Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, I am Democrat, but as a journalist am savvy enough to not be fooled by political shenanigans and cover-ups of fiascos. These go way, way back in history on both sides. To participate in a Democracy means to be an impartial watchdog of government, no matter who is in power.
The head of the CIA, or anyone in the CIA, has to be pretty stupid not to know that email accounts can be accessed at any time by just about anyone. And what couple, especially one as sophisticated and educated as these two, writes sexually implicit emails to one another? They can talk sex on the phone. Come on. That is just too easy to believe. And if this is the real story, Petraeus and Paula should indeed lose their positions for being so stupid. That is the crime, not the affair itself.
General David Petraeus abruptly announced he had had an affair and resigned as head of the CIA a few days ago. And practically the first response anybody came out with, was Sen. Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) announcement that Petraeus, who had been scheduled to testify before Congress on the terrorist attacks on our consulate in Benghazi Libya, now would not testify.
Huh?
I don't get it. What does Petraeus' resignation have to do with being qualified to testify?
Did anybody in our intrepid press corps ask Sen. Feinstein where she got that conclusion?
Feinstein is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee that is holding the hearings in the Senate. Has she deigned to tell us WHY she felt that Petraeus should now change his plans about testifying?
Among many strange things in Petraeus' sudden, surprise resignation, this question is probably the most baffling. Can anyone think of ANY reason why Petraeus' resignation, should inexplicably cause his testimony to be cancelled?
Again, I am Democrat, but as a journalist am savvy enough to not be fooled by political shenanigans and cover-ups of fiascos. These go way, way back in history on both sides. To participate in a Democracy means to be an impartial watchdog of government, no matter who is in power.
The WH is on the record as saying in plain language and unequivocally, the the first they heard of all this was election night, when FBI Director Mueller notified Director of National Intellegence Jim Clapper, who then immediately notified the president.
Now, I don't automatically believe everything I hear, but, why would the Obama Administration lie about something that is so easily provable as false? I mean, IF Obama knew before he says, someone notified him, right? All that "someone" has to do is come forth and refute the president's story.
Lying about something like this would be an impeachable offense. Does anyone seriously think Obama would risk his presidency over such a careless, easily refuted lie? I don't (Unless, of course, the TRUTH would have sunk his boat somehow... but I don't see how that's possible
But was DOES concern me, is, it looks like several people in positions of respnsiblity DID know, including a State of Washington GOP Rep, Eric Cantor, and of course, the FBI. NONE of these people thought it might be PRUDENT to notify the Obama Admin, or the Senate and House Intellegence Committees, that the CIA Director had been compromised??? (Did ROMNEY know??? It's hard to believe Cantor wouldn't have told him )
Whether this has ANYTHING to do with Benghazi or not ( and I haven't seen any evidence yet that it does), I want to get to the bottom of it
The WH is on the record as saying in plain language and unequivocally, the the first they heard of all this was election night, when FBI Director Mueller notified Director of National Intellegence Jim Clapper, who then immediately notified the president.
Now, I don't automatically believe everything I hear, but, why would the Obama Administration lie about something that is so easily provable as false? I mean, IF Obama knew before he says, someone notified him, right? All that "someone" has to do is come forth and refute the president's story.
Lying about something like this would be an impeachable offense. Does anyone seriously think Obama would risk his presidency over such a careless, easily refuted lie? I don't (Unless, of course, the TRUTH would have sunk his boat somehow... but I don't see how that's possible
But was DOES concern me, is, it looks like several people in positions of respnsiblity DID know, including a State of Washington GOP Rep, Eric Cantor, and of course, the FBI. NONE of these people thought it might be PRUDENT to notify the Obama Admin, or the Senate and House Intellegence Committees, that the CIA Director had been compromised??? (Did ROMNEY know??? It's hard to believe Cantor wouldn't have told him )
Whether this has ANYTHING to do with Benghazi or not ( and I haven't seen any evidence yet that it does), I want to get to the bottom of it
It appears that there was an attempt to cover-up this affair to protect Petraeus. What I find interesting is, this was a bi-partisan effort and the tinfoil crowd is trying to associate this to Libya. People, Cantor knew and the reasoning is, they wanted to investigate FIRST. Rep King may not get the answers he believes he's looking for.
The WH is on the record as saying in plain language and unequivocally, the the first they heard of all this was election night, when FBI Director Mueller notified Director of National Intellegence Jim Clapper, who then immediately notified the president.
Now, I don't automatically believe everything I hear, but, why would the Obama Administration lie about something that is so easily provable as false? I mean, IF Obama knew before he says, someone notified him, right? All that "someone" has to do is come forth and refute the president's story.
Lying about something like this would be an impeachable offense. Does anyone seriously think Obama would risk his presidency over such a careless, easily refuted lie? I don't (Unless, of course, the TRUTH would have sunk his boat somehow... but I don't see how that's possible
But was DOES concern me, is, it looks like several people in positions of respnsiblity DID know, including a State of Washington GOP Rep, Eric Cantor, and of course, the FBI. NONE of these people thought it might be PRUDENT to notify the Obama Admin, or the Senate and House Intellegence Committees, that the CIA Director had been compromised??? (Did ROMNEY know??? It's hard to believe Cantor wouldn't have told him )
Whether this has ANYTHING to do with Benghazi or not ( and I haven't seen any evidence yet that it does), I want to get to the bottom of it
Oh heavens, CIA directors have for eons been having affairs I am sure. One of three things is going on:
1) This is the real story. Petraeus committed no crime in having an affair. Let it drop. Why all the hullabaloo?
2) This is the real story, and Petraeus passed secret info to Paula naively or impetuously during the affair. Fire him for being so indiscreet as to breech national security.
3) They had an affair, or did not have an affair, and so what....except that the whole thing is being used as a diversion or tactic of some kind related to his Benghazi testimony...or other matters.
One of the above.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
. 45 pages about a soldier having an affair.
