Petreausgate

[Gawdzilla Sama]

:butthurt:

[Gerald McGrew]

It's front page news on the New York Times.

Of course it is.

Does Glen Beck run the New York Times and the BBC, and they're now "just asking the question?"

Yeah, except I didn't see any of those sources asking if this was some sort of "smokescreen", as you did. Are your Spidey senses tingling?

All of them are "asking the question" too.

Can you quote one of them asking if this is a "smokescreen"?

I was referring to what she said last night. If she's "asking the question", though, she must be being all "Glen Beckish" though.

That's the video I watched. And really? You don't understand the difference between asking, "If there was nothing criminal, why would Congress be briefed" and "Is this a smokescreen for something bigger"? Wow. You continue to surprise me.

Cantor wasn't privy to the status of or the details of the investigation, and so he wouldn't be expected to make anything public.

WTF? Who said anything about making it public? It was an intelligence investigation...you tend to keep those things quiet while they're ongoing. Sheesh.

Nothing went public, until after the election. That's just a fact. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, but it also isn't necessarily right either. And, the timing of the release of this information and his resignation are interesting in light of the fact that he was going to testify.

LOL! And now you're almost exactly parroting Glen Beck. Hilarious.

I've not rendered any judgment here.

Neither did Beck. He's just asking questions.

Naturally, of course, you come here and the first thing you want to do is criticize the fact that the issue is even being discussed at all.

Not at all. Of course it's being discussed, as it should be. Funny though how some people can't discuss it without hinting towards some sort of shadowy conspiracy. Oh right....you and Beck are just asking questions.

What is so wrong with following this issue anyway? What rubs you the wrong way about this? Do you have a vested interest in the reputation of General Petreaus? Is there something you're worried about?

[/quote]
LOL! Nice try. My best guess is we'll find out Patreaus was banging this young, fairly attractive woman. She sees another young attractive woman being friendly with him, so she sends anonymous threatening emails to her to get her to back off. She reports the emails, and one of the guys investigating it gets all hot for her and starts flirting.

It's sex and political power. Gee...never seen that before, have we?

Oh, and Patreaus will still testify on Benghazi. It's not like, "Oh, you don't work for the CIA anymore? Well, I guess we don't need to hear from you then."

[Coito ergo sum]

It's front page news on the New York Times.

Of course it is.

Of course.

Does Glen Beck run the New York Times and the BBC, and they're now "just asking the question?"

Yeah, except I didn't see any of those sources asking if this was some sort of "smokescreen", as you did. Are your Spidey senses tingling?

Really? Several have.

All of them are "asking the question" too.

Can you quote one of them asking if this is a "smokescreen"?

Maybe you should follow the story before bitching about it.

"But Broadwell’s father said Sunday his daughter is the victim of character assassination and implied the bombshell story is just a smoke screen for something bigger." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... z2C8VELlKk

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83750.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/paula-br ... tz-2012-11

I was referring to what she said last night. If she's "asking the question", though, she must be being all "Glen Beckish" though.

That's the video I watched. And really? You don't understand the difference between asking, "If there was nothing criminal, why would Congress be briefed" and "Is this a smokescreen for something bigger"? Wow. You continue to surprise me.

You're beyond ridiculous, now.

Cantor wasn't privy to the status of or the details of the investigation, and so he wouldn't be expected to make anything public.

WTF? Who said anything about making it public? It was an intelligence investigation...you tend to keep those things quiet while they're ongoing. Sheesh.

You responded to my statement that they kept it quiet until after the election by pointing out that Cantor had found out about it on October 27. What was the reason you brought up the fact that the FBI agent informed Cantor?

Nothing went public, until after the election. That's just a fact. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, but it also isn't necessarily right either. And, the timing of the release of this information and his resignation are interesting in light of the fact that he was going to testify.

LOL! And now you're almost exactly parroting Glen Beck. Hilarious.

You're really, really ridiculous.

I've not rendered any judgment here.

Neither did Beck. He's just asking questions.

Who cares what Beck does? Well, apparently you've been reading something of his, because you're familiar with the questions he's asking. I'm not.

Naturally, of course, you come here and the first thing you want to do is criticize the fact that the issue is even being discussed at all.

Not at all. Of course it's being discussed, as it should be. Funny though how some people can't discuss it without hinting towards some sort of shadowy conspiracy. Oh right....you and Beck are just asking questions.

I didn't hint toward any shadowy conspiracy. I asked whether (a) it was a big nothing about a personal sexual tryst and was ONLY that, or (b) whether it was a "smoke screen for something more..." since that was what appeared to be the other side of the coin as stated, explicitly and in those terms, by Paula Broadwell's father. Those seem to be the two extremes relative to theories regarding this issue.

You can't have that, of course, because you want the issue presented in terms palatable to you. If not presented in such terms, you shit all over the thread.

What is so wrong with following this issue anyway? What rubs you the wrong way about this? Do you have a vested interest in the reputation of General Petreaus? Is there something you're worried about?

LOL! Nice try. My best guess is we'll find out Patreaus was banging this young,

She's 40. Hardly young. But, not surprising you're unfamiliar with the facts.

fairly attractive woman. She sees another young attractive woman being friendly with him, so she sends anonymous threatening

Even the FBI said there weren't any "threats"

emails to her to get her to back off. She reports the emails, and one of the guys investigating it gets all hot for her and starts flirting.

So, you have it all figured out. Can't be anything other than "your guess" and any parsing of the news sources and assessment of the facts is "Glen Becking" the issue.

It's not enough, however, for you to post your take on it. You can't come here and cite sources and write out your explanation that you think it's the first option (a) a personal sexual tryst that amounts to nothing other consequence (or some iteration thereof). You have to shit all over the thread, question motives, make snarky, nasty comments, and claim that any discussion OTHER than option (a) is a Glen Beck conspiracy theory.

That's you -- that's par for your course. That's just the kind of person you are.

It's sex and political power. Gee...never seen that before, have we?

It's certainly a very plausible scenario. That's why it was the first option I discussed in the OP.

Oh, and Patreaus will still testify on Benghazi. It's not like, "Oh, you don't work for the CIA anymore? Well, I guess we don't need to hear from you then."

He may. It's not 'will' at this point. He isn't going to testify as scheduled, and one of the mainstream sources I cited above indicated that he is leaving the testimony to another CIA official who supposedly has all the same info. Some Congressmen are still clamoring for his personal testimony, but we'll see how it shakes out.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fuw News lives.

[Coito ergo sum]

Paula Broadwell's Drivers License Discovered in D.C. Park http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... in-dc-park

[Bella Fortuna]

Nation Horrified To Learn About War In Afghanistan While Reading Up On Petraeus Sex Scandal

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation ... ne:default

[klr]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/source ... n-a,30349/

[SteveB]

I wonder if Canada is still in Afghanistan..I'm just as uncaring.

[Gerald McGrew]

"But Broadwell’s father said Sunday his daughter is the victim of character assassination and implied the bombshell story is just a smoke screen for something bigger." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... z2C8VELlKk

So you, the adultress' father, and Glen Beck. Congratulations.

You're beyond ridiculous, now...You're really, really ridiculous.

Non-responses noted.

You responded to my statement that they kept it quiet until after the election by pointing out that Cantor had found out about it on October 27. What was the reason you brought up the fact that the FBI agent informed Cantor?

Because it contradicts the speculation that this was being kept secret because of the upcoming election.

Who cares what Beck does? Well, apparently you've been reading something of his, because you're familiar with the questions he's asking. I'm not.

Funny though how you're mirroring his speculations.

I didn't hint toward any shadowy conspiracy. I asked whether (a) it was a big nothing about a personal sexual tryst and was ONLY that, or (b) whether it was a "smoke screen for something more..." since that was what appeared to be the other side of the coin as stated, explicitly and in those terms, by Paula Broadwell's father. Those seem to be the two extremes relative to theories regarding this issue.

LOL! "I didn't say it was a shadowy conspiracy, I just said I thought it was a smokescreen for something bigger". WTF do you think a "smokescreen" is, if not a constructed event designed to distract from a more important event?

She's 40. Hardly young. But, not surprising you're unfamiliar with the facts. Even the FBI said there weren't any "threats"

Hilarious. Forty years old is definitely "young" to a 60 year old man, and the alleged threats in the emails were the basis for the investigation in the first place. You might want to read this: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/politics/ ... index.html

So, you have it all figured out. Can't be anything other than "your guess" and any parsing of the news sources and assessment of the facts is "Glen Becking" the issue.

Nope, I don't have it all figured out (that's why I used the phrase "my best guess"). Once again in your desperation, you have to resort to straw men. And the reason I've compared your invoking of a more elaborate "smokescreen" to Glen Beck's is because they're pretty much the same thing. Maybe that comes as a surprise to you that two similar things lend themselves to comparison, but that doesn't change the facts.

It's not enough, however, for you to post your take on it. You can't come here and cite sources and write out your explanation that you think it's the first option (a) a personal sexual tryst that amounts to nothing other consequence (or some iteration thereof). You have to shit all over the thread, question motives, make snarky, nasty comments, and claim that any discussion OTHER than option (a) is a Glen Beck conspiracy theory.

That's you -- that's par for your course. That's just the kind of person you are.

Yes...that's exactly the type of person I am. Well spotted CES.

He may. It's not 'will' at this point. He isn't going to testify as scheduled, and one of the mainstream sources I cited above indicated that he is leaving the testimony to another CIA official who supposedly has all the same info. Some Congressmen are still clamoring for his personal testimony, but we'll see how it shakes out.

If he is supeonaed, he will testify.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We have our own little Fux News affiliate. You never fail to amaze me.

[Bella Fortuna]

I wonder if Canada is still in Afghanistan..I'm just as uncaring.

Last time I checked Canada was still in Canada. But it may have been moved.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://links.email.scientificamerican.c ... &mt=1&rt=0

[SteveB]

I wonder if Canada is still in Afghanistan..I'm just as uncaring.

Last time I checked Canada was still in Canada. But it may have been moved.

The last thing an American should know is where Canada is.

[Bella Fortuna]

I wonder if Canada is still in Afghanistan..I'm just as uncaring.

Last time I checked Canada was still in Canada. But it may have been moved.

The last thing an American should know is where Canada is.

It's right next to Freedonia.

[Thinking Aloud]

I wonder if Canada is still in Afghanistan..I'm just as uncaring.

Last time I checked Canada was still in Canada. But it may have been moved.

The last thing an American should know is where Canada is.

It's right next to the free donuts.

fxd