Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    Thhe facts are neither Congress nor the President were briefed on the investigation until last week.  This bit of information came out today.  Their is no conspiracy, the FBI found out about the affair because a third person filed a complaint against the woman who was involved with Patreus.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    Just wingnuts searching for an impeachment wedge.

    Give it up already, you anti-american freaks.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thhe facts are neither Congress nor the President were briefed on the investigation until last week.  This bit of information came out today.  Their is no conspiracy, the FBI found out about the affair because a third person filed a complaint against the woman who was involved with Patreus.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure, if you say so.  And, I guess I should believe you because the press has really held Obama's feet to the fire over the last year.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Just wingnuts searching for an impeachment wedge.

    Give it up already, you anti-american freaks.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    impeachment?  Who's talking about impeachment?

    Give it up, you Obama-worshiper.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "You can argue he's reluctant to say "terrorist", but you can't argue he's spinning the spontaneous youtube protest story."

     

    Agreed.  So why would he continue (after the 12th and for many weeks and appearences) to blame the video? Rice said it 5 times on 5 different shows.  Hillary contiued to say it and so did Jay Carney.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think we have very different views on the attack:

    You believe this was an attack that was planned by a specific group or terrorist cell.  It was planned for weeks, months or years.  There are elements of Al Qaeda involved, and the purpose was to strike us on 9/11 in revenge for killing bin Laden, and as a reminder that Al Qaeda and terrorism are still alive in the region.

    I believe that in the most dangerous part of Libya, in the aftermath of the toppling of a dictator, this attack was planned in a matter of hours, and was fueled by anger throughout the region over the youtube video.  It had nothing to do with bin Laden, and was carried out by militants with ties or relations to many terrorist groups, but not a single terrorist group with a specific agenda.  At the scene of the attack were militants, protestors and Libyan citizens, and sometimes it was difficult to tell them apart.

    If you're right, I can understand why you would want a stronger response from the administration.  If I'm right, it makes sense to connect the youtube video to any reference to Benghazi.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ansar al Sharia and al Qaeda.  This is well known.  This was a coordinated, calculated, attack on what should be the most "high alert" day of the year for any/every American in the world.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it's not well known at all.  It's not even clear what Ansar al Sharia is - is it a terrorist organization, or just a blanket term used to describe several militant Libyan factions?  If it's a terrorist organization, it's certainly not a global one like Al Qaeda - it doesn't seem to have any interest outside of Libya and it wasn't around even when bin Laden was killled, let alone when the original 9/11 attacks occurred.  

    So if it's Ansar al Sharia, that supports my version of events (and explains Obama's reluctance to label the attackers "terrorist").  If it's Al Qaeda, that supports your version of events.

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "You can argue he's reluctant to say "terrorist", but you can't argue he's spinning the spontaneous youtube protest story."

     

    Agreed.  So why would he continue (after the 12th and for many weeks and appearences) to blame the video? Rice said it 5 times on 5 different shows.  Hillary contiued to say it and so did Jay Carney.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think we have very different views on the attack:

    You believe this was an attack that was planned by a specific group or terrorist cell.  It was planned for weeks, months or years.  There are elements of Al Qaeda involved, and the purpose was to strike us on 9/11 in revenge for killing bin Laden, and as a reminder that Al Qaeda and terrorism are still alive in the region.

    I believe that in the most dangerous part of Libya, in the aftermath of the toppling of a dictator, this attack was planned in a matter of hours, and was fueled by anger throughout the region over the youtube video.  It had nothing to do with bin Laden, and was carried out by militants with ties or relations to many terrorist groups, but not a single terrorist group with a specific agenda.  At the scene of the attack were militants, protestors and Libyan citizens, and sometimes it was difficult to tell them apart.

    If you're right, I can understand why you would want a stronger response from the administration.  If I'm right, it makes sense to connect the youtube video to any reference to Benghazi.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ansar al Sharia and al Qaeda.  This is well known.  This was a coordinated, calculated, attack on what should be the most "high alert" day of the year for any/every American in the world.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it's not well known at all.  It's not even clear what Ansar al Sharia is - is it a terrorist organization, or just a blanket term used to describe several militant Libyan factions?  If it's a terrorist organization, it's certainly not a global one like Al Qaeda - it doesn't seem to have any interest outside of Libya and it wasn't around even when bin Laden was killled, let alone when the original 9/11 attacks occurred.  

    So if it's Ansar al Sharia, that supports my version of events (and explains Obama's reluctance to label the attackers "terrorist").  If it's Al Qaeda, that supports your version of events.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Now you are just being silly.

    Do you know how many views that video got prior to the attack?  The muslim world up in arms?  All 700 of them?

    As far as Ansa al Sharia:   Braodening the point:  What OBam did, perhaps as an unintended consequence, is to eliminate a tyrant that was more or less under control (he had given up the nuke program under Bush, for example), and replaced it with a regime that raised the al queda flag above its government building THE VERY FIRST DAY.

    So, tell me.  From a perspective of U.S. interests, how is this in our interests, and don't you  think the larger point is that Obama's foreign policy, which I will refrain from calling bizzare, is actually undermining our interests in the area, as the terrorist attack in Bengazi?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see that 0bama's promise of transparency will carry on into his second term.

     

    Hey Reuben, the LWNJ'S are the ones with paranoid conspiracies...i.e. September 11th, 2001.

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny guy.  Truthers are just plain nut jobs and they are on the fringe left and right.  But it is common conservative fare to complain about the media conspiracy, the global warming conspiracy, the birther conspiracy, the gay agenda conpiracy, the creeping socialism/communism conspiracy...  You really should pay attention to what you are following: a (real) conspiracy of ideology and anti-intellectualism.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thhe facts are neither Congress nor the President were briefed on the investigation until last week.  This bit of information came out today.  Their is no conspiracy, the FBI found out about the affair because a third person filed a complaint against the woman who was involved with Patreus.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Sure best not use actual facts to establish a theory.  Just ideology and hatred of all things liberal is more than enough.  Just repeat your conclusion over and over and ignore the fact that it is based on rumor, conjecture and prejudice.  It workd for you.  But thnking people demand a little bit more.  Just a little bit.  Like thinking...

    Sure, if you say so.  And, I guess I should believe you because the press has really held Obama's feet to the fire over the last year.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see that 0bama's promise of transparency will carry on into his second term.

     

    Hey Reuben, the LWNJ'S are the ones with paranoid conspiracies...i.e. September 11th, 2001.

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny guy.  Truthers are just plain nut jobs and they are on the fringe left and right.  But it is common conservative fare to complain about the media conspiracy, the global warming conspiracy, the birther conspiracy, the gay agenda conpiracy, the creeping socialism/communism conspiracy...  You really should pay attention to what you are following: a (real) conspiracy of ideology and anti-intellectualism.

    [/QUOTE]

    just like the left tags every conservative as racist, uncaring, and stupid.

    we each have our labels, do we not?

    Dollars to donuts your response is something like " Well, yah, but moine are accurate!"

    BTW:  How could you not say the media is in OBama's pocket?  Have you not considered the "news" since his election?  Seems like an awful lot of things not said, hit the cutting room floor, that favored Obama. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thhe facts are neither Congress nor the President were briefed on the investigation until last week.  This bit of information came out today.  Their is no conspiracy, the FBI found out about the affair because a third person filed a complaint against the woman who was involved with Patreus.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sure.  That makes sense.  The head of the CIA is potentially compromised, and the FBI keeps the president in the dark for a year.

    Do you really think that is likely? 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "You can argue he's reluctant to say "terrorist", but you can't argue he's spinning the spontaneous youtube protest story."

     

    Agreed.  So why would he continue (after the 12th and for many weeks and appearences) to blame the video? Rice said it 5 times on 5 different shows.  Hillary contiued to say it and so did Jay Carney.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think we have very different views on the attack:

    You believe this was an attack that was planned by a specific group or terrorist cell.  It was planned for weeks, months or years.  There are elements of Al Qaeda involved, and the purpose was to strike us on 9/11 in revenge for killing bin Laden, and as a reminder that Al Qaeda and terrorism are still alive in the region.

    I believe that in the most dangerous part of Libya, in the aftermath of the toppling of a dictator, this attack was planned in a matter of hours, and was fueled by anger throughout the region over the youtube video.  It had nothing to do with bin Laden, and was carried out by militants with ties or relations to many terrorist groups, but not a single terrorist group with a specific agenda.  At the scene of the attack were militants, protestors and Libyan citizens, and sometimes it was difficult to tell them apart.

    If you're right, I can understand why you would want a stronger response from the administration.  If I'm right, it makes sense to connect the youtube video to any reference to Benghazi.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ansar al Sharia and al Qaeda.  This is well known.  This was a coordinated, calculated, attack on what should be the most "high alert" day of the year for any/every American in the world.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it's not well known at all.  It's not even clear what Ansar al Sharia is - is it a terrorist organization, or just a blanket term used to describe several militant Libyan factions?  If it's a terrorist organization, it's certainly not a global one like Al Qaeda - it doesn't seem to have any interest outside of Libya and it wasn't around even when bin Laden was killled, let alone when the original 9/11 attacks occurred.  

    So if it's Ansar al Sharia, that supports my version of events (and explains Obama's reluctance to label the attackers "terrorist").  If it's Al Qaeda, that supports your version of events.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Now you are just being silly.

    Do you know how many views that video got prior to the attack?  The muslim world up in arms?  All 700 of them?

    As far as Ansa al Sharia:   Braodening the point:  What OBam did, perhaps as an unintended consequence, is to eliminate a tyrant that was more or less under control (he had given up the nuke program under Bush, for example), and replaced it with a regime that raised the al queda flag above its government building THE VERY FIRST DAY.

    So, tell me.  From a perspective of U.S. interests, how is this in our interests, and don't you  think the larger point is that Obama's foreign policy, which I will refrain from calling bizzare, is actually undermining our interests in the area, as the terrorist attack in Bengazi?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So you're saying that the video had no part in any of the protests throughout the region?  The Cairo embassy, Tunisia, Yemen?  The protests at Google headquarters in London?  Not just Benghazi - none of this was ever about a youtube video?  What was it then?  A global terrorist attack in 20 cities throughout the middle east and northern Africa?

    I think what Obama did was recognize that we have tried nation-building in the middle-east, and it's always come back to bite us in the a55.  What would you have done differently in Libya?  Work with Khaddafi to quash the up-rising?  That doesn't sound like something that would make us safer.  Or take the Iraq route, at the expense of a 1000 times the US money and casualties?  Nobody knows what the middle east will look like in 20 years - there was a time when we thought it was in our best interests to put Saddam Hussein in power, and arm bin Laden.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am troubled to find out that the FBI was investigating Petraeus, that this had been going of for a year, and then I look at Petraeus's testimony on 9/14, that the Bengazi attack was a result of the video.  I find it very hard to beleive that he actually thought that was true.  Did the Obama administration hold going public with the affair over his head?  Was he "turned" right within the administration?

    I may be wrong, but I think given the situation, the question are legitimate.

    [/QUOTE]

    Even if you have a cynical view of the administration, this idea doesn't make much sense from a practical standpoint.  If Petraeus was being blackmailed by the administration, and he had had enough, why wait until after the election?  Wouldn't he have wanted the story to come out and hurt Obama prior to Nov 6th?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I tink you are missing the point:  Why did the White House choose now to blow the lid off this?

    Do you really think Obama didn't know, and that Petraeus didn't know that Obama knew?

    You really don't see any thing wrong with throwing Petraeus out AFTER the election and BEFORE he had to testify?

    You were born at night.  Obviously last night.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let me understand your theory so I can debate it fairly...

    Obama was trying to spin the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous attack rather than an act of terror because he felt that was the best narrative for him to win the election.  

    HE DIDN'T  TRY, THAT'S WHAT HE DID.  WERE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION?  DID YOU NOT WATCH THE NEWS?

    He had dirt on Petraeus and decided to use it to force Petraeus to back up the narrative in his testimony on 9/14.

    HE DID, PATRAEUS, THAT IS.  HE BACKED UP A KNOWN LIE,  THE VIDEO LIE.  WHY?

     Once he won the election, Obama decided to use the dirt he had on Petraeus and force his resignation, and prevent his testimony in next week's House committee hearings.

    AGAIN, HE DID.  YOU TELL ME WHY.

    Is that a fair summary?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Comments in Caps above.

    Also, just to reiterate:  The FBI was spying on Petraeus for a YEAR.  Are you tellign me Obama didn't know?  Who has the clout to order the spying on Patraeus? 

    Not many options here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Petraeus can still be called to testify, right?  If the white house was black-mailing Petraeus on 9/14, and it was proven to work, why not just continue to black-mail him for the upcoming testimony?

    What is the incentive now for Petraeus not to go public with the truth?

    And again, your timeline is

    9/11 - Benghazi attack

    9/12 - Obama calls Benghazi attacks "acts of terror"

    No, he did not.  Even the 60 minutes inteview backs me up on that.  Obama WITH HIS OWN WORDS said we did not know enough to call it terror.

    9/13 - Obama calls attacks "acts of terror" again

    WRONG. SEE ABOVE.

    9/14 - Obama black-mails Petraeus into denying they were acts of terror.

    NO.  DID NOT SAY THAT.  THOUGH PETRAEUS DID BLAME IT ON THE VIDEO, WHICH HAD AREADY BEEN DISCREDITED

    I think I still have a very high opinion of Petraeus - he may have screwed up in his personal life, but I have a hard time believing he would let himself be blackmailed, then screwed over, and just keep his mouth shut about it.

    I think there is more to this story, but I don't think it's going to wind up implicating the white house in any way.

    Timing, my friend.  The timing is incredibly suspect.

    You are allowing yourself to be fooled.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll concede that Obama was reluctant to use the term "terrorist", but he wasn't trying to sell a spontaneous protest - he says in the 60 minutes interview that it was clear the atackers had the intent of harming Americans.

    I agree the timing is suspect - you just haven't presented a theory that fits.  If Obama had been black-mailing Petraeus before 9/14, he had even more on him after 9/14 - Petraeus had presented false testimony to Congress.  Why not just have him lie again?

    Here's a theory - Petraeus was being black-mailed by somebody on the right.  They wanted him to give false testimony at next week's hearing to set the ground for impeachment.  It explains the timing (not necessary if Romney had won) and it explains why the GOP-led House is suddenly no longer interested in his testimony.  And if you believe that Petraeus is an honorable guy who loves his country, it means he resigned rather than allowing himself to be co-erced into lying to Congress.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Here's more support for this theory - Eric Cantor met with the FBI whistle-blower two weeks  ago.  Why the he11 do you go to Eric Cantor, of all people, to blow the whistle on an active FBI investigation?

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83681.html

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thhe facts are neither Congress nor the President were briefed on the investigation until last week.  This bit of information came out today.  Their is no conspiracy, the FBI found out about the affair because a third person filed a complaint against the woman who was involved with Patreus.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sure.  That makes sense.  The head of the CIA is potentially compromised, and the FBI keeps the president in the dark for a year.

    Do you really think that is likely? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes.  Look at the members of the house and the senate who are upset that the FBI didn't brief them, including some on both sides who didn't necessarily feel the General needed to resign over the affair.  I don't why the FBI proceeded the way they did, nor do you, but that gap in detail doesn't suggest or mean there is a conspiracy. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    It appears that two members of the house knew about the affair.  Eric Cantor was briefed on the situation by a whistleblower in October and he was clued into it by Rep Dave Reichert. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    Incredible how quickly the righties have taken to the sour grapes.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    just like the left tags every conservative as racist, uncaring, and stupid.

    we each have our labels, do we not?

    Dollars to donuts your response is something like " Well, yah, but moine are accurate!"

    BTW:  How could you not say the media is in OBama's pocket?  Have you not considered the "news" since his election?  Seems like an awful lot of things not said, hit the cutting room floor, that favored Obama. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not stupid enough to make blanket statements about the right like you do of the left.  There are many thinking conservatives.  You are not in that group.  Why?  Because yo make blanket ideological statements about groups and don't bother with actual facts. 

     And there is more diversity in the media than you let on.  Again with blanket statements...

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Paranoid conspiracies are part of the conservative handbook.  Continue on.

    [/QUOTE]

    Denial takes many forms.

    NOTHING is beyond this  p o s, especially blackmailing and holding bad news until after the election.  

    [/QUOTE]

    You are proof of my point.  You have a preordained conclusion and you twist facts, rumors and innuendo to form a case to support it.  You hate Obama and reject weverything associated with him.  You would never engage in this conspiracy paranoia with a right wing president.  You probably think Watergate was overblown...

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Not until he TALKS.

    He is the link to Obama.

    Get the impeachment papers ready.

    [/QUOTE]

    O.K.  nitwit, put facts behind your suggestion.  What are the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that Obama engaged in on this matter.  Actual facts now.  Go ahead.  See if you can say something remotely factual and logical.  Give it your best shot.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jjray7. Show jjray7's posts

    Re: Did the Obama Administration comprimise its own CIA chief?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am troubled to find out that the FBI was investigating Petraeus, that this had been going of for a year, and then I look at Petraeus's testimony on 9/14, that the Bengazi attack was a result of the video.  I find it very hard to beleive that he actually thought that was true.  Did the Obama administration hold going public with the affair over his head?  Was he "turned" right within the administration?

    I may be wrong, but I think given the situation, the question are legitimate.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree with your characterization of the situation as a quagmire but Petraeus created the mess, not the administration.  Mistress #1 sends threatening emails to "friend" #2, who goes to the FBI.  FBI investigates the email account of Mistress #1 and finds out about the relationship with the CIA director.  That said, the question has to arise of why the resignation wasn't handled sooner?  Apparently the FBI investigation was over the summer.  Did the administration wish to put off dealing with it until after the election?  I think 'yes', they punted on what to do with Petraeus because of the looming election.

     

Share