Obama administration determined to stop Petraeus testimony on Benghazi attack.

[davekc]

When you think one thing but say another, that's a slippery slope right there.

Certainly does explain alot though.

 

[Pilgrim]

Sheldon Richman??? who is he?? whats his agenda??? the future of freedom foundation?? really and what is this groups agenda??? So only the word of this person of what he claims ?? and then there is RLents agenda

Who is Sheldon Richman? Sheldon Richman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is his agenda? Left-Libertarianism
"can refer generally to three related and overlapping schools of thought:

• Anti-authoritarian, anti-propertarian varieties of left-wing politics, and in particular of the socialist movement.
• The Steiner–Vallentyne school, whose proponents draw radical conclusions from classical liberal or market liberal premises — either emphasizing links between self-ownership and egalitarianism. The term in this sense can also be seen as referring more broadly to political philosophies in the liberal tradition which embrace egalitarian views concerning natural resources, holding that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of such resources to the detriment of others. In this sense, the work of David Ellerman can also be seen as left-libertarian.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]
• "Left-wing market anarchism", which stresses the socially transformative potential of non-aggression and free markets."

Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without a doubt, someone uniquely qualified to evaluate a soldier like David Petraeus.

 

[RLENT]

I don't think your hypothesis really fits regarding Petreaus and Broadwell.

Of course you don't

As you stated, your son dumped the needy, clingy girl in about a week. He wanted nothing to do with her.

My son is my son ... and was a 15 year-old kid at the time ...

He was not a 60 year-old married man named David Petraeus involved with a 40 year-old married woman in an illicit affair ...

I offered the anecdote because there are possible parallels and similarities ... not because they were necessarily identical.

While their may be some similarities in terms of the dynamics of the relationships, to assume that they would necessarily be identical in all aspects is utterly simplistic ... and quite foolish.

But hey ... simple minds probably think ... simplistically ...

Petreaus had this relationship with Broadwell for about a year,

Actually, if the affair began around November '11, it may have been essentially over by May '12 (or earlier) - that would make it about 6 months ... or less ...

and there are reports that it might have been longer extending to when he was in the military.

There are also reports that Obama got 108% of the vote in Woods County Ohio ...

What specifics do these "reports" offer as evidence that it might have been longer ?

Who are they from ?

The Rumor Mill isn't necessarily fact.

Broadwell appears to be a little unhinged, but most people who get involved with someone like that would end it quite quickly like your son did.

Assumes that it was obvious from the outset.

Many, many people act quite normally until some thing (event, circumstances, etc.) causes them to go off the deep end ... or to at least start to dangle a foot out in the aether ...

I'd venture to say that there are a few folks on this very board that probably appear normal and sane to most folks they interact with on a daily basis ... that doesn't mean that they don't have "stuff going on" underneath the surface just waiting to bubble up and spill over ...

My guess is that Petreaus knew early on about Broadwell's emotional state and her needy tendencies, but learned how to deal with it.

Based on what evidence ?

Or is this just more crap you're pulling out of your *** ?

AGAIN look at the timeline. They end the relationship in July.

Supposedly in July - but as I stated before, the relationship may have actually ended earlier - perhaps much earlier - something had set Broadwell off ... and caused her to send the emails to Kelly.

That is missing or omitted data - an unknown motivation.

You have offered no explanation as to what would have motivated Broadwell's conduct, in terms of sending the emails.

The same month as the investigation starts. Just too much of a coincidence to ignore.

I'm not suggesting that it should be ignored - just that it should be not assumed to be conclusive of anything. Coincidences do happen.

To assume that it is somehow conclusive - without any other supporting evidence - is fallacious.

As soon as he gets wind of the investigation he decides to shut it down, with perhaps some prodding from the FBI. The end result though is THEY end the relationship. I will agree with your statemant though, about Petreaus becoming aware of "potential downsides" of the relationship. He Became fully aware of that when the FBI came knocking on his door sometime in JULY.

You really wanna go with that ... and step all the way out on that limb ?

From five hours ago:

"Oct. 26 — The FBI conducts its first and only interview of Petraeus, during which he acknowledges the affair. Petraeus is questioned about the classified documents in Broadwell's possession and denies giving her any classified documents."

Additionally, the timeline details a number of things: 1. the original emails (sent in May) that Broadwell sent (to Kelly) initially mention Allen and other generals - not Petraeus - who's name doesn't come up until sometime in (early) June, when it is mentioned in one email ... 2. sometime in "late summer" emails between Petraeus and Broadwell that the Febbies are looking at lead them to believe that the two are having an affair ... 3. the first interview (of two) with Broadwell isn't even done until late September ...

Your view that Petraeus necessarily would have been contacted near the onset of the investigation speaks of extreme naivete with respect to law enforcement ... and particularly law enforcement at the federal level.

Quite frequently (but not always) people who are either the subjects of an investigation, or even just tangentially involved, are not contacted at the outset - they are surveilled and observed.

That can happen directly, indirectly, remotely, telephonically, or electronically ... or some combination thereof.

I would say that is likely to be the case in this instance - particularly when you have investigators looking at something, the exact nature of which they are not entirely sure of, and which may not have been readily apparent at the outset.

IOW, until one has some basic understanding of the nature of what one is looking at, you don't start running around acting like the Keystone Kops ... or acting in some other silly manner as portrayed on whatever piece of TV-land make believe you have recently viewed ..

It is quite easily to look at something in hindsight, with later facts available by which to evaluate earlier events ... and then say this or that ... it's where you get incredibly dumb*** comments like:

"Really just common sense ..."

While I certainly appreciate your attempt to introduce of the drama of "they must have contacted Petraeus early because it involves national security" .... and appreciate the humor that it provides ... it's hard not to see it for exactly what it is - a lower, somewhat more subtle harmonic of the hysteria that certain folks often employ as a substitute for critical thinking ...

It's a very simplistic view of the matter ...

The fact may very well be that because it potentially involved national security - and because it touched Petraeus - that they didn't contact him until they had a handle on it and largely had a good idea of what they were dealing with ...

AP: Timeline of events in generals scandal

 

[RLENT]

Who is Sheldon Richman?

Yup ... that's him ...

What is his agenda?

That's something that might be accurately judged from reading Mr. Richman's writings ... rather than relying on someone whose own integrity in regards to presenting the truth is highly questionable at best, given a history and propensity to cherry-pick and selectively edit what they present in order to forward a skewed picture ...

Without a doubt, someone uniquely qualified to evaluate a soldier like David Petraeus.

Well, I'd imagine that some folks probably see the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS as eminently qualified ... being the good military folk that they were ...

Of course, we all know how that ended up ...

Given that Mr. Richman has not willingly sacrificed his own humanity at the behest of the state, and thus devolved into something inherently subhuman, I'd say that he is at least qualified to judge on matters that relate to genocide, human rights, and violations thereof ...

One only needs to be still in possession of one's humanity and have a decent understanding of the laws of war, the Geneva Conventions, and international humanitarian law, to be able evaluate the conduct of soldiers.

Some however ... being the rather vile, bloodthirsty fellows that they are ... would much prefer that only butchers be allowed to judge fellow butchers ...

Fortunately, in the real world ... unlike in goose-stepper fantasy land ... that is not the way that it works

 

[RLENT]

I don't think your hypothesis really fits regarding Petreaus and Broadwell. As you stated, your son dumped the needy, clingy girl in about a week. He wanted nothing to do with her. Petreaus had this relationship with Broadwell for about a year, and there are reports that it might have been longer extending to when he was in the military. Broadwell appears to be a little unhinged, but most people who get involved with someone like that would end it quite quickly like your son did. My guess is that Petreaus knew early on about Broadwell's emotional state and her needy tendencies,but learned how to deal with it.

I just want to elaborate a little more on my previous comments in regard to the above and add a few thoughts.

I really have no idea what your particular level of experience is, with respect to relationships with members of the opposite sex.

I can only offer the following observations and thoughts based on my own experiences in the area. Typically what I've found to be true is that some very young women tend to be somewhat insecure and hence needy, clingy, or controlling - this is not necessarily generally true for all young women - but it is certainly true for some.

As the young women mentioned above age, several things may happen - in some instances, they gain experience (in Life generally) and become more independent and self-assured ...

In other instances, they gain experience and do not (become more independent and self-assured) ... what that experience does teach them though, is that to overtly appear and act in a needy, clingy, and controlling manner is real good way to drive off a potential partner (or victim ... depending on how you see it )

So life teaches that such things have to be suppressed, controlled, and hidden as much as practicably possible.

Generally speaking, the same traits in an experienced and worldly 40 year-old married mother of two might tend to be far more subtle and subdued ... than they are in a 15 year-old young lady, looking at what may be her first serious relationship, while heading out for her first formal ...

At least initially.

To believe these two creatures are the same animal - and that the former is exactly the same as the latter - is setting oneself up for what might be some startling surprises and revelations ... ones that may not appear until one is well down that road ...

 

[RLENT]

When you think one thing but say another, that's a slippery slope right there.

That assumes that what you say conflicts with what you think (or vice-versa)

It could be the case, that what one says is merely a subset of what one actually thinks.

In that case there may be no slippery slope ... it may merely be a reservation of some portion of one's private thoughts from public display ...

In any event, I don't know that acceptance at face value of Mr. Corfman's characterizations of what I said (or certainly of what I thought) would necessarily be a wise course of action ... given his previously demonstrated inclination to put things there that don't actually exist in fact, and then say that they actually do ...

 

[RLENT]

Certainly does explain alot though.

Only to those that may - at least in some matters - suffer from a lack of imagination

Funny that - sometimes folks have overly active imaginations (with respect to things where they probably shouldn't have) ... and at the same time suffer from a lack of imagination (in instances where a little imagination might actually be of great use)

 

[RLENT]

Here's a good example the chuckleheaded disingenuousness, lack of candor and honesty that I commented on earlier:

Someone selectively quotes some portion of a Wikipedia article on "Left-Libertarianism" to "characterize" a particular individual's (Sheldon Richman) "agenda", quoting a bunch of stuff about particular form or flavor of "Left-Libertarianism - stuff which is not actually written by the particular individual in question ... and then they leave out the following, which is actually part of the exact section of the very article that they quoted:

"According to libertarian scholar Sheldon Richman:


Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis bosses, support poor people’s squatting on government or abandoned property, and prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised. They see Walmart as a symbol of corporate favoritism—supported by highway subsidies and eminent domain—view the fictive personhood of the limited-liability corporation with suspicion, and doubt that Third World sweatshops would be the “best alternative” in the absence of government manipulation. Left-libertarians tend to eschew electoral politics, having little confidence in strategies that work through the government. They prefer to develop alternative institutions and methods of working around the state."

Crooks and liars ... ya just got to love 'em ...

 

[davekc]

Only to those that may - at least in some matters - suffer from a lack of imagination

Funny that - sometimes folks have overly active imaginations (with respect to things where they probably shouldn't have) ... and at the same time suffer from a lack of imagination (in instances where a little imagination might actually be of great use)

Sooo....folks have to use their imaginations when reading your posts to determine whether you are presenting something you might or might not believe?
In the future you may want to include a disclaimer for members that "lack imagination" so they can tell whether you believe what you are posting.
Being a mind reader shouldn't be a prerequisite.

That assumes that what you say conflicts with what you think (or vice-versa)

It could be the case, that what one says is merely a subset of what one actually thinks.

In that case there may be no slippery slope ... it may merely be a reservation of some portion of one's private thoughts from public display ...

In any event, I don't know that acceptance at face value of Mr. Corfman's characterizations of what I said (or certainly of what I thought) would necessarily be a wise course of action ... given his previously demonstrated inclination to put things there that don't actually exist in fact, and then say that they actually do ...

You said for months that Ron Paul was going to be the Republican nominee and now we are to believe you meant something else. Some subsets of thoughts. Maybe even a little slippery.
But still pretty funny. Have to give you credit though for trying to back out of a previous ridiculous statement. However, if you "merely" had a reservation with your private thoughts, you possibly & likely agreed with my statements at the time. That is encouraging.

 

[muttly]

I just want to elaborate a little more on my previous comments in regard to the above and add a few thoughts.

I really have no idea what your particular level of experience is, with respect to relationships with members of the opposite sex.

I can only offer the following observations and thoughts based on my own experiences in the area. Typically what I've found to be true is that some very young women tend to be somewhat insecure and hence needy, clingy, or controlling - this is not necessarily generally true for all young women - but it is certainly true for some.

As the young women mentioned above age, several things may happen - in some instances, they gain experience (in Life generally) and become more independent and self-assured ...

In other instances, they gain experience and do not (become more independent and self-assured) ... what that experience does teach them though, is that to overtly appear and act in a needy, clingy, and controlling manner is real good way to drive off a potential partner (or victim ... depending on how you see it )

So life teaches that such things have to be suppressed, controlled, and hidden as much as practicably possible.

Generally speaking, the same traits in an experienced and worldly 40 year-old married mother of two might tend to be far more subtle and subdued ... than they are in a 15 year-old young lady, looking at what may be her first serious relationship, while heading out for her first formal ...

At least initially.

To believe these two creatures are the same animal - and that the former is exactly the same as the latter - is setting oneself up for what might be some startling surprises and revelations ... ones that may not appear until one is well down that road ...

While I agree this is true, I don't think it was the "catalyst" for their breakup. So naaah I'm not buying it. What it was is Petreaus finding out about the FBI investigation and realizing that if he didn't put a quash to it,the affair would become public and jeopardize his career. The time line sticks out too much . They break up at the same time as the investigation starts. One way to find out for sure though is to release the e-mails.( I know they are probably classified) There will be tell tale signs in them. If he is still e-mailing her using terms like smoochy and sugar cakes in July than the FBI investigation was his epipheny to shut it down.