oh well. I know how cookies crumble.

Late Saturday morning, the New York Times reinvestigated the origin of the letter and concluded it was not written by Broadwell's husband (I was not involved in that process and can't comment on what was discovered). That, in many ways, is the whole story: People believed a rumor, and then they were informed that it was a coincidence. Certainly, some goofballs continue to think this is a conspiracy, which is going to happen in every situation involving the CIA (and with most situations involving the New York Times). Outside of being discussed by strangers, my personal involvement was negligible (which is why I'm reluctant to write about it now). But here are the main questions about this business, just in case you're still curious about an imaginary controversy that was the social-media equivalent of noting how Abe Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater and John Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln automobile manufactured by Ford:

Q: Do I know who sent the original letter? Yes and no. The New York Times still has the original e-mail and I know the guy's e-mail address ó but that doesn't mean much, unless I decide to befriend this dude on Facebook. It takes about 45 seconds to create a false address. The letter went through the fact-checking process when the article ran in July; the man was proven to exist and confirmed that the details in his letter were an accurate representation of his predicament. I know what he says his name is, and I don't think he's lying. But I don't know what he looks like or to whom he's married. I'm guessing he had an interesting weekend, too.

Q: When the news broke on Friday night, did I immediately think this letter was about David Petraeus? Here's my honest response ó I did not, until so many other people expressed such certainty that it was. I just had a gut feeling that these events were not connected (a few of the coincidences were remarkable, but the language in the letter seemed slightly off-center). That said, my gut is wrong all the time. I have learned not to trust it.

Q: What would it mean if the letter were about David Petraeus? I thought about this question quite a bit. Those speculating about the level of connection between the "Ethicist" column and the secret life of Petraeus often seemed to be working from the position that (perhaps) it was this very letter that spurred the FBI's initial investigation. And I knew that was virtually impossible. That made no sense at all. This was, at best, an ancillary relationship and a historical footnote. It was an "interesting letter," which is why I selected it in the first place. But that's all it was, even if it had been precisely what others imagined. I suppose I had some mild fear that the letter could have been planted as a creative form of blackmail against Petraeus, but that would have been impossible for me (or anyone) to anticipate.

Q: If the letter had indeed been about Petraeus (and if I had somehow known this in July), would I have answered the question differently? No. If I had to answer this letter today, I would provide an identical response.

Q: Was I contacted by the CIA or the FBI? I was not. Although I've heard about 200 jokes about Homeland.

Q: Since I openly expressed doubt about the motives of the letter writer, why did I publish this letter at all? Because my personal suspicions don't matter within the context of what I'm trying to do here. To a degree, I'm skeptical of all the letters I receive (the reason I so specifically noted that skepticism in this response was because it felt relevant to the content). People have all kinds of personal, subterranean motives for wanting their private problems analyzed in public; for the most part, those motives fall outside my purview. I'm interested in the ethical, metaphorical value of the problems themselves.

Q: How did I feel while all this was happening? I was fascinated. It was fascinating. I spent a lot of time refreshing my browser. But ó of course ó it was happening to me, so how else was I going to feel? It's weird to be inside the news. Moreover, following any event on Twitter radically amplifies the illusion of its import. It makes you believe things matter far more than they do.

Q: What can be learned from all of this? We've now reached the part of the essay where I'm supposed to write something clever and insightful and at least 51 percent true. I'm supposed to express a sentiment like "Information is only as credible as the source that reports it" or "Reality continues to remain imaginary" or "All I know is what I read in the papers." I suppose I could theoretically turn this into some dark commentary about the Internet, or about how every thought in a mediated culture becomes equal, or how nothing is ever as interesting as the sex lives of strangers, or that this situation reminded me of Karl Rove's reaction on election night, or that this situation reminded me of something that happened to me in eighth grade, or that nothing reminds me of anything (and that this realization is very, very existential).

But you know what I learned from this? Nothing. I learned nothing. It's just something that happened (and it just so happens that it happened to me). Life is crazy. But I already knew that last Thursday, and so did you.

HonestChieffan
11-14-2012, 08:10 AM
Fun read. Nice job

vailpass
11-14-2012, 12:18 PM
Petraeus to testify at Benghazi hearing

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Former CIA Director David Petraeus will testify Thursday about the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi before the Senate Intelligence Committee, a veteran senator confirmed to NBC News Wednesday.

The Thursday hearing will be the first formal congressional inquiry into the September attack that killed U.S. Ambassador in Libya Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

Petraeus, a decorated four-star general who received widespread praise for the surge strategy in Iraq, resigned as CIA director on Friday, citing an extramarital affair.

Numerous federal government officials have told NBC News that the married general had a relationship with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, 40, who authored ďAll In,Ē a book about Petraeusí education.

Republican lawmakers have criticized the administrationís evolving explanation of what triggered the Benghazi attack. Officials early on said it was a spontaneous reaction during a protest about an anti-Islamic film. Later, it was termed a planned terrorist attack.

Questions have also been raised about whether the consulate had adequate security and whether the State Department responded appropriately to requests for more protection.

Military analyst Col. Jack Jacobs (Ret.) said the sex scandal will affect the way Petraeus is questioned by Congress, because members were kept in the dark about the FBI inquiry that led to his resignation.


ďIt will be interesting to see what tenor it takes and what the senators and congressmen, assuming he gets before both houses, have to say before talking to him. As you know, these hearings have a tendency to be less a question and answer period than it is an opportunity for the members to vent their spleen or talk about what they want to, so that part will be very, very interesting,Ē Jacobs said.

ďIn terms of extracting real information about what actually took place and what role the CIA had in what took place in Benghazi, I believe that investigation will determine that they had no role, that by the time the CIA could do anything, it was all over.Ē

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/14/15162651-petraeus-to-testify-at-benghazi-hearing?lite

vailpass
11-14-2012, 12:18 PM
Obama likely to comment on Petraeus scandal

By Nancy Benac Associated Press Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:34 AM

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama was expected to make his first public comments Wednesday on the growing scandal around two of the country’s most well-known generals, while lawmakers dug into the tangled tale of emails that exposed one general’s career-ending extramarital affair and the other’s questionable relationship with a Florida socialite. Their question: Was national security threatened?

David Petraeus, who resigned as head of the CIA on Friday after admitting an extramarital affair with his biographer, had been set to testify this week before Congress on the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which the U.S. ambassador was killed.

Petraeus has indicated his willingness to testify, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, said Wednesday. No date for the testimony has been set, and Feinstein said the testimony will be limited to the Benghazi attacks.

The 60-year-old Petraeus, whose highly respected career as the top U.S. commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, led some to speculate on a run for president, has expressed regret over the affair with Paula Broadwell. U.S. officials say the 40-year-old Broadwell sent harassing, anonymous emails to a woman she apparently saw as a rival for Petraeus’ affections. That woman, Jill Kelley, in turn traded sometimes flirtatious email messages with current Afghanistan commander Gen. John Allen, possible evidence of another inappropriate relationship.

The CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, has started meeting with top Senate intelligence officials to explain the agency’s take on the events that led to Petraeus’ resignation. The lawmakers are especially concerned over reports that Broadwell had classified information on her laptop, though FBI investigators say they concluded there was no security breach. Morell was expected to meet with the leaders of the House intelligence committee on Wednesday.

Obama had hoped to use Wednesday’s news conference, his first since his re-election, to build support for his economic proposals heading into negotiations with lawmakers on the so-called fiscal cliff — the year-end, economy-jarring expiration of tax cuts Americans have enjoyed for a decade, combined with automatic across-the-board reductions in spending for the military and domestic programs.

But the scandal threatens to overshadow Obama’s economic agenda this week, derail plans for a smooth transition in his national security team and complicate war planning during a critical time in the Afghanistan war effort.

Allen has been allowed to stay in his job and provide a leading voice in White House discussions on how many troops will remain in Afghanistan, and for what purposes, after U.S.-led combat operations end in 2014. The White House said the investigation would not delay Allen’s recommendation to Obama on the next phase of the U.S. troop drawdown from Afghanistan, nor would it delay the president’s decision on the matter. Allen’s recommendation is expected before the end of the year.

But Obama put on hold Allen’s nomination to become the next commander of U.S. European Command as well as the NATO supreme allied commander in Europe, at the request of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, until Pentagon investigators are able to sift through the 20,000-plus pages of documents and emails that involve Allen and Kelley.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Wednesday that he had “full confidence” in Allen and looked forward to working with him if he is ultimately confirmed.

The FBI decided to turn over the Allen information to the military once the bureau recognized it contained no evidence of a federal crime, according to a federal law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss the matter on the record and demanded anonymity. Adultery, however, is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Allen, 58, insisted he’d done nothing wrong and worked to save his imperiled career. He told Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that he is innocent of misconduct, according to Col. David Lapan, Dempsey’s spokesman.

At a news conference Wednesday in Perth, Australia, Panetta said, “No one should leap to any conclusions” and said he is fully confident in Allen’s ability to continue to lead in Afghanistan. He added that putting a hold on Allen’s European Command nomination was the “prudent” thing to do.

Known as a close friend of Petraeus, Kelley, 37, triggered the FBI investigation that led to the retired four-star general’s downfall as CIA director when she complained about getting anonymous, harassing emails. They turned out to have been written by Petraeus’ mistress, Broadwell, who apparently was jealous of the attention the general paid to Kelley.

In the course of looking into that matter, federal investigators came across what a Pentagon official called “inappropriate communications” between Allen and Kelley, both of them married.

A senior U.S. official told The Associated Press that other senior U.S. officials who read the emails determined that the exchanges between Allen and Kelley were not sexually explicit or seductive but included pet names such as “sweetheart” or “dear.” The official said that while much of the communication — including some from Allen to Kelley — is relatively innocuous, some could be construed as unprofessional and would cause a reasonable person to take notice.

That official and others who described the investigation requested anonymity on grounds that they were not authorized to discuss the situation publicly.

Kelley served as a sort of social ambassador for U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, hosting parties for Petraeus when he was commander there from 2008-10. Her and her husband’s friendship with Petraeus began when he arrived in Tampa, and the Kelleys threw a welcome party at their home, a short distance from Central Command headquarters, introducing the new chief and his wife, Holly, to Tampa’s elite, according to staffers who served with Petraeus.

Such friendships among senior military commanders and prominent local community leaders are common at any military base.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers said they should have been told about the investigation earlier. Morell, who took over Petraeus’ duties at the CIA, met with Feinstein and ranking Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss on Tuesday.

Asked by reporters if there was a national security breach with the Petraeus affair, Feinstein said, “I have no evidence that there was at this time.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee planned to go ahead with Thursday’s scheduled confirmation hearing on the nomination of Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, who is to replace Allen as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, if Allen is indeed promoted to the European Command post.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 12:40 PM
Two interesting bits of wild speculation that I read today:

1. Is Jill Kelley being investigated for espionage? Apparently she's of Lebanese descent and has active Middle East contacts. She also asked the FBI to stop their investigation at some point this past summer. (This one's pretty wild, and I give it very little chance of being correct).

2. Did General Petraeus peddle the Administration's line on Benghazi because they had the goods on his affair and he thought it would save his job? (Probably not, but if it were true it would be a bombshell).

NewChief
11-14-2012, 01:01 PM
Damn I'm good:
http://findingmytribe.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/love-pentagon.png

cosmo20002
11-14-2012, 01:22 PM
Two interesting bits of wild speculation that I read today:

1. Is Jill Kelley being investigated for espionage? Apparently she's of Lebanese descent and has active Middle East contacts. She also asked the FBI to stop their investigation at some point this past summer. (This one's pretty wild, and I give it very little chance of being correct).

2. Did General Petraeus peddle the Administration's line on Benghazi because they had the goods on his affair and he thought it would save his job? (Probably not, but if it were true it would be a bombshell).

Geez, pat. Thanks for passing along these bits of wild and unlikely speculation.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 01:23 PM
Geez, pat. Thanks for passing along these bits of wild and unlikely speculation.

You're welcome. I like to do my part.

stonedstooge
11-14-2012, 01:57 PM
The investigation into Benghazi looks to be coming along nicely. It took over 8 weeks and we found out today in O'Bama's press conference that The White House instructed Susan Rice to go out and tell the information she had available at the time on the Sunday talk show circuit. At this pace they'll get to the bottom of it by the end of this century if we're lucky

beer bacon
11-14-2012, 04:43 PM
The investigation into Benghazi looks to be coming along nicely. It took over 8 weeks and we found out today in O'Bama's press conference that The White House instructed Susan Rice to go out and tell the information she had available at the time on the Sunday talk show circuit. At this pace they'll get to the bottom of it by the end of this century if we're lucky

Truly the great mystery of our age.

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 07:12 PM
Two interesting bits of wild speculation that I read today:

1. Is Jill Kelley being investigated for espionage? Apparently she's of Lebanese descent and has active Middle East contacts. She also asked the FBI to stop their investigation at some point this past summer. (This one's pretty wild, and I give it very little chance of being correct).

2. Did General Petraeus peddle the Administration's line on Benghazi because they had the goods on his affair and he thought it would save his job? (Probably not, but if it were true it would be a bombshell).As the only person on this board that has met everyone involved in this debacle in person (besides the FBI guy) I think I can truthfully and authoritatively say this is pure BS speculation.


Any person that hosts official military functions has to pass a background check. The slightest thing sends up a red flag and its a no go.
Failure to keep your dick in your pants is one thing. But the insinuation that he would be involved in some kind of cover up to save a job? Comeon man :shake:

patteeu
11-14-2012, 07:33 PM
As the only person on this board that has met everyone involved in this debacle in person (besides the FBI guy) I think I can truthfully and authoritatively say this is pure BS speculation.


Any person that hosts official military functions has to pass a background check. The slightest thing sends up a red flag and its a no go.
Failure to keep your dick in your pants is one thing. But the insinuation that he would be involved in some kind of cover up to save a job? Comeon man :shake:


I don't think having met them really qualifies you to make a definitive determination. Remember when GWBush looked into Putin's eyes?

mlyonsd
11-14-2012, 07:36 PM
I don't think having met them really qualifies you to make a definitive determination. Remember when GWBush looked into Putin's eyes?

Makes you feel better knowing BRC has met them right? ROFL

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 07:40 PM
I don't think having met them really qualifies you to make a definitive determination. Remember when GWBush looked into Putin's eyes?How do you know that we didn't have "Putin-like" eye contact? You wern't there. It could have happened. I have striking eyes.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 08:08 PM
How do you know that we didn't have "Putin-like" eye contact? You wern't there. It could have happened. I have striking eyes.

LOL, I bet you do, big boy.

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 08:14 PM
How do you know that we didn't have "Putin-like" eye contact? You wern't there. It could have happened. I have striking eyes.


He's got Putin eyes...One look at you and he can't disguise...

Big Red Dirty Dancing

Donger
11-14-2012, 08:17 PM
Boy, I wonder if Obama has had a fling with Rice. He sure went full protective, high school boyfriend today...

WoodDraw
11-14-2012, 10:26 PM
Ms. Kelley, whose house has been besieged by reporters and television crews, has called 911 several times to complain about snooping reporters, according to tapes and transcripts of the calls posted on the Web. In at least one call, she asked for “diplomatic protection,” saying she is an “honorary consul general,” a designation she reportedly received from South Korean diplomats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/us/frederick-humphries-fbi-agent-in-petraeus-case.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

haha

CoMoChief
11-15-2012, 01:28 AM
lol this smells fishy....

vailpass
11-15-2012, 10:46 AM
Boy, I wonder if Obama has had a fling with Rice. He sure went full protective, high school boyfriend today...

I'll bet she nailed him in the ass.

Radar Chief
11-15-2012, 03:00 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/25jfa4j.jpg

vailpass
11-15-2012, 03:17 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/25jfa4j.jpg

LMAO

The_Grand_Illusion
11-16-2012, 10:16 AM
:shake:

King: Petraeus Said CIA's Talking Points Were Edited to Play Down Terrorism
Ian Hanchett
Friday, November 16, 2012 - 9:27am


Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasized the possibility of terrorism.




<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/118421" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

listopencil
11-16-2012, 11:55 AM
It's a process.

listopencil
11-16-2012, 11:57 AM
Boy, I wonder if Obama has had a fling with Rice. He sure went full protective, high school boyfriend today...

Well, yeah. Now that I watched that video it makes sense. So far it looks like:

1) CIA says it's terrorism

2) ?????

3) Rice says it's a protest

The_Grand_Illusion
11-16-2012, 12:01 PM
Well, yeah. Now that I watched that video it makes sense. So far it looks like:

1) CIA says it's terrorism

2) ?????

3) Rice says it's a protest

Obama has already admitted HE sent Rice out there with the best intelligence they had, which with what Petraeus said today, is another lie.

TGI

listopencil
11-16-2012, 12:03 PM
Obama has already admitted HE sent Rice out there with the best intelligence they had, which with what Petraeus said today, is another lie.

TGI


He's going to dance around that and blame someone else in the administration for poorly advising him. SecDef or SecState would be my guess. Maybe DNI.

vailpass
11-16-2012, 12:04 PM
A good old fashioned senate inquiry followed by an old-time impeachment hearing would do this country a world of good right about now.

The_Grand_Illusion
11-16-2012, 12:06 PM
He's going to dance around that and blame someone else in the administration for poorly advising him. SecDef or SecState would be my guess. Maybe DNI.

Could very well be, but the whole situation doesn't look good for his administration.

TGI

listopencil
11-16-2012, 12:08 PM
A good old fashioned senate inquiry followed by an old-time impeachment hearing would do this country a world of good right about now.

Could very well be, but the whole situation doesn't look good for his administration.

TGI

A close election with, maybe, more than 50% of the population still bitter about where we are as a country? Yeah. Looks bad.

The_Grand_Illusion
11-16-2012, 12:09 PM
A good old fashioned senate inquiry followed by an old-time impeachment hearing would do this country a world of good right about now.

President Boehner? Uhgg! Biden spread the same false narrative so I don't see him next in line the way this is all playing out.


TGI

vailpass
11-16-2012, 12:10 PM
President Boehner? Uhgg! Biden spread the same false narrative so I don't see him next in line the way this is all playing out.


TGI

I'm certainly willing to give that a try.

mlyonsd
11-16-2012, 01:12 PM
The things you have to do to get re elected.

And they call Romney a douchebag?

BigRedChief
11-16-2012, 01:33 PM
Oh shit, Rubio and Jill Kelley? Jill on left and twin sister on the right.
http://www.tampabay.com/multimedia/archive/00248/a4s_kelley111612c_248321d.jpg

Radar Chief
11-16-2012, 01:39 PM
Oh shit, Rubio and Jill Kelley? Jill on left and twin sister on the right.
http://www.tampabay.com/multimedia/archive/00248/a4s_kelley111612c_248321d.jpg

Nice dirty pillows, but otherwise Iím not that impressed.

BigRedChief
11-16-2012, 01:49 PM
Nice dirty pillows, but otherwise Iím not that impressed.let me guess, you had better last week, right?

Radar Chief
11-16-2012, 01:52 PM
let me guess, you had better last week, right?

Whether I did or didnít I still wouldnít find her worth ruining a career over. If you do thatís on you.

ROYC75
11-16-2012, 01:52 PM
lol this smells fishy....

Did from the beginning..... IT WAS BECAUSE OF THAT VIDEOOOoooooooooo!:eek:

Obama has lied, 4 people have died,
Rice has lied for Obama,
Petraeus has a sexy new mama,
meanwhile the country looks like a laughing stock,
while the world looks in disbelieving shock.

|Zach|
11-16-2012, 01:57 PM
meanwhile the country looks like a laughing stock,
while the world looks in disbelieving shock.

Haha...what?

You guys in this forum are great.

ROYC75
11-16-2012, 02:07 PM
Haha...what?

You guys in this forum are great.

Seriously ?

Was this suppose to mean something ?

WoodDraw
11-16-2012, 02:10 PM
Seriously ?

Was this suppose to mean something ?

That this "scandal" died away months ago, yet Republicans still think they have Watergate 2.0 in their hands. It's just a bit funny to watch.

|Zach|
11-16-2012, 02:12 PM
Seriously ?

Was this suppose to mean something ?

It means you and other users provide me with a lot of entertainment. And all this entertainment is free.

THE WORLD LOOKS IN DISBELIEVING SHOCK.


Bwahahaha

BigRedChief
11-16-2012, 02:34 PM
That this "scandal" died away months ago, yet Republicans still think they have Watergate 2.0 in their hands. It's just a bit funny to watch.THIS!

BigRedChief
11-16-2012, 02:37 PM
Whether I did or didnít I still wouldnít find her worth ruining a career over. If you do thatís on you.Just what would rate ruining a career and your reputation forever?

The_Grand_Illusion
11-16-2012, 02:37 PM
Seriously ?

Was this suppose to mean something ?

It just goes to show how dumbed down our culture has become, even to the point, incompetence and American deaths don't matter. :shake:

TGI

vailpass
11-16-2012, 02:49 PM
Haha...what?

You guys in this forum are great.

Says a guy in this forum

Radar Chief
11-16-2012, 02:51 PM
Just what would rate ruining a career and your reputation forever?

Charlize Theron. Iíd low crawl a mile of broken beer bottles and antifreeze for just a sniff of her still warm panties.

vailpass
11-16-2012, 02:53 PM
Charlize Theron. Iíd low crawl a mile of broken beer bottles and antifreeze for just a sniff of her still warm panties.

:clap:

theelusiveeightrop
11-16-2012, 02:55 PM
Charlize Theron. Iíd low crawl a mile of broken beer bottles and antifreeze for just a sniff of her still warm panties.

No arguing with that.

The Rick
11-16-2012, 04:33 PM
That this "scandal" died away months ago, yet Republicans still think they have Watergate 2.0 in their hands. It's just a bit funny to watch.

THIS!

It's okay guys, don't worry. Nothing to see here.

vailpass
11-16-2012, 05:05 PM
That this "scandal" died away months ago, yet Republicans still think they have Watergate 2.0 in their hands. It's just a bit funny to watch.

No amount of your obot bullshit is going to distract from the need to complete a thorough fact finding in this case.
Your desire to see any other outcomes speaks ill of you.

BigRedChief
11-16-2012, 05:41 PM
R's get your conspiracy hats on. Jill Kelley and Broadwell made repeat visits to the white House

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CD8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fblogs%2Fpolitics%2F2012%2F11%2Fjill-kelley-paula-broadwell-made-repeat-visits-to-obama-white-house%2F&ei=aM6mUOKVD4X49QTc6IGQDA&usg=AFQjCNHorx_M9W72VMNqzsPVUOQ0FcwmUw&cad=rja

WoodDraw
11-16-2012, 05:44 PM
No amount of your obot bullshit is going to distract from the need to complete a thorough fact finding in this case.
Your desire to see any other outcomes speaks ill of you.

Ohh, I'm all for investigating and learning from it. I just don't believe the Republican conspiracy brigade.

KChiefer
11-16-2012, 05:53 PM
Why aren't people like Lindsey Graham and McCain as or more upset about the meningitis outbreak (death toll 33, 480 sick)?

VAChief
11-16-2012, 06:04 PM
That this "scandal" died away months ago, yet Republicans still think they have Watergate 2.0 in their hands. It's just a bit funny to watch.

Under Reagan, in a little less than a year and a half 320 were killed by three different terrorist attacks on our U.S. Embassy and military barracks in Beirut. The day after the 3rd attack Reagan continued on the campaign trail.
It took 2 years to get an official report on those security failures.

I don't remember any of the kind hyperbolic rhetoric toward Reagan that Obama is getting, even though the loss of life dwarfs this recent attack. Also, did we ever get justice for those multiple attacks on our Embassy personnel and GI's? Nope, we eventually withdrew. Can you imagine the reaction if Obama had made that decision in 1984?

Easy 6
11-16-2012, 06:05 PM
Petraeus' bio now has an unfortunate title, to say the least.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1199869!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/broadwell-book-1.jpg

The more i look at her, the more she disgusts me.

In that pic she has the kind of eyes that say "had the title planned all along"

patteeu
11-16-2012, 06:20 PM
Why aren't people like Lindsey Graham and McCain as or more upset about the meningitis outbreak (death toll 33, 480 sick)?

Was the President behind that too?

listopencil
11-16-2012, 08:07 PM
That this "scandal" died away months ago, yet Republicans still think they have Watergate 2.0 in their hands. It's just a bit funny to watch.

Yeah, you're right, we only impeach Presidents over serious shit. Like blowjobs.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2012, 09:43 PM
Under Reagan, in a little less than a year and a half 320 were killed by three different terrorist attacks on our U.S. Embassy and military barracks in Beirut. The day after the 3rd attack Reagan continued on the campaign trail.
It took 2 years to get an official report on those security failures.

I don't remember any of the kind hyperbolic rhetoric toward Reagan that Obama is getting, even though the loss of life dwarfs this recent attack. Also, did we ever get justice for those multiple attacks on our Embassy personnel and GI's? Nope, we eventually withdrew. Can you imagine the reaction if Obama had made that decision in 1984?

Here's one problem comparing this with the Beirut attack on the marine barracks, imo:
We armed AQ-linked jihadis and some of those arms and jihadis went into Syria. The ambassador who was killed was reportedly CIA and coordinated arming them. I also heard they were really in a CIA compound too. Something is very strange about us even working with these kind of people. It makes me wonder if AQ, originally created by the CIA, may be on the payroll. Ya' know the way MEK is in Iran. I know we have to work with undesirables at time, but we're supposed to be in a WoT right now. Some of these things do not add up.

The other thing is Reagan took full responsibility for what happened in Beirut admitting it was a big mistake to put our troops in the middle of that conflict. He didn't cover it up. If you read his autobio he says he feels it was the biggest mistake of his presidency. Really though, that was a peacekeeping mission, not workin' with the enemy.

Plus the Democrats went after RR for Iran-Contra.

ROYC75
11-16-2012, 10:25 PM
R's get your conspiracy hats on. Jill Kelley and Broadwell made repeat visits to the white House

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CD8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fblogs%2Fpolitics%2F2012%2F11%2Fjill-kelley-paula-broadwell-made-repeat-visits-to-obama-white-house%2F&ei=aM6mUOKVD4X49QTc6IGQDA&usg=AFQjCNHorx_M9W72VMNqzsPVUOQ0FcwmUw&cad=rja

Which one of the Obama's did they do ? You got the inside scoop ?:rolleyes:

dirk digler
11-16-2012, 10:25 PM
oh well

David H. Petraeus (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/david_h_petraeus/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.

Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

BigRedChief
11-16-2012, 10:36 PM
Plus the Democrats went after RR for Iran-Contra.As they should of.

He could have been impeached. Sold arms to our enemies to take the profits and arm some rebels the congress already told him specifically to not arm. Think about that for a second............ The President secretly provided arms to people who have sworn death to us.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2012, 11:00 PM
As they should of.
I wasn't commenting on the worthiness of it.

He could have been impeached. Sold arms to our enemies to take the profits and arm some rebels the congress already told him specifically to not arm. Think about that for a second............ The President secretly provided arms to people who have sworn death to us.
Since you want to get into it:

Actually, that has some disinformation. It was because the House passed the Boland Amendment and they felt it was circumvented. Iran-Contra actually never involved any govt money and the Boland Amendment, which was alleged to be violated had legal issues, one being that it did not cover the NSC and was not even a criminal statute. IIRC there was questions about it's Constitutionality.

No court ever made a determination whether Boland covered the NSC, and because it was a prohibition rather than a criminal statute, no one could be indicted for violating it.

And let's face it the Obama regime is supplying arms to AQ linked jihadis and MEK was de-listed under Obama but Bush was using that terrorist group in Iran. Besides, we do trade arms for hostages.

ROYC75
11-16-2012, 11:05 PM
Besides, we do trade arms for hostages.

Unless it's Mexico, we let them kill our border agents and civilians.

KChiefer
11-17-2012, 12:13 AM
Was the President behind that too?

Was he behind the Benghazi attack?

go bowe
11-17-2012, 12:58 AM
Charlize Theron. Iíd low crawl a mile of broken beer bottles and antifreeze for just a sniff of her still warm panties.

crawl?

pffffffffffft! that's why they invented atv's...

J Diddy
11-17-2012, 01:09 AM
Yeah, you're right, we only impeach Presidents over serious shit. Like blowjobs.

It has become my opinion as of late that the Right wing is a party of do it my way or I'm taking my ball or going home, be it secession or silly impeachment attempts.

patteeu
11-17-2012, 06:44 AM
Here's one problem comparing this with the Beirut attack on the marine barracks, imo:
We armed AQ-linked jihadis and some of those arms and jihadis went into Syria. The ambassador who was killed was reportedly CIA and coordinated arming them. I also heard they were really in a CIA compound too. Something is very strange about us even working with these kind of people. It makes me wonder if AQ, originally created by the CIA, may be on the payroll. Ya' know the way MEK is in Iran. I know we have to work with undesirables at time, but we're supposed to be in a WoT right now. Some of these things do not add up.

The other thing is Reagan took full responsibility for what happened in Beirut admitting it was a big mistake to put our troops in the middle of that conflict. He didn't cover it up. If you read his autobio he says he feels it was the biggest mistake of his presidency. Really though, that was a peacekeeping mission, not workin' with the enemy.

Plus the Democrats went after RR for Iran-Contra.

Congratulations for discussing Reagan's autobiography without distorting it. :thumb:

patteeu
11-17-2012, 06:47 AM
As they should of.

He could have been impeached. Sold arms to our enemies to take the profits and arm some rebels the congress already told him specifically to not arm. Think about that for a second............ The President secretly provided arms to people who have sworn death to us.

Ironic, given the rumors we're hearing about Benghazi and Syria.

BigRedChief
11-17-2012, 07:20 AM
Ironic, given the rumors we're hearing about Benghazi and Syria.This is not apples to apples. It's public information that we provided arms to the Libyan rebels to overthrow Ghaddafi. It's not a stretch to think that maybe some of those arms ended up in the hands of people that hate us. But, what would you have done differently? Not give them any help because some arms may end up in our enemies? It's a damn murky business over there.

This is a different era. If we don't give aid to those that are actively fighting our enemies, we will not have any influence in the area. We either deal with possibly bad people or we just sit on our hands and hope for the best.

I know Reagan is an idol to R's. No need to defend every single act of his presidency. He was still human and humans make mistakes. It was a big mistake made of arrogance. He has said that himself.

patteeu
11-17-2012, 08:07 AM
This is not apples to apples. It's public information that we provided arms to the Libyan rebels to overthrow Ghaddafi. It's not a stretch to think that maybe some of those arms ended up in the hands of people that hate us. But, what would you have done differently? Not give them any help because some arms may end up in our enemies? It's a damn murky business over there.

This is a different era. If we don't give aid to those that are actively fighting our enemies, we will not have any influence in the area. We either deal with possibly bad people or we just sit on our hands and hope for the best.

I know Reagan is an idol to R's. No need to defend every single act of his presidency. He was still human and humans make mistakes. It was a big mistake made of arrogance. He has said that himself.

It was a murky business when Reagan was doing it too. It's not really any different in that respect.

VAChief
11-17-2012, 12:02 PM
Here's one problem comparing this with the Beirut attack on the marine barracks, imo:
We armed AQ-linked jihadis and some of those arms and jihadis went into Syria. The ambassador who was killed was reportedly CIA and coordinated arming them. I also heard they were really in a CIA compound too. Something is very strange about us even working with these kind of people. It makes me wonder if AQ, originally created by the CIA, may be on the payroll. Ya' know the way MEK is in Iran. I know we have to work with undesirables at time, but we're supposed to be in a WoT right now. Some of these things do not add up.

The other thing is Reagan took full responsibility for what happened in Beirut admitting it was a big mistake to put our troops in the middle of that conflict. He didn't cover it up. If you read his autobio he says he feels it was the biggest mistake of his presidency. Really though, that was a peacekeeping mission, not workin' with the enemy.

Plus the Democrats went after RR for Iran-Contra.

Good points, but I think you are confusing whether I think there should have been extensive criticism or assumptions of treachery and deception when Reagan was CINC. Yes, they eventually went after him for Iran-Contra, but long after those attacks occurred. I don't remember any outcry or even any mention of criticism regarding security during that time. Do you really think if our embassy was struck twice (and a military barracks in between that time) over a period of less that two years now that the response from Republicans would be similar?

I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate, something happened that shouldn't have happened. This shouldn't be a political witch hunt at this point.

BucEyedPea
11-17-2012, 12:06 PM
Good points, but I think you are confusing whether I think there should have been extensive criticism or assumptions of treachery and deception when Reagan was CINC. Yes, they eventually went after him for Iran-Contra, but long after those attacks occurred. I don't remember any outcry or even any mention of criticism regarding security during that time. Do you really think if our embassy was struck twice (and a military barracks in between that time) over a period of less that two years now that the response from Republicans would be similar?

I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate, something happened that shouldn't have happened. This shouldn't be a political witch hunt at this point.

Well, I don't expect it not to be a witch-hunt with someone like Lindsey Graham at the helm.
There's always one of these scandals that the opposition exploits. I think there's a lot of bad eggs in govt, particularly at the top that don't get caught. There's a lot of corruption up there — no matter who is in power.

BucEyedPea
11-17-2012, 12:06 PM
Congratulations for discussing Reagan's autobiography without distorting it. :thumb:

Nope. You're the one who distorted it. Still projecting.