If Obama wanted to keep Petraeus on board, he would have done so. Extramarital affairs are typically inconsequential in the Democrat Party. If Obama wished to keep Petraeus, Petraeus could have held a news conference and come clean about his affair, negating the prospect of blackmail. Politicians do this regularly. The US Congress wants to have testimony from Petraeus about Benghazi. That's the crux of the matter.
Obama administration determined to stop Petraeus testimony on Benghazi attack.
- Thread starter aristotle
- Start date
Aristotle: if the guilty party were on the D side, any suggestion of handling it without public humiliation would be greeted with howls of protest - or laughter.
The General should have considered the potential for humiliating himself and his family before he acted - no sympathy here.
If he has pertinent info for Congress regarding the embassy, they can get it - and I hope they do.
The General should have considered the potential for humiliating himself and his family before he acted - no sympathy here.
If he has pertinent info for Congress regarding the embassy, they can get it - and I hope they do.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
How - by offering Petraeus his own personal staff fluffer ?
If King David don't wanna hang, he don't wanna hang ...
Last edited:
How about some transparency from the Obama administration? That would be refreshing. Does it bother any Obama supporters that this resignation was held back until after the election in order to not harm Obama's electoral chances? What did Obama know and when did he know it?
Guilt might reside with President Obama if he kept a lid on this story until after the election.
I don't know if the resignation was held until after the election, [haven't been following it, sex scandals don't interest me that much], do you know whether it was?
As for your contention that "extramarital affairs are typically inconsequential in the Democrat party", here's a half dozen Democrats who'd disagree: Rep Anthony Weiner, Governor Elliot Spitzer, US Rep David Wu, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Senator John Edwards, - and President Bill Clinton, all of whom blew their political career for sex related offenses.
Stupid, stupid men, sigh.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Notice how he avoided answering your question (which was not rhetorical)
Also notice how he failed to address your refutation of his previous assertion above
Looks like 0 and 2 to me ...
Yup - pretty much.
I don't know if the resignation was held until after the election, [haven't been following it, sex scandals don't interest me that much], do you know whether it was?
As for your contention that "extramarital affairs are typically inconsequential in the Democrat party", here's a half dozen Democrats who'd disagree: Rep Anthony Weiner, Governor Elliot Spitzer, US Rep David Wu, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Senator John Edwards, - and President Bill Clinton, all of whom blew their political career for sex related offenses.
Stupid, stupid men, sigh.
It's been reported that Obama didn't learn about Petreaus until AFTER the election. The FBI investigated this supposedly for four months. Let me ask you this. Isn't it incredulous that Obama didn't know about an investigation involving his CIA director for four months? Yes or no?
Because he is not. I know he likes to lie, but probably thinks it is better to say nothing at all.
It's been reported that he was asked to resign. How forcefully he was asked I'm not sure. Why ask him to resign before his testimony? Good question. Many people would like to know. To answer your first question: politics.
Last edited:
It would be, if it were true, which it ain't. Even I know the FBI wasn't investigating Petraeous, but "threatening emails" between other people, and one of them was the biographer woman, which led them to the affair. Four months ago, he wasn't remotely involved, much less under investigation.
I'm all for crucifying bad people, but I kind of like to make sure they're guilty first - it's a character flaw, I guess.
The Director of the CIA serves at the pleasure of the President. That's why Petraeus tendered his resignation directly to Obama. Being asked to resign, at that level, is equivalent to a forced resignation. The whole matter has been handled in a crude and ugly manner. I ask again, why doesn't Barack Obama want Petraeus to testify about Benghazi before Congress?
It would be, if it were true, which it ain't. Even I know the FBI wasn't investigating Petraeous, but "threatening emails" between other people, and one of them was the biographer woman, which led them to the affair. Four months ago, he wasn't remotely involved, much less under investigation.
I'm all for crucifying bad people, but I kind of like to make sure they're guilty first - it's a character flaw, I guess.
And you think it took how long from the beginning of the investigation before they learn it involved Petreaus? Not long. So the FBI is investigating this and discover it involves Petreaus. How long before the FBI should wait before notifying the President of a possible security breach? Should it be right away or after the election?
I agree. They asked him to resign so at that point he's done. He doesn't want him to testify for fear of what he might say.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I've seen mention of "several months" ...
"A federal law enforcement official told USA TODAY that the investigation, which began months ago, is largely complete and that a decision on possible charges would be up to prosecutors."
But several or four is largely irrelevant ... until one knows the sequence of exactly when each particular bit of data in the investigation was acquired ...
I've also pointed out I believe that the initial focus of the investigation was not on Petraeus ... but some woman who was sending harassing emails to another ... and the affair with Broadwell came up somewhere in the course of the investigation ...
"During the investigation, which began months ago, authorities allegedly learned of a relationship between Broadwell and the CIA director, said the official, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to comment publicly."
And it seems I recall seeing some reporting that the first time the FBI talked to him was just a few weeks ago ...
"Although the official said there was no evidence of a breach, authorities discussed the inquiry and the findings with Petraeus "a couple of weeks ago.''
Petraeus investigation triggered by e-mail threats
Let me ask you this:
Can you even read and comprehend what the words actually mean ?
Can you point to any legitimate news organization which has sources alleging that it was known in the investigation that Petraeus was somehow involved four months ago ?
Or is this just another one of them deals where you pulled something out of your *** ?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Reported by who ... where ?
Almost all of the entirety of reporting I've read (and it ain't insignificant) has Clapper suggesting that he ought to resign ... (not asking)
No kidding you don't know ...
See if you can come up with a possible answer and share with it us ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Heheheh ... you just can't let it go ... what a crack up ...
332 vs. 206 ...
Let me ask you a question: Do you think that FBI or CIA or DoD should inundate the Chief Executive with all possible "security breaches", threats, or other dire matters of national security ... before they make some effort to ascertain whether there is actually a real problem ?
Last edited: