DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on November 09, 2012, 05:26:55 PM
-
CIA chief Petraeus resigns, reportedly over affair
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket
CIA Director David Petraeus resigned his post on Friday, confessing to having shown "extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair." The former Army general rocketed to global prominence as the man in charge of the "surge" in Iraq and later the commander of American forces in Afghanistan.
President Barack Obama said Petraeus had led the Central Intelligence Agency "with characteristic intellectual rigor, dedication, and patriotism.
"I am completely confident that the CIA will continue to thrive and carry out its essential mission, and I have the utmost confidence in Acting Director Michael Morell and the men and women of the CIA who work every day to keep our nation safe," the president said in a written statement.
"Going forward, my thoughts and prayers are with Dave and Holly Petraeus, who has done so much to help military families through her own work. I wish them the very best at this difficult time," Obama continued.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a statement that did not specify a reason for Petraeus's departure but praised his colleague extensively.
"From his long, illustrious Army career to his leadership at the helm of CIA, Dave has redefined what it means to serve and sacrifice for one's country," said Clapper.
Petraeus went to work as CIA chief in September 2011 after heading up the war in Afghanistan. He had drawn fire in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya. His departure comes barely a week before he was scheduled to testify about the assault in closed-door sessions with the intelligence committees of the Senate and House of Representatives. Morell was expected to take his place, congressional aides said.
Petraeus' resignation letter, quoted by several news outlets, centered on his personal behavior.
"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," he said. "This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation."
Petraeus, 60, has been described as the father of the military's counterinsurgency doctrine. The charismatic officer had been cited as a possible future presidential or vice presidential prospect.
His wife Holly has worked inside the Obama Administration, serving at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Republican Senator John McCain, his party's senior member on the Senate Armed Services and one of Petraeus's most outspoken admirers, said the general "will stand in the ranks of America's greatest military heroes."
"His inspirational leadership and his genius were directly responsible — after years of failure — for the success of the surge in Iraq," McCain said in a statement. "Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family."
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, deplored the decision.
"I very much regret the resignation of David Petraeus," she said in a statement. "This is an enormous loss for our nation's intelligence community and for our country."
"I wish President Obama had not accepted this resignation, but I understand and respect the decision," Feinstein added.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cia-chief-petraeus-resigns-reportedly-over-affair-201305343--politics.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cia-chief-petraeus-resigns-reportedly-over-affair-201305343--politics.html)
-
As he should have
-
As he should have
exactly SIRS!
none of this "well...uh...define is"
GONE!
-
how convenient....just a few days after the election
and only a few days before he had to testify about BenghaziGate
This means Petraeus will not testify next week regarding Benghazi.
Conspiracy theory: Obama and/or his thugs instructed Petraeus to lie, or they'd expose the affair.
Petraeus exposes his own affair when he resigns, and by getting out of having to testify at all, he kills two birds with one stone.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/09/CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/09/CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns)
-
Impressive
-
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on Petraeus Resignation: It Smells (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a87vzzfKb-A#)
-
All of which ignores the fact, he can still be subpoenaed to testify if it is considered necessary.
Don't let the lizard men get you...
-
What's with this obsession with lizardmen? Xo had some obession with symmetry, now you with lizardmen. Trekkie maybe?
-
Well, I figure you guys are so obsessed with conspiracy theories, maybe you were worried about the lizard men aliens out to take over the world as well...Or maybe it's the Freemasons, who knows?
-
Who's obsessed with conspiracy theories? Or more to the point, how do you define "obsessed"? Referring to a possibility of events is "obsessed"?? Perhaps your biting off more than you can chew, or as I referenced before, maybe you're a closet trekkie, and just haven't watched your star trek quota for the week yet, full of lizardmen and aliens of all stripes
-
Haven't seen Star Trek, in any of its many forms, in years.
I also don't see any conspiracy to keep Petraeus from testifying by having him resign, especially since, as I ponted out, he could still be subpoenaed anyway.
Or any conspiracy to keep the infamous film maker silent by keeping him in jail, since as I pointed out he could still make statements from there, and his attorney could have asked for an earlier bail hearing (even though, as it turned out, that was not what he was in jail for).
Or a conspiracy to influence the election because some guy in a leather jacket was standing outside a polling station.
Or a conspiracy to hide the militants claim of responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, the same responsibility they denied shortly thereafter.
I guess maybe I'm not paranoid enough.
-
Haven't seen Star Trek, in any of its many forms, in years.
Which presents an interesting conundrum with this obsession involving lizardmen..........As Spock would say, fascinating
-
LOL, read back, Sirs...http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/'was-it-stolen'/msg145843/#msg145843 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/'was-it-stolen'/msg145843/#msg145843)
-
Lizard people disguised as humans took over the Earth in the 1980's series called "V".
Klingons were said to be descended from something reptilian,and I think there was at least one lizard guy in the first Star Trek with Kirk.
Lizard people were not a usual feature on Star Trek.
I am not obsessed with symmetry, sirs is. He wants every attack on Republicans to be accompanied by an equal attack on Democrats. When he thinks that this did not happen, be kvetches snidely.
-
LOL, read back, Sirs...http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/'was-it-stolen'/msg145843/#msg145843 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/'was-it-stolen'/msg145843/#msg145843)
Yea.....and? Perhaps if you did a better job at how you seem to define obsessed...and conspiracy. Perhaps that can pull you out of the water
I am not obsessed with symmetry, sirs is. He wants every attack on Republicans to be accompanied by an equal attack on Democrats.
And like clockwork........wrong yet again
-
Well, I figure you guys are so obsessed with conspiracy theories,
Oh "we're obsessed" not the guy that did everything he could to imply
that President Bush/Bushco lied us into war via some conspiracy of
I suppose neo-cons....then backtracked on his bullshit implications
via sematics and refused like a big baby to answer SIRS "yes or no"
question.
By the way hnumpah...who did you vote for this week Obama or Romney?
You're real good about hammering others but it seems to me you rarely take a solid position yourself.
You're not getting away with the BS any longer.
So hnumpah lets start now.
Do you hnumpah think it's a total coincidence that Petraeus resignation comes a few days AFTER the election?
-
By the way hnumpah...who did you vote for this week Obama or Romney?
Not that it's any of your business - and it isn't - but if you look back, I believe I have already made it clear I did not intend to vote for either one. After all, we had 12 different presidential/vice presidential options we could vote for in Florida, plus an option for a write in.
You're real good about hammering others but it seems to me you rarely take a solid position yourself.
Then you don't pay very close attention, do you?
You're not getting away with the BS any longer.
So hnumpah lets start now.
Do you hnumpah think it's a total coincidence that Petraeus resignation comes a few days AFTER the election?
Now, that wasn't nice. And I have tried to be nice. You can take your BS and stuff it.
-
Not that it's any of your business - and it isn't - but if you look back,
I believe I have already made it clear I did not intend to vote for either one.
"I did not intend to"...evasive crap again....refuses to answer the question directly
dude you are such a judgemental fraud.
you pretend to "hammer" both parties, but then wont say who you vote for
cant stick your neck out....gotta have some cover to hide behind
criticize Romney, Bush....but wont say who you vote for
typical want it both ways take no stand:
"I'm not saying he did threaten it; I'm saying some may perceive it that way"
You can take your BS and stuff it.
again refuses to answer the direct question about Petraeus
gotta have that cover to hide behind
-
Do you hnumpah think it's a total coincidence that Petraeus resignation comes a few days AFTER the election?
"Timing Is Just Too Perfect" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/09/lt_col_ralph_peters_on_petraeus_timing_is_just_too_perfect.html)
LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: The timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration. Just as the administration claimed it was purely coincidence that our Benghazi consulate was attacked on the anniversary of September 11th. Now it’s purely coincidence that this affair -- extra-marital affair -- surfaces right after the election, not before, but right after, but before the intelligence chiefs go to Capitol Hill to get grilled. As an old intelligence analyst, Neil, the way I read this -- I could be totally wrong, this is my interpretation -- is that the administration was unhappy with Petraeus not playing ball 100% on their party-line story. I think it's getting cold feet about testifying under oath on their party-line story. And I suspect that these tough Chicago guys knew about this affair for a while, held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card.
I don't like conspiracy theories, I may be totally wrong, but the timing of this, again, right after the election and right before Petraeus is supposed to get grilled on Capitol Hill, it really smells.
-
Petraeus was unlikely to make up a nonexistent affair, and then use it as an excuse to resign. If he DID have an affair, then that would be grounds for him to be some sort of security risk.
I assume that he had an affair with a WOMAN lover. Mrs. Petraeus could perhaps use the rhyme Petraeus/ betray us accurately, I suppose.
It seems to me that this was not a made up affair.
-
Petraeus was unlikely to make up a nonexistent affair, and then use it as an excuse to resign.
I doubt you'll find anyone who's claiming otherwise ::)
-
Then what is "Timing just too perfect" supposed to mean?
-
But they have to have a conspiracy...ROFL
Heaven forbid anything should just happen, it all has to be orchestrated somehow from behind the scenes...
And still they miss the point that Petraeus can still be subpeonaed, regardless of whether he is still head of the CIA or flipping burgers at Wendy's. It makes no sense to force him to admit an affair and resign, and take the chance he might strike back. Now, if he turns up dead in the next few days under mysterious circumstances...
As I understand it, and it makes sense to me, the FBI was doing a background check on his biographer, a female, and apparently discovered some emails that got them to looking into a possible affair between them. Those are just bits and pieces I have seen so far, but I am sure more will come out. Anyone who has ever held a position that requires a security clearance, especially a high security clearance, knows that any whiff of somethng like that going on is grounds to have your clearance revoked. It's a security risk, because it makes you vulnerable to blackmail. Apparently the FBI brought it up to Petraeus, or he found out they were investigating it, and decided the best thing to do was bring it out in the open himself and resign.
The timing may look suspicious, but on the surface, again, if they want him personally to testify, all they have to do is subpoena him personally.
-
I fail to see any conspiracy here.
-
Then what is "Timing just too perfect" supposed to mean?
It means the timing in the outing if this affair is just too perfect....per LT. COL. RALPH PETERS...As an old intelligence analyst, Neil, the way I read this -- I could be totally wrong, this is my interpretation -- is that the administration was unhappy with Petraeus not playing ball 100% on their party-line story. I think it's getting cold feet about testifying under oath on their party-line story. And I suspect that these tough Chicago guys knew about this affair for a while, held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card
-
...As an old intelligence analyst, Neil, the way I read this -- I could be totally wrong, this is my interpretation -- is that the administration was unhappy with Petraeus not playing ball 100% on their party-line story. I think it's getting cold feet about testifying under oath on their party-line story. And I suspect that these tough Chicago guys knew about this affair for a while, held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card...
-
Bah! That is just stupid.
In any event,the affair would become public eventually, and Petraeus would have it resign.
-
But they have to have a conspiracy...ROFL
You mean the part that clearly where Lt Peters clearly states I don't like conspiracy theories, I may be totally wrong, but the timing of this, again, right after the election and right before Petraeus is supposed to get grilled on Capitol Hill, it really smells[/b]
Is that the part you're laughing at?
And still they miss the point that Petraeus can still be subpeonaed, regardless of whether he is still head of the CIA or flipping burgers at Wendy's.
Never missed it the 1st time. Why do you keep implying it has?? Of course any testimomy that may be damaging to the WH can now be spun as somewhat uncredible given the latest turn of extramarital events
The timing may look suspicious......
THANK YOU......that was the point
-
...As an old intelligence analyst, Neil, the way I read this -- I could be totally wrong, this is my interpretation -- is that the administration was unhappy with Petraeus not playing ball 100% on their party-line story. I think it's getting cold feet about testifying under oath on their party-line story. And I suspect that these tough Chicago guys knew about this affair for a while, held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card...
Notice how he's clearly making an assumption based on the intel he's privy to, and his knowledge as an analyst. In no way is he claiming it as the gospel truth, so we can safely also claim that he could be totally right
-
Petraeus resigns over affair, as criticism grows of CIA response in Libya
Officials will want to know if there was any link between David Petraeus’s extramarital activities and what has been increasingly criticized as the CIA’s weak performance during the Benghazi attack.
By Howard LaFranchi, Anna Mulrine | Christian Science Monitor
CIA Director David Petraeus abruptly resigned Friday, citing an extramarital affair and the need to sort out the “personal and professional issues” involved.
The former commander of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan had built a stellar and nearly unassailable reputation – but mounting criticism of the Central Intelligence Agency’s response to the Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack in September was beginning to tarnish that reputation.
Word of Mr. Petraeus’s resignation sent ripples of stunned surprise through both the intelligence and military communities, raising questions that revolved around how long the affair had been going on and how an officer known for his rigorous self-discipline – and attention to his reputation within the media — could have made such a lapse in judgment.
In a letter of resignation accepted by the White House, Petraeus said he had been married 37 years but had exercised “very poor judgment” in choosing to enter into an extramarital affair.
Petraeus, who was widely celebrated as a military commander and even occasionally mentioned as a potential presidential candidate, was sworn in as head of the CIA in September 2011 – and had kept a low profile since. Now speculation is sure to proliferate over whether that low profile resulted from Petraeus focusing on America’s intelligence gathering or on personal matters.
In particular, members of Congress and other officials demanding answers about the Benghazi attack on the US consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans – including the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stephens, and two CIA agents – will want to know if there was any link between Petraeus’s extramarital activities and what has been increasingly criticized as the CIA’s weak performance on the night of the Benghazi attack.
More broadly, the reason for Petraeus’s departure will raise questions about any compromising of US covert operations and intelligence. The potential for blackmail of intelligence officers is always a concern about the spy corps, but the involvement of the nation’s top spy in an extramarital affair takes the concern to a new level.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been probing Petraeus and the potential security risks posed by his affair, CNN reported late Friday afternoon.
In the weeks since the Benghazi attack, officials have leaked information, including how Petraeus kept information on the CIA’s role in Benghazi so private that even Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was left to call Petraeus as the attack unfolded to try to get intelligence information from him.
Last week, CIA officials revealed that in fact, the intelligence agency’s operations in Benghazi dwarfed diplomatic operations at the consulate and that the CIA maintained what was described as an “annex,” about a mile from the diplomatic mission.
State Department officials have said there was an informal understanding that the annex and its agents would come to the assistance of the consulate (which had private contractors providing security) if a need arose. CIA officials insist their agents responded to the consulate’s distress calls within a half-hour.
In a statement released Friday afternoon, President Obama praised Petraeus for his “extraordinary service” to the country, adding, “By any measure, through his lifetime of service, David Petraeus has made our country safer and stronger.”
In a statement, Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona highlighted Petraeus’s role in Iraq, saying that his “inspirational leadership and his genius were directly responsible – after years of failure – for the success of the surge in Iraq.”
But Petraeus’s success in Iraq and Afghanistan was a result to a certain extent of his focus on a counterinsurgency strategy that involved large numbers of troops fighting the enemy by incorporating nation-building into the battle. When Mr. Obama named Petraeus to head the CIA, it was widely interpreted as the president’s signal that he intended to wind down America’s wars and shift from a counterinsurgency strategy to counterterrorism.
Obama did not cite Petraeus’s reason for resigning but did say, “Going forward, my thoughts and prayers are with Dave and Holly Petraeus, who has done so much to help military families through her own work. I wish them the very best at this difficult time.”
Mrs. Petraeus is the assistant director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where she supports veterans and troops facing difficulties as a result of the financial crisis.
Obama initially tried to convince Petraeus not to resign, according to some souces. “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,” Tom Ricks reports in his blog “The Best Defense.”
Such a move is in keeping with the military culture in which Petraeus rose to the rank of four-star general.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is a punishable offense for soldiers if the conduct is shown to be detrimental “to good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”
Obama said that Michael Morell, deputy director of the CIA, would take over as acting director. Mr. Morell served briefly as acting director after Leon Panetta left the agency last year to become Defense secretary.
Petraeus was set to testify Thursday at a closed-door session of the Senate Intelligence Committee on the Benghazi attack, but it was unclear if his resignation would alter that schedule.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, the Intelligence Committee chair, told NBC News that Petraeus’s personal mistake should not have led to his resignation.
“I would have stood up for him,” she said. “I wanted him to continue. He was good, he loved the work, and he had a command of intelligence issues second to none.”
Obama, after winning reelection Tuesday, was already expected to make some changes in his national security team for a second term, but early speculation had been that Petraeus would stay on at the CIA. Now the job of spy chief will be added to the new-team mix.
http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-resigns-over-affair-criticism-grows-cia-response-230053238.html (http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-resigns-over-affair-criticism-grows-cia-response-230053238.html)
-
According to the UK papers, the Petraeus Affair was known about by the FBI for quite awhile.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/10/article-2230697-15F1E715000005DC-365_306x423.jpg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/10/article-2230697-15F1E715000005DC-365_306x423.jpg)
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/10/article-2230697-15F1E715000005DC-365_306x423.jpg)
-
how convenient....just a few days after the election
and only a few days before he had to testify about BenghaziGate
This means Petraeus will not testify next week regarding Benghazi.
Conspiracy theory: Obama and/or his thugs instructed Petraeus to lie, or they'd expose the affair.
Petraeus exposes his own affair when he resigns, and by getting out of having to testify at all, he kills two birds with one stone.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/09/CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/09/CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns)
Impressive
-
The FBI may have known and not confronted Petraeus with it until they were sure. I haven't seen much in the way of details yet.
From the last article I posted:
"...Petraeus, who was widely celebrated as a military commander and even occasionally mentioned as a potential presidential candidate, was sworn in as head of the CIA in September 2011 – and had kept a low profile since. Now speculation is sure to proliferate over whether that low profile resulted from Petraeus focusing on America’s intelligence gathering or on personal matters.
In particular, members of Congress and other officials demanding answers about the Benghazi attack on the US consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans – including the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stephens, and two CIA agents – will want to know if there was any link between Petraeus’s extramarital activities and what has been increasingly criticized as the CIA’s weak performance on the night of the Benghazi attack..."
"...Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is a punishable offense for soldiers if the conduct is shown to be detrimental “to good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”
I believe, if I remember correctly, Petraeus was supposedly at a screening of 'Argo' the night of the attack in Benghazi. One wonders now if he was otherwise distracted, to the detriment of the response. It's all speculation right now, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
-
how convenient....just a few days after the election
and only a few days before he had to testify about BenghaziGate
This means Petraeus will not testify next week regarding Benghazi.
Conspiracy theory: Obama and/or his thugs instructed Petraeus to lie, or they'd expose the affair.
Petraeus exposes his own affair when he resigns, and by getting out of having to testify at all, he kills two birds with one stone.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/09/CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/09/CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns)
Impressive
Yea, and?
-
According to the UK papers, the Petraeus Affair was known about by the FBI for quite awhile.
Per Lt Peters analysis.....And I suspect that these tough Chicago guys knew about this affair for a while, held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card.
Yea, that fits so far
-
Petraeus Quits; Evidence of Affair Was Found by F.B.I.
by MICHAEL D. SHEAR
WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and one of America’s most decorated four-star generals, resigned on Friday after an F.B.I. investigation uncovered evidence that he had been involved in an extramarital affair.
Mr. Petraeus issued a statement acknowledging the affair after President Obama accepted his resignation and it was announced by the C.I.A. The disclosure ended a triumphant re-election week for the president with an unfolding scandal.
Government officials said that the F.B.I. began an investigation into a “potential criminal matter” several months ago that was not focused on Mr. Petraeus. In the course of their inquiry into whether a computer used by Mr. Petraeus had been compromised, agents discovered evidence of the relationship as well as other security concerns. About two weeks ago, F.B.I. agents met with Mr. Petraeus to discuss the investigation.
Administration and Congressional officials identified the woman as Paula Broadwell, the co-author of a biography of Mr. Petraeus. Her book, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” was published this year. Ms. Broadwell could not be reached for comment.
Ms. Broadwell, a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, spent 15 years in the military, according to a biography that had appeared on her Web site. She spent extended periods of time with Mr. Petraeus in Afghanistan, interviewing him for her book, which grew out of a two-year research project for her doctoral dissertation and which she promoted on a high-profile tour that included an appearance on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.”
Married with two children, she has described Mr. Petraeus as her mentor.
Senior members of Congress were alerted to Mr. Petraeus’s impending resignation by intelligence officials about six hours before the C.I.A. announced it. One Congressional official who was briefed on the matter said that Mr. Petraeus had been encouraged “to get out in front of the issue” and resign, and that he agreed.
As for how the affair came to light, the Congressional official said that “it was portrayed to us that the F.B.I. was investigating something else and came upon him. My impression is that the F.B.I. stumbled across this.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not inform the Senate and House Intelligence Committees about the inquiry until this week, according to Congressional officials, who noted that by law the panels — and especially their chairmen and ranking members — are supposed to be told about significant developments in the intelligence arena. The Senate committee plans to pursue the question of why it was not told, one official said.
The revelation of a secret inquiry into the head of the nation’s premier spy agency raised urgent questions about Mr. Petraeus’s 14-month tenure at the C.I.A. and the decision by Mr. Obama to elevate him to head the agency after leading the country’s war effort in Afghanistan. White House officials said they did not know about the affair until this week, when Mr. Petraeus informed them.
“After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Mr. Petraeus said in his statement, expressing regret for his abrupt departure. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the president graciously accepted my resignation.”
Mr. Petraeus’s admission and resignation represent a remarkable fall from grace for one of the most prominent figures in America’s modern military and intelligence community, a commander who helped lead the nation’s wartime activities in the decade after the Sept. 11 attacks and was credited with turning around the failing war effort in Iraq.
Mr. Petraeus almost single-handedly forced a profound evolution in the country’s military thinking and doctrine with his philosophy of counterinsurgency, focused more on protecting the civilian population than on killing enemies. More than most of his flag officer peers, he understood how to navigate Washington politics and news media, helping him rise through the ranks and obtain resources he needed, although fellow Army leaders often resented what they saw as a grasping careerism.
“To an important degree, a generation of officers tried to pattern themselves after Petraeus,” said Stephen Biddle, a military scholar at George Washington University who advised Mr. Petraeus at times. “He was controversial; a lot of people didn’t like him. But everybody looked at him as the model of what a modern general was to be.”
At the C.I.A., Mr. Petraeus maintained a low profile, in contrast to the celebrity that surrounded him as a general. But since the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans two months ago, critics had increasingly pressured him to give the agency’s account of the chaotic night. Mr. Petraeus was scheduled to testify before a closed Congressional hearing next week.
White House officials say they were informed on Wednesday night that Mr. Petraeus was considering resigning because of an extramarital affair. Intelligence officials notified the president’s national security staff. Mr. Obama at the time was on his way back to Washington from Chicago, where he had gone to receive election returns.
On Thursday morning, just before a staff meeting at the White House, Mr. Obama was told. “He was surprised, and he was disappointed,” one senior administration official said. “You don’t expect to hear that the Thursday after you were re-elected.”
The president was in the White House all day on Thursday, getting back to his old routine after months on the campaign trail. That afternoon, Mr. Petraeus came in to see him, and informed him that he strongly believed he had to resign.
Mr. Obama did not accept his resignation right away. “He told him, ‘I’ll think about it overnight,’ ” the administration official said. After months on the road, the disclosure of a career-killing extramarital affair from his larger-than-life C.I.A. director was the last thing that Mr. Obama was expecting, the official said.
The president, officials said, did not want Mr. Petraeus to leave. But he ultimately decided that he would not lean heavily on him to stay. On Friday, he called Mr. Petraeus and accepted the resignation, “agreeing with Petraeus’s judgment that he couldn’t continue to lead the agency,” a White House official said.
The White House had hoped to keep the news under wraps until after the daily briefing for the news media, but as it was reported on MSNBC, reporters checking their e-mail confronted Jay Carney, the press secretary, who tried to duck the questions.
“I think I’ll let General Petraeus address this,” Mr. Carney said. Shortly after the news broke, Mr. Obama released a statement praising Mr. Petraeus for his “extraordinary service” to the country and expressing support for him and his wife, Holly.
“By any measure, through his lifetime of service, David Petraeus has made our country safer and stronger,” the president said. Without directly addressing the affair, Mr. Obama added, “Going forward, my thoughts and prayers are with Dave and Holly Petraeus, who has done so much to help military families through her own work.”
A favorite of President George W. Bush and once the subject of intense speculation about his future as a possible presidential candidate, Mr. Petraeus managed the awkward move from a Republican administration to a Democratic one. He was one of the most telegenic faces of the military during his tenure, testifying frequently in Congress about the country’s difficult battles overseas.
Mr. Petraeus clashed with Mr. Obama in 2008 during a campaign visit to Iraq, having what David Plouffe, his campaign manager, called in his book a “healthy debate” over troop levels in the country.
But the president’s decision to tap Mr. Petraeus to command the war in Afghanistan, and later picking him to lead the C.I.A., effectively ended lingering concerns among Obama political advisers that the popular general might challenge his commander in chief during the election.
Mr. Petraeus and his wife met when he was a cadet at West Point; she was the daughter of the academy’s superintendent and a student at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania.
Holly Petraeus works for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, running a branch dedicated to educating military families about financial matters and monitoring their consumer complaints.
Mr. Petraeus’s resignation and the circumstances surrounding it stunned military officers who have served alongside him in war zones over the past two decades and the national security establishment he later served.
“It was a punch in the gut for those of us who know him,” said Col. Michael J. Meese, a professor at West Point who has known Mr. Petraeus for a decade and served as one of his top aides in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Dave’s decision to step down represents the loss of one of our nation’s most respected public servants.” James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement.
By acknowledging an extramarital affair, Mr. Petraeus, 60, was confronting a sensitive issue for a spy chief. Intelligence agencies are often concerned about the possibility that agents who engage in such behavior could be blackmailed for information.
Mr. Petraeus praised his colleagues at the C.I.A.’s headquarters in Langley, Va., calling them “truly exceptional in every regard” and thanking them for their service to the country. He made it clear that his departure was not how he had envisioned ending a storied career in the military and in intelligence.
“Teddy Roosevelt once observed that life’s greatest gift is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing,” he said. “I will always treasure my opportunity to have done that with you, and I will always regret the circumstances that brought that work with you to an end.”
Under Mr. Bush, Mr. Petraeus was credited for helping to develop and put in place the “surge” in troops in Iraq that helped wind down the war there. Mr. Petraeus was moved to Afghanistan in 2010 after Mr. Obama fired Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal over comments he made to a reporter.
In his statement on Friday, Mr. Obama said that Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the C.I.A., would take over once again as acting director, as he did briefly after Leon E. Panetta left the agency last year.
Among those who might succeed Mr. Petraeus permanently is John O. Brennan, the president’s adviser for domestic security and counterterrorism. Mr. Brennan was considered for C.I.A. director before Mr. Obama’s term began but withdrew amid criticism from some of the president’s liberal supporters. Another possibility is Michael G. Vickers, the top Pentagon intelligence policy official and a former C.I.A. paramilitary officer.
Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker, Helene Cooper, Michael S. Schmidt, Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: November 9, 2012
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that David H. Petraeus was expected to remain in President Obama’s cabinet. The C.I.A. director is not a cabinet member in the Obama administration.
A version of this article appeared in print on November 10, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Petraeus Resigns at C.I.A.; F.B.I. Discovered an Affair.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/citing-affair-petraeus-resigns-as-cia-director.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/citing-affair-petraeus-resigns-as-cia-director.html?pagewanted=all)
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/10/article-2230697-15F1E715000005DC-365_306x423.jpg)
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2012/11/09/ap-petraeus-resigns-4_3_r560.jpg?f061b7ce9937c38b702e6f308816ac2a14e2a4ec)
-
Just curious.......
hnumpah and XO where do you come down on this issue?
do you think if it is discovered that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
is carrying on an extramarital affair should he or she resign? Or should they be able to
just remain on the post serving as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
and continue on with an on-going known extramarital affair?
-
Kessler: FBI Investigation Led to Petraeus Resignation
Friday, 09 Nov 2012 04:43 PM
By Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C.
The resignation of David H. Petraeus as CIA director followed an FBI investigation of many months, raising the question of why he was not forced out until after the election.
In his letter of resignation, Petraeus cited an extra-marital affair he had been having. "After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair," Petraeus said in his letter to President Obama. "Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours."
Petraeus, who had a distinguished military career, revealed no additional details. However, an FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011.
The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan.
The woman who was having an affair with Petraeus is a journalist who had been writing about him.
Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.
Such a relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements and could have compromised Petraeus.
At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.
Neither Petraeus nor the CIA's Office of Public Affairs had any immediate comment.
FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11.
The CIA's reporting to Congress included a claim that protests over a YouTube video played a role in the attacks, thus allowing Obama to initially discount the possibility that the U.S. had suffered another terrorist attack just before the election.
In contrast, based on real time video and reports, the State Department was reporting that the attack that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, was terrorist-related. The State Department reported that there were no protests at the consulate.
Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus' resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama's ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.
FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.
"The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election," an FBI source says. "To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable."
Michael Kortan, the FBI?s assistant director for public affairs, said he had no comment.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-resigns-cia-affair/2012/11/09/id/463573 (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-resigns-cia-affair/2012/11/09/id/463573)
-
My reply number 23, this thread, earlier this morning.
-
BTW, I also feel the members of Seal Team Six who actually revealed classified information to EA to improve the realism in one of their games should have had their clearances revoked, been court-martialled, and been subject to more than a slap on the wrist.
-
My reply number 23, this thread, earlier this morning.
"reply number 22" ?
So you think Petraeus should resign because "Anyone who has ever held a position that requires a security clearance, especially a high security clearance, knows that any whiff of somethng like that going on is grounds to have your clearance revoked. It's a security risk, because it makes you vulnerable to blackmail".
Does that mean you think Bill Clinton should have resigned?
-
I didn't like Bubba either. Ask Sirs, BT and Plane. Pity his impeachment didn't end in conviction.
-
Once the affair is public, the guy is no longer a security risk. Of course, to those who think that marital fidelity and fidelity to the county are the same thing, the guy would continue to be a security risk.
This is a prudish country,and I don't think that Petraeus could function smoothly as the DCIA. This is not up to me. If Petraeus thinks he should resign, I can agree with his decision.
Probably in France, Germany, or many other nations, the director of espionage would not have had a problem with this as a scandal, since the French and the Germans do not equate sexual affairs with one being a traitor to the country.
As for Clinton, no, he should not have resigned and should not have been impeached. The Republicans knew that they did not have the votes to depose him, and only wasted time and money and distracted everyone in DC from doing their proper jobs, like watching Al Qaeda.
Of course, had Clinton resigned, Gore as the new incumbent would have easily clobbered Juniorbush,and we might all be better off. Juniorbush was a great whacking disaster to this country.
-
Leave it to the Democrat Coolaide King.......with Patraeus, well, he probably couldn't have functioned well as a department head, its probably a good idea he resign. But Clinton.....the fella that did far worse, to far more women, and in a far higher leadership position.....by golly he absolutely shouldn't have resigned because.....well.....because those Republicans are just that evil. It's what distracted Clinton from saying "yes" to the military and CIA, when they had the oppotunity to have gotten Bin Laden on....how many times did they have him in his sights again? and instead saying "yes" to Monica.
-
Unfortunately, even if the affair is public, he is still considered a security risk, the thought being if he did it once, he could be liable to do it again.
-
I don't know.
But if the guy had broken up with his wife and started dating , he would not have been subject to much blackmail, more Civil Servants have had divorce than havn't.
Is this resignation hasty ? or delayed?
I don't even know if this would have amounted to an issue in the election or not.
If I were president I don't know how I would persuede a guy to put his disgrace off for a little while and then accept it , so as to preserve his credability as a posituve witness untill after an election.
This is so wierd that I expect a little more is hid, something worse , but maybe not.
Maybe this is just stirring up things because everyone involved is confused, there doesn't have to be a coverup or a conspiracy , if stupidity is availible as a simpler explanation.
Is stupidity availible as a complete explanation? Who then is stupid?
I don't know.
-
As for Clinton, no, he should not have resigned and should not have been impeached. The Republicans knew that they did not have the votes to depose him, and only wasted time and money and distracted everyone in DC from doing their proper jobs, like watching Al Qaeda.
And again, Clinton was not impeached for giving poor Monica a bone, he was impeached for lying about it, under oath, whch is perjury, which is a crime under federal statutes. Unfortunately, the impeachment trial took place in Congress, instead of a courtroom, where party loyalties were able to trump justice and the facts.
-
The Republicans KNEW they had no chance of actually removing Clinton from office, so it was just stupid of them to try.
-
I suppose there was some small hope the Democrats would vote for justice and not the party line. I think we know which side they came out on.
-
Lying about your sex life is NO BIG DEAL, it's like lying about your diet.
There was NO justification for the impeachment, NO justification for Starr to grill and threaten Lewinsky, NO justfication fore wasting millions on a useless pursuit that the Republicans KNEW would fail and only cripple the government and the country over lying about a blow job.
-
Lying about your sex life is NO BIG DEAL, it's like lying about your diet.
There was NO justification for the impeachment, NO justification for Starr to grill and threaten Lewinsky, NO justfication fore wasting millions on a useless pursuit that the Republicans KNEW would fail and only cripple the government and the country over lying about a blow job.
He was on trial for harrassment , and needed to lie to escape that accusation.
Do you believe that Junita Broudrick was not a victim of legitamate rape?
-
No, I do not.
I believe she and other women were simply after money.
Clinton was a great president, far better than any Bush or Reagan.
-
the coolaide runs thick in xo's bloodstream
-
Lying about your sex life is NO BIG DEAL, it's like lying about your diet.
There was NO justification for the impeachment, NO justification for Starr to grill and threaten Lewinsky, NO justfication fore wasting millions on a useless pursuit that the Republicans KNEW would fail and only cripple the government and the country over lying about a blow job.
The justification was that he lied under oath, which is perjury, which is a crime under federal statutes. Why do you Demcraps keep missing that?
-
No, I do not.
I believe she and other women were simply after money.
Clinton was a great president, far better than any Bush or Reagan.
What Money?
-
Monica did not confess willingly. Starr lied to her, telling her that she could be jailed if she did not confess.
The other women threatened to sue,and were paid off.
That money.
-
Oh, you mean the money they were due as plaintiffs !
Yes , but this does not even indicate that any of their storys were false.
-
I did not indicate that their stories were true, either.
The deal was, take this money and go away. They took the money, then they went away.
Clinton was not impeached for anything other than the Monica affair, so this is legally irrelevant.
As for Petraeus, it seems that he was simply fooling around. As he himself said, this was a dumb thing to do.
I think way too much has been said about Clinton, and therefore will not discuss it further.
-
Clinton was not impeached for anything other than the Monica affair...
I think way too much has been said about Clinton, and therefore will not discuss it further.
You would be wrong about th first part, as usual. He was impeached for perjury. But explaining that to you is like explaining things to Sirs. The only difference between you two is the flavor Kool-Aid you drink. That and he attempts to back up his positions with something other than bluster.
-
And in that case, you'd be wrong as well
-
I did not indicate that their stories were true, either.
The deal was, take this money and go away. They took the money, then they went away.
Clinton was not impeached for anything other than the Monica affair, so this is legally irrelevant.
As for Petraeus, it seems that he was simply fooling around. As he himself said, this was a dumb thing to do.
I think way too much has been said about Clinton, and therefore will not discuss it further.
Monica was only a witness, not a plaintiff.
All of your understanding is from Democratic hacks , so you have it all backwards.
Reverse it all, then you will have it right.
X-1
-
Approved Articles of Impeachment
Sunday, December 20, 1998
Following is the text of the two articles of impeachment passed by the House on December 19. Also see:
• The Impeachment Votes: House Roll Call
• The Articles Explained
• Text of Four Articles Passed by Judiciary Committee
1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Approved by House 228-206
Full Text
Explanation of Article I
3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.
Approved by House 221-212
Full Text
Explanation of Article III
Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article III
In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:
(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.
(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.
(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.
(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.
(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.
(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.
In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm)
-
Thanks!
That includes some detail I didn't know.
-
Here's some detail that H apparently doesn't know.....apparently he routinely ignores when sirs will frequently
- criticize republicans
- criticize Bush
- criticize politicians in general
- criticize DC
- criticize Government in general
- and so on
Yet, apparently sirs is just as equal in the coolaide factor as our hyper-partisan xo. Go figure. But I do thank H for recognizing my efforts to actually back up positions/claims made.
-
Ah, but I do notice when Sirs even more frequently
- posts pieces by partisan hacks who leave out facts and details that do not support their points of view
- posts pieces without verifying the facts himself first
- sees a main stream media conspiracy to hide or not report 'news', either
- as a lead item, because they don't deem it quite as newsworthy as he does
- as an item at all, because there is no story no matter what the partisan hacks say
That said, I do have to say I believe Sirs does try, and he does make an attempt to back his opinions up with something more than just rantings and ravings. I guess that's why I enjoy going back and forth with him, he makes an effort. XO is simply a lost cause, a wind up toy that can only repeat the same thing over and over, usually wrong; which, by the way, might explain why he can never cite a reference.
Oh, and, you're welcome.
-
8)
Thanks
I Still notice the effort at peddling "conspiracy", as it relates to MSM bias. Ummm....you do recognize what conspiracy refers to, correct? Of course you do, you're a smart fella. Which begs the question, why keep inferring that when I reference MSM bias, I'm pushing some massive conspiracy cover-up? Perhaps....and here's a thought, as its been suggested to me before....by, can't recall who it was....but before inaccurately assuming something of my "position", ask for clarification ;)
-
You certainly make it sound like some sort of conspiracy the way you describe it. (Paraphrasing here)
'You won't find this on the MSM...'
'The MSM won't make this their lead story...'
That, by the way, was what drew me back, the story about the militant group claiming responsibility about the Benghazi attack (leaving out that they shortly afterwards denied responsibility), and you're whining that none of the news services other than Faux News had the story as their lead. Sure, there may be bias, but to imply that every other news service - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, BBC, AP, UPI, Reuters, and so on - would pass up a story like that for anything other than being newsworthy, when normally they are scrambling all over each other to be the first to break a story like that, what else would anyone think? Yes, I am aware that conspiracy refers to two or more entities getting together to work toward some (usually nefarious) goal - is that not what you are implying, that members of the MSM are somehow working to keep unflattering news about Obama and his administration out of the press?
-
You certainly make it sound like some sort of conspiracy the way you describe it. (Paraphrasing here)
'You won't find this on the MSM...'
'The MSM won't make this their lead story...'
Yea....and? I'll assume you're trying to ask for clarification, masked as continued erroneous assmumption of my position. A conspiracy, along these lines, requires some measure of active communication, like from 1 network, to another.....from 1 reporter to another. If you'd been keeping track of the frequent references I make about MSM bias, is pretty similar to how Bernie Goldberg describes it. It's like a group think. When you're surrounded by folks that think the same things as you, regardless of how extreme or partisan it may be, you find yourself believing that its really "mainstream" thought, because......well because nearly everyone else around me is thinking the same way, so it must be perfectly reasonable
So, no, no conspiracy......what you have is a bunch of folks with a similar ideological mindset....GOP & conservatives largely bad greedy, selfish, uncaring, etc. Dems/progressives/liberals/moderates on the other hand, good intentions, with sometimes a need to push the envelope to achieve those good intentions. And stories/reporting/interviewing are largely going to "help that along". Favorable stories towards the former will be.....minimized. Stories that hurt them and improve the latter......maximized. And for heaven's sake, let's report the bare minimum that could hurt the latter
See...no conspiracy. You may now return to your regularly scheduled lizardmen
-
GOP & conservatives largely bad greedy, selfish, uncaring, etc. Dems/progressives/liberals/moderates on the other hand, good intentions, with sometimes a need to push the envelope to achieve those good intentions. And stories/reporting/interviewing are largely going to "help that along". Favorable stories towards the former will be.....minimized. Stories that hurt them and improve the latter......maximized. And for heaven's sake, let's report the bare minimum that could hurt the latter
Gee, sounds like Faux News in reverse...
-
Did I ever claim Fox was completely unbiased?? ok, let's take a head count on major news organizations....
leans right in their bias?....Fox and.....Washington Times I suppose. Could argue the WSJ
leans left in their bias?.....Pretty much every other news organization, both print and TV, both domestic and foreign
Starting to get my point, yet?
-
My point is, I don't rely exclusively, or even close to exclusively, on any of them. If I see a story that is unflattering to either side, I don't rush to post it, I take a look and see what the others are saying. As far as campaign claims and some other things, I'll fact check them at one or more of the independent fact check sites, or at Snopes.com, until I'm satisfied I have the full story, or as close to it as I can. Then there's thinking for myself; not looking at a story as something I can use to advance a candidate, or disparage another, but does the story make sense? Is this something worth getting all worked up over?
Let's take the St Lucie County vote tallies as an example. When I went to your original source, one thing I noticed was the other stories they linked to, and a quick glance showed many, if not most, were biased toward Republican candidates and agendas. That tipped me off that it was not an unbiased source. A quick search of the internet for other stories on the subject (I use Bing instead of Google) turned up the Snopes reference. I saw the explanation there, and a link to the .pdf file for the county's tally sheets, and checked it out. It fits. I was able to do all that in, I'd say, less than 15 minutes. That and common sense (if someone were trying to rig an election, why be so obvious about it? why hadn't any of the major news services, including Fox, picked up this story and run with it?) were pretty convincing. I notice the last question particularly rings true - why, days later, is this not front page news, or even buried on page 11?
I understand you don't like Obama, I do. I'm not thrilled with him either. I'm just suggesting maybe if you were a bit more objective and took the time to dig a bit deeper, you would be more likely to find the truth.
-
Lets get back to the real story.
As it stands now no one knows what happened here. However we do know that Petraeus is gone. The best guy for that job, at this moment, is gone and so we've all lost. The same thing happened with Gen. McChrystal. He was the best guy for that job and we lost him. Lets stop shooting ourselves in the foot here regarding our war against theses non-state terrorist actors shall we? Bad enough that BushliedandpeoplediedDickChenny wasted our troops, time, money, etc., in Iraq.
BSB
-
My point is, I don't rely exclusively, or even close to exclusively, on any of them.
Well, that's a good "point", but that wasn't your point. Your point was to try and erroneously paint me as some polar opposite of Xo, minus all facs the contrary, with my frequent criticisms of those on "my side", and to believe in some massive conspiracy between the MSM, based on nothing more than an erroneus conclusion you had whenever I happen to highlight MSM bias
I appreciate that you consider your self looking to all sources, and don't really have a side, but for those who do, that doesn't make them a defacto coolaide drinker, nor believing in lizardmen when hilighting obvious efforts of....x.....in this case MSM bias. It's merely pointing out facts, to which you can draw your own conclusions.
Ahh, I can see bsb's back to try and change the subject and goal into Bush bashing. This should be right up your alley ;) It is funny however, how he can throw out the lying word, time and time again, yet never really provide an example of any, be it Bush or myself. Imagine that
-
I guess I should do some Clinton bashing then 8)
I believe she and other women were simply after money.
Clinton was a great president, far better than any Bush or Reagan.
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc10503420121113080100.jpg)
-
I know I said it would be interesting to see how this plays out, but this just keeps getting more and more strange...
New twists in Petraeus case: Another general accused of ‘inappropriate’ emails, ‘shirtless’ FBI agent taken off probe
By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Lookout
It seemed the story behind Gen. David Petraeus' resignation as director of the CIA couldn't get stranger. New reports, however, now indicate that Marine Gen. John Allen, another well-respected, high-ranking general, might be involved in the growing scandal.
On the surface, the case so far involves the FBI; a slew of allegedly inappropriate emails (between Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell; Allen and socialite Jill Kelley; and allegedly threatening ones Broadwell sent to Kelley); the FBI agent who started the probe, who's now being investigated for sending "shirtless" photos to Kelley; and, as reported by the New York Post on Tuesday morning, a child custody battle involving Kelley's twin sister that allegedly concerns both Petraeus and Allen.
To help sort things out, here's a rundown of events, and where things currently stand.
Jill Kelley, a 37-year-old from Tampa, Fla., who organized local social events for the military as a volunteer, became friends with Petraeus and his family when he was stationed in Florida. Last spring, she began receiving harassing emails from an anonymous account and alerted a friend who worked for the FBI.
The FBI began an investigation, which eventually uncovered an affair between Petraeus and Broadwell, both of whom are married. The FBI believes Broadwell sent the harassing emails to Kelley because she perceived her to be a rival for Petraeus' affections.
The FBI found something else during the inquiry: 20,000 to 30,000 pages of emails and other communications between Kelley and Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan and a nominee to become the new NATO supreme allied commander for Europe.
A senior defense official has told the Washington Post that the emails were "potentially inappropriate." Other sources strongly denied to the Post that anything inappropriate ever happened between Allen and Kelley, but said that Allen may have used terms of endearment such as "sweetheart" to refer to Kelley in his emails to her. The source said Allen, who is married, is "embarrassed" by this, but did not have an affair with her. Allen also received an email from the same account that was harassing Kelley, though it's unclear what the email said.
Both Petraeus and Allen also wrote letters submitted to a court on behalf of Kelley's twin sister, who was locked in a nasty custody fight with the father of her 4-year-old child. The generals vouched for the sister's abilities as a mother, the Post reported.
The Tampa party planner, who is married and has three children, is also at the center of another bizarre twist in the case. The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday night that Kelley's FBI agent friend was taken off the Petraeus case and is currently being investigated because his superiors discovered that he sent "shirtless" photos to Kelley before the probe started. After the agent was removed from the case, the agent contacted Washington Rep. David Reichert to warn him that he thought FBI leaders would sweep the investigation under the rug.
Meanwhile, the Daily Beast, citing an anonymous source, reports that the harassing emails allegedly sent from Broadwell to Kelley did not say "stay away from my guy" as previously reported, and did not even directly reference Petraeus. The source described the tone of the emails as "more like, 'Who do you think you are? You parade around the base. You need to take it down a notch.'" The Wall Street Journal reported that one email, without elaborating, asked Kelley if her husband knew what she was doing. Another said the sender knew Kelley had touched "him," without specifying who the "him" was.
And, the Associated Press has uncovered the trick Broadwell and Petraeus used to email each other without creating an online trail. The pair set up anonymous email accounts and drafted emails to each other without ever pushing "send." Each one could log on to the other account and click the "drafts" folder to see if a message had been left for them. This avoids creating an easily traceable email trail, the AP reported.
One question the Daily Beast raised is why the FBI investigated the harassing emails sent to Kelley in the first place. There were no overt threats, such as "I'll kill you," in the emails, and some wonder if Kelley's friendship with the FBI agent may be why the agency investigated what seemed like a humdrum case better suited to local authorities.
Broadwell's father, for one, told the New York Daily News that he thinks the scandal is a smoke screen for a bigger story. "This is about something else entirely, and the truth will come out," Broadwell's father, Paul Krantz, told the Daily News. "There is a lot more that is going to come out."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/twists-petraeus-case-another-general-accused-inappropriate-emails-162656131.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/twists-petraeus-case-another-general-accused-inappropriate-emails-162656131.html)
-
"The pair set up anonymous email accounts and drafted emails to each other without ever pushing "send." Each one could log on to the other account and click the "drafts" folder to see if a message had been left for them. This avoids creating an easily traceable email trail, ......"
I like it.
BSB
-
I know I said it would be interesting to see how this plays out,
but this just keeps getting more and more strange...
It does indeed.
and you would think they would have let it simmer just a few more days
but this huge story comes out just a few days after the election....total coincidence!
but who knows it could be they had no choice but to spill the beans
because Petraeus was about to go before the committee
and Hillary is too busy travelling to testify?.....LOL
something is up.....and it smells
there are headlines that claim there is an even bigger story behind this
my gut is starting to tell me...
as more women get involved is that this is espionage against us
never underestimate the power of sex.....to get things people want
this is a damn shame for our country
-
Because this is so much more important to talk about than a Dead Ambassador and the denial for requested added security, or help during the slaughter. President Obama thanks you for your service & sacrifice
-
How could this be a "bigger story"?
Petraeus was indiscreet, the CIA was unprepared to predict an attack in Libya several people got killed.
There were rumors that the consulate was holding some suspected terrorists in or near the consulate.
It is not a big story, and the President is clearly not to blame.
-
How could this be a "bigger story"?
There could be a bigger story in about a million ways.
We'll see if the truth gets out about this tragedy.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/Fast_zps38f444da.jpg)
-
As a possibility , this could be a distraction , dust in our eyes and a flourish made with the free hand.
While something worse is getting pushed out of sight.
Or as another possibility , stupid happens to smart people sometimes, even in groups of well educated and responsible sorts.
-
There were rumors that the consulate was holding some suspected terrorists in or near the consulate.
Perhaps that is the bigger story after all. The use of secret prisons in the Obama Administration.
-
As I understand it so far, the only one who has said the CIA was holding prisoners was Broadwell, and that in a speech or something somewhere. The CIA denies it, there has been no other mention of them, and the CIA has long been banned from keeping prisoners, due to the past allegations of them shuffling prisoners all over to secret detention facilities, turning them over to foreign intelligence services for interrogation, etc.
-
It wouldn't surprise me if they were holding prisoners. It's not like the CIA is known for explicitly following the laws of the US or their host countries.
-
I woulden't be surprised either, but so far Broadwell is the only one making the claim.
-
I would be surprised.
That would have been a woefully undermanned Prison.
-
I would be surprised.
That would have been a woefully undermanned Prison.
I dunno . What is the usual ratio of staff to inmates?
-
Hmmmm
Says here both Broadwell and Reile Hunter (of John Edwards fame) lived in the same neighborhood.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/11/13/for-charlotte-neighbors-paula-broadwell-and-rielle-hunter-the-spotlights-intense/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/11/13/for-charlotte-neighbors-paula-broadwell-and-rielle-hunter-the-spotlights-intense/)
-
It makes sense to wait for all the dirty laundry to come out.
It does seem that Petraeus will have to give up his presidential ambitions he might have harbored.
He is a very smart fellow, but again, a powerful God is the Great God Horn.
Has anyone ever pointed out that two heads might not be better than one? Especially since the smaller head is obsessed with just the one thought.
-
I figured this was why they were searching Broadwell's home...
Petraeus Scandal: Paula Broadwell in Classified Document Probe
By PIERRE THOMAS | ABC OTUS News
Paula Broadwell, the author who allegedly had an affair with former CIA Director David Petraeus, is suspected of storing significant amounts of military documents, including classified material, at her home, potentially in violation of federal law.
A source familiar with case told ABC News that Broadwell admitted to the FBI she took the documents from secure government buildings. The government demanded that they all be given back, and when federal agents descended on her North Carolina home on Monday night it was a pre-arranged meeting.
Prosecutors are now determining whether to charge Broadwell with a crime, and this morning the FBI and military are poring over the material. The 40-year-old author, who wrote the biography on Gen. Petraeus "All In," is cooperating and the case, which is complicated by the fact that as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Military Reserve she had security clearance to review the documents.
The FBI found classified material on a computer voluntarily handed over by Broadwell earlier in the investigation. Prosecutors will now have to determine how important the classified material is before making a final decision. Authorities could decide to seek disciplinary action against her rather than pursue charges.
Senior FBI officials are expected to brief the House and Senate Intelligence Committees today on their handling of the Petraeus investigation. The officials are expected to lay out how the case was developed and argue that there were no politics involved.
The case is so critical that FBI Director Robert Mueller may attend to defend the bureau, ABC News has learned. Members of Congress have been angry that they were not informed about the case before the story was reported by the media, but FBI officials maintain that their guidelines forbid them from discussing ongoing criminal cases.
This summer, Florida socialite and "honorary ambassador" to the military Jill Kelley received anonymous emails accusing her of flaunting a friendly relationship with military brass in Tampa. Kelley then called the FBI, which traced those emails back to Broadwell's computer. Investigators are said to have then found emails in Broadwell's inbox that pointed to an intimate affair with Petraeus, who on Friday admitted to the affair and announced his resignation as CIA director.
The FBI has now uncovered "potentially inappropriate" emails between Gen. John Allen, the commander of American forces in Afghanistan, and Kelley, according to a senior U.S. defense official who is traveling with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. The department is reviewing between 20,000 and 30,000 documents connected to this matter, the official said. The email exchanges between Kelley and Allen took place from 2010 to 2012.
The U.S. official said the emails were "innocuous" and mostly about upcoming dinner parties and seeing him on TV. Allen denies he was involved in an affair, a Pentagon official said. An intermediary for Allen told ABC News that Allen and his wife are friends with Kelley and her husband and most of the emails were sent from Kelley to Allen's wife. A U.S. official said Allen may have triggered the investigation when he got an anonymous email a few months ago that was traced to Broadwell. The email had a "Kelley Patrol" return address or subject line and painted Kelley as a seductress, which Allen found alarming and mentioned to Kelley in a subsequent email, the official said.
The official described Kelley as a "nice, bored rich socialite who drops the honorary from her title... and tells people she is an ambassador. She gets herself in anything related to Centcom and all the senior people and has been for years."
Panetta cautioned that "no one should leap to any conclusions" about allegations against Allen over the investigation.
Panetta said he supports Allen, who has been in command in Kabul since July 2011. He took over that summer for Petraeus, who retired from the Army to take over as the head of the CIA.
"He certainly has my continued confidence to lead our forces and to continue the fight," Panetta said at a news conference in Perth, Australia, Wednesday.
Panetta declined to explain the nature of Allen's correspondence with Kelley, connected to the scandal that led to Petraeus' resignation last week as director of the CIA.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who appeared with Panetta, declined to comment on the Allen case, but insured the scandal has not harmed the war effort.
"There has been a lot of conversation, as you might expect, but no concern whatsoever being expressed to us because the mission has been set forth and it's being carried out," Clinton said.
Allen had been nominated as the next commander of U.S. European Command and the commander of NATO forces in Europe, and despite President Obama's backing, the nomination has been put on hold. The change of command at NATO is currently slated to not take place until March at the earliest.
Allen was supposed to appear before a Senate confirmation hearing this Thursday alongside his designated replacement, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford. Panetta said that while the matter is being investigated by the Defense Department IG, Allen will remain in his post as commander of the International Security Assistance Force, based in Kabul.
http://gma.yahoo.com/broadwell-classified-document-probe-114054139.html (http://gma.yahoo.com/broadwell-classified-document-probe-114054139.html)
-
At this point I am thinking that Kelley is a species of asshole.
-
He is a very smart fellow, but again, a powerful God is the Great God Horn.
Has anyone ever pointed out that two heads might not be better than one? Especially since the smaller head is obsessed with just the one thought.
Interesting way of describing Clinton
-
How clever!
sirs uses a variation of the "I know what you are,but what am I?" gambit.
Am I supposed to admire this?
Really?
-
Naaaa....just grasp the irony
-
The Irony is out there.