Jump to content

CIA chief petreus reisgns over affair?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You seem to believe that the only laws and rules that need to be followed are the rules that you personally believe in.

 

actually i do

 

mans law is not necessarily natural law. in my book nature doesnt care about consenting adults getting each other off, its the lying and betrayal that is the sin. still, that sin shouldnt be illegal unless there is some kind of abuse of power, which is an entirely different thing. but i dont think this was that

 

most states still have sodomy laws on the books. so i guess youre not getting any bjs or well you know

Edited by Meathead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know someone was laughing hard when they set that up. How could they think nobody would catch it?

 

I'm sure whoever set it up couldn't care less if it was 'caught' after it was put on the air. I love stuff like that when it embarrasses media nitwits.

 

actually i do

 

mans law is not necessarily natural law. in my book nature doesnt care about consenting adults getting each other off, its the lying and betrayal that is the sin. still, that sin shouldnt be illegal unless there is some kind of abuse of power, which is an entirely different thing. but i dont think this was that

 

most states still have sodomy laws on the books. so i guess youre not getting any bjs or well you know

So the head of the CIA's girlfriend threatening people because she's a jealous psycho isn't an abuse of power? What if her next move is to threaten to expose the affair unless her CIA boyfriend does XYZ?

 

You can point out totally irrelevant information about sodomy laws and get all self rightous while pretending this is about sex if it makes you feel better, but clearly you are missing the point on Patreus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure whoever set it up couldn't care less if it was 'caught' after it was put on the air. I love stuff like that when it embarrasses media nitwits.

 

 

So the head of the CIA's girlfriend threatening people because she's a jealous psycho isn't an abuse of power? What if her next move is to threaten to expose the affair unless her CIA boyfriend does XYZ?

 

You can point out totally irrelevant information about sodomy laws and get all self rightous while pretending this is about sex if it makes you feel better, but clearly you are missing the point on Patreus.

 

And missing the point why our military has such laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol now a love triangle cat fight is the illegal thing. oye

 

nuthin like good ole fashioned amurikin puritanism

 

yep. and nuthin like burying yer head in the sand so you can keep ridin that high horse! tossin' 'round those sterotypes shur makes ya feel good, dont it!

 

 

Pretending there's nothing wrong with the head of the CIA putting himself in a position to be used or blackmailed shows you aren't very smart after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

actually i do

 

mans law is not necessarily natural law. in my book nature doesnt care about consenting adults getting each other off, its the lying and betrayal that is the sin. still, that sin shouldnt be illegal unless there is some kind of abuse of power, which is an entirely different thing. but i dont think this was that

 

most states still have sodomy laws on the books. so i guess youre not getting any bjs or well you know

Come on man, even the 10 commandments say dont shag your neighbor's old lady

 

Patently juvenile, eternally funny and satisfying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, now John Kerry is involved. The only thing missing from our latest distraction is the chance to turn this into a reality show.

 

I can't tell if the WH is pure genius with releasing all of this to distract from Benghazi...or just too stupid to have thought it all through, because every day that passes leads to more ineptness. Or maybe they're happy with ineptness. Hard to tell with this group.

 

Regardless, you now have Kerry with personal ties to a big lawyer/lobbyist who loaned $300K to the socialite's batschittcrazy sister for a custody battle? How long before a Kardashian shows up with Beyonce's background music and a Jay-Z cameo?

 

http://www.nypost.co...Y2INC4smBMEYqUI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it grows.... Jill Kelley calls 911 repeatedly this weekend and claims diplomatic protection is warranted? The twists are getting interesting. Meathead - forget the indignation and grab some popcorn, this ones getting much bigger than a simple discrete affair.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/petraeus-scandal-jill-kelley-911-tape-released-tonight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yawn

 

two skanks pulling each others hair to see who gets to polish the old generals knob

 

oh yeah scandal of the freakin century

 

You can downplay it all you want, Barack, but you're ultimately going to wish this never came up. The media ignored Benghazi because it was just sheer incompetence of the WH and they have no interest in that.

 

But give Benghazi adultery , four-star generals, socialites with big breasts, John Kerry with ties to lawyer/lobbyists helping the crazy woman, and one girl leaking Benghazi information that contradicts Petreaus' briefing, and people no longer care where the story takes them...as long as it takes them toward the tawdry.

Edited by LABillzFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, General Petraeus will testify

 

Earlier Wednesday, Fox News reported that the former director of the CIA, who resigned last week over an extramarital affair, will still testify voluntarily on Friday before congressional intelligence committees regarding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya.

 

David Ignatius is one of my favorite opinion writers for WaPo. He knows foreign policy, shows very little partisanship, and his contact network is pretty amazing. Today's OpEd says a lot about what went down in Benghazi. The CIA were the go-to when the sh*t hit the fan and he does a good job of explaining why. Of course mistakes were made, like depending on the Libyan militia, and not providing sufficient security at the consulate, but his point is that somewhere along the way, the CIA mission shift from intelligence gathering to one of mostly paramilitary activities, ultimately hampered our ability to learn what was happening before and during the attack.

 

Benghazi showed the reason the United States needs clandestine intelligence officers in dangerous countries such as Libya. They’re in country, undercover, to collect the secrets that will keep U.S. citizens safe. That night, the United States needed to know what was going down in Benghazi, and in Cairo, Tunis and a half-dozen other capitals. It’s hard to do this intelligence collection — recruiting and running clandestine agents — when you’re operating from a quasi-public base, as seems to have been the case in Benghazi, and is certainly true in many others parts of the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, General Petraeus will testify

 

 

 

David Ignatius is one of my favorite opinion writers for WaPo. He knows foreign policy, shows very little partisanship, and his contact network is pretty amazing. Today's OpEd says a lot about what went down in Benghazi. The CIA were the go-to when the sh*t hit the fan and he does a good job of explaining why. Of course mistakes were made, like depending on the Libyan militia, and not providing sufficient security at the consulate, but his point is that somewhere along the way, the CIA mission shift from intelligence gathering to one of mostly paramilitary activities, ultimately hampered our ability to learn what was happening before and during the attack.

 

All the more reason to ask the question; If you really had no idea what was happening, why spend two weeks blaming a Youtube video? What did the WH know and when did they know it? Were they really watching everything in real-time via a drone video feed or not? Do they have audio of the group pleading for help as they're being murdered by terrorists or not?

 

Or is it just going to be "Blame the CIA. We're getting rid of Petreaus and things will be better now?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the more reason to ask the question; If you really had no idea what was happening, why spend two weeks blaming a Youtube video? What did the WH know and when did they know it? Were they really watching everything in real-time via a drone video feed or not? Do they have audio of the group pleading for help as they're being murdered by terrorists or not?

 

Or is it just going to be "Blame the CIA. We're getting rid of Petreaus and things will be better now?"

maybe it's just me, but the most important thing in what went down on 9/11/2012 is NOT what the WH knew and when they knew it, nor is it why they blamed a YouTube video for 2 days or 2 weeks. It's interesting, but does little to help prevent a reccurence. It's the job of the state department, in conjunction with the DOD and our national security organization. Yes, the POTUS is ultimately responsible, but there's so many professionals below him that have direct responsibility.

 

To you, it's all about how this investigation can place the blame on the WH, embarrass them, and why isn't this happening as fast and as furious as you would like it.

 

Here's the time line that counts. Sorry, no WH or CIA conspiracy found...

 

While there were multiple errors that led to the final tragedy, there’s no evidence that the White House or CIA leadership deliberately delayed or impeded rescue efforts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there is an email noting that George Bush once crossed paths with General Petraeus in a Piggly Wiggly in Norfolk, VA, thus laying the entire affair currently under investigation at Bush's doorstep. Damn that George Bush!

finally someone talking some sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...