Petreausgate

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Petraeus has apparently contact the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees and the CIA and offered his testimony voluntarily in the Benghazi hearings. Details to come.

No, no, no! He can't testify. If he does that means Fux News has been blowing hot air since Sunday.

Oh, wait...

What has FoxSnooze been saying? Linky?

No idea, I only saw what was on the boob tube Sunday morning at breakfast. And I won't be looking, I just cleaned this monitor.

[Coito ergo sum]

The question of whether this scandal matters is a fair one.

On the one hand -- the "wake me" comment by Ian and the Onion link from Zilla suggest one view, which is that it doesn't matter because all this is about is a sexual affair, which has nothing to do with anything other than the marriages of the parties involved. That is pretty much the option (a) that I noted in the OP.

There is a different perspective on that, and here is an article that discusses it, written by Kathleen McInnis and published in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... nt/265100/


And, there are some other aspects of this matter that are a concern -- the sexual affair isn't itself a concern, qua a sexual affair. But, as the Daytona Beach News-Journal put it --

the scandal will demand a full airing of related facts because Petraeus was involved in a risky extramarital affair while he was the nation's top spy. The old line that affairs can expose government officials to the risks of blackmail no longer sounds like a cliché or a plot from a spy movie.

That concern has become a very real issue as the White House and Congress try to find out whether the affair has major implications for national security. And Petraeus' resignation comes at a crucial time in the investigation of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, when the U.S. ambassador was killed.

There are possibly even more complications. If the extramarital affair began when Petraeus was serving as commander in Afghanistan, he can be brought up on military charges, as unlikely as that is.

Further, members of congressional intelligence committees, including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., are wondering why they were not informed that the FBI was investigating a possible security breach at the CIA.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/artic ... ty-scandal

Also, as the Huffington Post pointed out, there is an issue as to whether this matter ever should have come to light in the first place. The investigation by the FBI of the anonymous Paul Broadwell emails may have been a violation of digital privacy by an FBI agent who was doing a favor for a piece of ass he sent shirtless photos to... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 20469.html

So while the FBI’s actions in this case may have never come about had it not been due to personal relationships playing a role, observers are already registering their concerns surrounding civil liberties and our growing surveillance state. As Wired’s Kim Zetter reported, “Broadwell will now become part of the statistics that Gmail reports in its next semi-annual transparency report on government data requests.”

The Google report reveals how many government requests they receive for user data, but the company doesn’t specify how many of these requests come with a warrant. And Google is hardly the only website on the receiving end. Twitter has also begun releasing a Transparency Report. But the impetus here lies on the private companies. The government itself is not required to disclose this information.

There are real world implications for journalists, their sources, and average internet users alike. Laws to safeguard our privacy and warrant requirements for online communications are muddled and outdated. The FBI’s actions here highlight the need for debate.

Why does it matter?

a video has surfaced of a speech by Petraeus' paramour in which she suggested the Libya attack was targeting a secret prison at the Benghazi consulate annex, raising unverified concerns about possible security leaks.

http://www.local10.com/news/The-Petraeu ... index.html

The New York Times also reported Sunday that investigators found classified documents on Broadwell's laptop computer. The newspaper cited investigators as saying Petraeus denied he had given them to her.

[Coito ergo sum]

Petraeus has apparently contact the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees and the CIA and offered his testimony voluntarily in the Benghazi hearings. Details to come.

No, no, no! He can't testify. If he does that means Fux News has been blowing hot air since Sunday.

Oh, wait...

What has FoxSnooze been saying? Linky?

No idea,

Got it.

Neither do I, and not a single link or clip from FoxSnooze has been posted on this thread. So, it matters exactly how?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Talking to you is pointless.

[Tero]

No blue dress? Fox news fans do not care about truths in Libya, they want the sex.

[Coito ergo sum]

Talking to you is pointless.

Pointless is: I heard FoxSnooze say something stupid on Sunday...therefore I just post irrelevant gibberish on a thread discussing the Petraeus scandal referring to stupid things FoxSnooze is saying.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Talking to you is pointless.

Pointless is: I heard FoxSnooze say something stupid on Sunday...therefore I just post irrelevant gibberish on a thread discussing the Petraeus scandal referring to stupid things FoxSnooze is saying.

Dumbfuckistan, go back to it. You think I don't have more sources about what Fux News is doing? Ignorant and close-minded little man, there's more to the world than you think.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Talking to you is pointless.

Pointless is: I heard FoxSnooze say something stupid on Sunday...therefore I just post irrelevant gibberish on a thread discussing the Petraeus scandal referring to stupid things FoxSnooze is saying.

Dumbfuckistan, go back to it. You think I don't have more sources about what Fux News is doing? Ignorant and close-minded little man, there's more to the world than you think.

[Gerald McGrew]

Well CES, I suppose it's good to see you back away from your earlier "I'm convinced" posts and now say "Gosh, I'm just saying there are multiple possibilities...that's all".

Yes indeed, there are multiple possibilities here. It could be some older politically powerful man banging a younger woman like we've seen a billion times before, or it could be "a smokescreen for.....".....something.

It's also funny to see you try and say someone disagreeing with you = "trying to shout you down". Poor baby.

[Coito ergo sum]

Talking to you is pointless.

Pointless is: I heard FoxSnooze say something stupid on Sunday...therefore I just post irrelevant gibberish on a thread discussing the Petraeus scandal referring to stupid things FoxSnooze is saying.

Dumbfuckistan, go back to it. You think I don't have more sources about what Fux News is doing? Ignorant and close-minded little man, there's more to the world than you think.

Of what possible relevance is "what Fux News is doing?" Particularly, of what fucking relevance is what FuxSnooze is doing if you won't fucking post what it is you're fucking talking about?

You post a bunch of idiocy "Fux News" references, without specificying or linking to what those douchebags are saying -- and you think that means something? What? What fucking point are you trying to make? You just make one-liner irrelevant comments over and over again - "Fox News! Fox News!" -- yeah? So? So what?

So what if "you have more sources about what FuxNews is doing?" What does that have to do with the thread? This is about the Petraeus scandal, and not what Fux News is doing. But, if Fux News is saying something related to this matter that is interesting, why don't you share it instead of just giggling like a little schoolgirl over something funny FuxNews is doing that only you know about?

[Coito ergo sum]

Well CES, I suppose it's good to see you back away from your earlier "I'm convinced" posts

Which posts are these? I searched this thread, and the word "convinced" does not appear. At no time have I ever stated I was convinced of anything about the Petraeus matter.

and now say "Gosh, I'm just saying there are multiple possibilities...that's all".

Aren't there multiple possibilities? Yes or no. Are there multiple possibilities, or do you have it all figured out and there is just one?

I've never taken a position regarding what is happening with Petraeus, other than to say it is a seedy, sordid affair and it keeps getting more and moreso.

Yes indeed, there are multiple possibilities here.

Great -- so, you're beef with me is that I accurate suggest that there are multiple possibilities, and I assume you agree too that there are many aspects to this matter that are interesting and important.

It could be some older politically powerful man banging a younger woman like we've seen a billion times before, or it could be "a smokescreen for.....".....something.

It's also funny to see you try and say someone disagreeing with you = "trying to shout you down". Poor baby.

You aren't disagreeing. You're shitting all over the thread and shouting about how this is all "Glen Beckish" -- meaning that the topic isn't fit for discussion, at least not unless it is presented in terms you find agreeable.

This is what you do -- you go to threads you don't have an interest in discussing, and you shit all over them with irrelevant, off topic posts. Yours are the tactics of a troll, like Zilla -- you like to disrupt conversations.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some people make a mission in life of being stupidly obtuse.

[Gerald McGrew]

Which posts are these? I searched this thread, and the word "convinced" does not appear. At no time have I ever stated I was convinced of anything about the Petraeus matter.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 1#p1315663

"Well, this about seals it for me."

Oh right....you love to parse down to the last syllable, so you'll hang your hat your not using the exact word "convinced" and think yourself victorious.

Great -- so, you're beef with me is that I accurate suggest that there are multiple possibilities, and I assume you agree too that there are many aspects to this matter that are interesting and important.

"Is this just a love affair....or could it be a smokescreen for a massive government conspiracy?"

Gosh Mr. Beck, all you're doing is "raising possibilities".

You aren't disagreeing. You're shitting all over the thread and shouting about how this is all "Glen Beckish" -- meaning that the topic isn't fit for discussion, at least not unless it is presented in terms you find agreeable.

This is what you do -- you go to threads you don't have an interest in discussing, and you shit all over them with irrelevant, off topic posts. Yours are the tactics of a troll, like Zilla -- you like to disrupt conversations.

Poor baby. Must really suck for you.

[Gerald McGrew]

Some people make a mission in life of being stupidly obtuse.

It's fascinating to observe the parallels between debating politics with conservatives and science with creationists.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some people make a mission in life of being stupidly obtuse.

It's fascinating to observe the parallels between debating politics with conservatives and science with creationists.

Republicanism is a faith-based initiative.