- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 5,058
- Reaction score
- 1,402
- Location
- East Waboo USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
"The threat from within" may have been, "General, you're either going to resign? Or have a heart attack on Sunday."
CNN also interviewed a CIA op (retired) and he said this type of stuff (affairs) went on all the time with high ranking officers including the director and never saw daylight they were handled either in house or quietly dispensed with. "This is the first time in my 25 years with the agency that anything like this has come to the surface".
Congress could decide to call him as a witness. No problem there.
I'm convinced that powerful men can't keep it in their pants.
Actually the impeachment came about because Clinton lied under oath in a court of law, and perjury was a capital offensse up until about a century and a half ago. The irony is that the questions Clinton was asked had been considered illegitimate by the courts until Clinton himself proudly signed a "ViolenceAgainst Women Act" that made the questions relevant. And thus was Clinton one of the early (and more spectacular) victims of his own hubris.
Your first sentence is what everyone is missing. He may not be chief anymore but that does not mean he is immune for testifying. And I believe the general will tell us the truth. He is an honorable man or have those of you who have said so and are yelling conspiracy now suddenly changed your minds for political reasons?
Does it pique your interest at all that this particular affair has come to the surface? And at this particular time?
He is not immune from being called. But my understanding is that his (Petraeus) options for responses are much different as a private citizen than if he were still Director. Current plans i believe are for the Deputy Director to testify on behalf of the CIA next week. That should be interesting....
I am going to risk some points here... and a ban in the process.
Your see... there is a difference.
Petraeus HAD an affair.
This is now public knowledge.
Bush did not make public he knocked the towers down... and to think he might have is mental retardation at its highest.
Now... you see the difference?
Petraeus admitted to an affair. Some enemy of America could have blackmailed him for who knows what; and if he were as dishonest as say Bill Clinton he might have given up something vital to national security for these folks to keep quiet; say... allowing vital information about rocket performance land in the laps of the Communist Chinese (which did happen).
Do you understand now?
The facts are... Petraeus had an affair and could have been blackmailed by the Russians or Chinese. You don't think they have surveillance on these people or seek to entrap them if possible? I know after The Wall came down, there was a military base in south Germany; not a large or especially significant one... there were 17 Communist German agents trying to dig up anything they could.
In a previous post about Iran and the attack on the drone you said something like "I hope..."... you DemSocialist seem to be a naive fool who thinks you can deal with enemy states like Iran through dialogue, and then cannot see the blatant risk Petraeus opened himself to.
It is absolutely no wonder you believe in the tyranny of Socialism, though you don't seem to notice the cost of liberty, the tyranny such systems must employ.
When that liberty is lost, it isn't lost temporarily... it is lost forever, or it takes generations to re-institute... just like doing away with the idiotic 55mph speed limit put into law by the Carter administration.
Somehow I doubt that's the true reason for his resignation
Why would you think that? A man shouldn't be head of the CIA with blackmail fodder on his resume, nor should he be head of the CIA while going through a possible divorce.
Seriously. If the POTUS can do it on tax payer time (in the oval office) and go on being President....it's certainly no excuse for the CIA director to quit.
It's a cover story.
That is true, however the timing is suspect....The "blackmail" may not be so much from China, or Russia as a threat as much as from within.
I agree completely. I was a devout conservative Repub during Clinton's reign and thought he was way too friendly with China. But I never liked how the GOP, especially Gingrich (hypocrite) went after an impeachment (abuse of process) on an issue that was more between him and his wife than the Media and Congress.
If Patraeus was unavailable for consultation and should've had at least a secure cell for that purpose of sending in reinforcements or talking to the State Department/Military, then he dropped the ball. Though if his direct attention were not necessary or responsible for the situation, then he should be reprimanded at best. His sex life is between him and his family, not for public scrutiny, unless it's completely off the wall, dangerous and extreme affecting his work.
Your first sentence is what everyone is missing. He may not be chief anymore but that does not mean he is immune for testifying. And I believe the general will tell us the truth. He is an honorable man or have those of you who have said so and are yelling conspiracy now suddenly changed your minds for political reasons?
For god's sake people, the full explanation is in the thread not once, but twice. Read the ****ing thread. Since that is too much to ask: the woman he had an affair with got or was given access to his email account or emails and may have been able to access classified information she should not have seen because of it. This was discovered in a CIA investigation that has gone on for some time and was not specifically looking for this particular case.
She would have had to have had access to CIA facilities already for it even to be possible to see those emails. Those systems are not connected to the internet.
For god's sake people, the full explanation is in the thread not once, but twice. Read the ****ing thread. Since that is too much to ask: the woman he had an affair with got or was given access to his email account or emails and may have been able to access classified information she should not have seen because of it. This was discovered in a CIA investigation that has gone on for some time and was not specifically looking for this particular case.
II am not sure if it happened while he was CIA director. I don't have more details but I did put a link to the story in the thread if you want to read what information is out there.
Sad isn't it?
She would have had to have had access to CIA facilities already for it even to be possible to see those emails. Those systems are not connected to the internet.
For god's sake people, the full explanation is in the thread not once, but twice. Read the ****ing thread. Since that is too much to ask: the woman he had an affair with got or was given access to his email account or emails and may have been able to access classified information she should not have seen because of it. This was discovered in a CIA investigation that has gone on for some time and was not specifically looking for this particular case.
And he could have been blackmailed.
There is no conspiracy.Or he could be a space alien, but let's keep this in the realm of the sane. Bull****, nonsense conspiracy crap is just stupid.
There is no conspiracy.
I asked another poster if English is his second language...
The opportunity for blackmail exists... especially if he remained in power and it lingered on.
Loose lips sink ships. (no pun intended)
And he could have been blackmailed.
No, he admitted to an extramarital affair ... which is obviously a huge problem for the chief of the CIA. Presumably it was going to come out and he decided to head it off.
If you read further down which I notice you did not include. I said questions YES. but it is not as simple as some seem to think.
If the CIA op is to be believed (have no idea I don't work for the agency) then someone made this story surface. WHo? why?
Alot of people of a particular political pursuation seem to think the WH is at fault for it all. Really?
1. Why did the story surface if what the op said is true?
2 Who made it come up
3. Why is there not more focus on the members of Congress who knew as well (I am sure these include some Reps)
If the op is correct, then do you seriously beleive that Obama is going to explode a grenade on himself. If so you are in serious need of professional help. So who?
the next question is was this a politically motivated act or vendeta or sour grapes? Why
Next why are the majority of people ignoring the Congressional involvement, that is those members of Congress (national security committee) who were told (According to a current CIA op on CNN) at the same time the White House was.
Last question. Do you really think anyone is going to piss of the FBI by blowing an ongoing investigation? Right. Try it sometime and see what happens.
Oh but there is more ...... these two people have suddenly found themselves in trouble .. for something ..
In an unusual move, the Navy has replaced an admiral commanding an aircraft carrier strike group while it is deployed to the
Middle East. The replacement was prompted by an Inspector General’s investigation of allegations of inappropriate leadership
judgment.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group, is being returned to the United States
for temporary reassignment...
General Ham head of Africom .... is another that is being relieved of duty,
both since the embassy killings .....
The opportunity for blackmail exists with pretty much every one. It does not make it particularly likely. With the rest of the facts involved, the chance that the issue here is blackmail is vanishingly small. All those details are in this very thread. Is English your second language?
Feinstein announced that he would not be requested to testify, due to his resignation...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?