Petreausgate

[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 the free donuts.

fxd

I think I need to visit Canada, in that case.

[laklak]

Another 4 star general, getting involved in a child custody case, thousands of emails, shirtless agent pictures, special passes for civilian "friends" - God DAMN this is getting good. I am enjoying this immensely.

EDIT I'm going to watch Fox, just to see how much spittle flies.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Another 4 star general, getting involved in a child custody case, thousands of emails, shirtless agent pictures, special passes for civilian "friends" - God DAMN this is getting good. I am enjoying this immensely.

EDIT I'm going to watch Fox, just to see how much spittle flies.

I got one of those passes, and I didn't fuck any general for it.

[laklak]

Apparently she has a twin sister. If he didn't he should have.

[JimC]

Hominid males who reach powerful positions in tribes are attractive to hominid females, and bonking ensues...

Not exactly rocket science...

[amused]

Gen. Buck Turgidson reacts to Petraeus scandal:



http://boingboing.net/2012/11/13/dr-str ... k-tur.html

For those of us who have been less bullish about the prospects of radical transparency, the serialized revelations that have unfolded since Friday—when Petraeus, who left the military as a four-star general, resigned from the C.I.A. because of an affair—are, to say the least, honeyed with irony. In the decade following September 11, 2001, the national-security establishment in this country devised a surveillance apparatus of genuinely diabolical creativity—a cross-hatch of legal and technical innovations that (in theory, at any rate) could furnish law enforcement and intelligence with a high-definition early-warning system on potential terror events. What it’s delivered, instead, is the tawdry, dismaying, and wildly entertaining spectacle that ensues when the national-security establishment inadvertently turns that surveillance apparatus on itself.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... z2CCKk1WIX

[Coito ergo sum]

"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.

Look -- you're either stupid or you're so vested in this issue (for whatever reason I can't imagine) that you just can't fathom that there are multiple possible perspectives on the matter, and the fact that I suggested two ends of the spectrum in the OP does not mean that I "agree" with either one of them.

If you can't get it, then there is something wrong with you: LOOK -- I don't know what happened, I'm only reading the news reports. Part of those news reports involves different persons' statements and input into what happened and why.

If you want to start a different thread and entitled it "The Petraeus sex scandal -- there is not possibly any controversy, and there are no other issues besides a torrid affair between a General and his biographer, so there is nothing really to discuss." Then feel free. My thread - the one I created - presents a wide variety of news stories and was designed to spark conversation about the issues raised in the news. That's the reason why it was posted in "News, Current Events and Politics."

The fact that it is not limited exclusively to whatever your "guesses" and political positions may bother you, but it doesn't bother me.

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.[/quote]

How so? The FBI agent that contacted Cantor was not doing so officially. It was a out-of-the-loop communication that Cantor wasn't even sure he should trust. It was not any sort of "release" of the information.

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.

He's speculating that perhaps it could just be a torrid affair and nothing more? Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. And, that is one of the things -- the first thing - mentioned in my OP.

What's wrong with speculation anyway? If the speculation is so off base, then debunk it. However, you're getting all AtheismPlus on this thread, and trying to shout it down, and making silly accusations that the entire discussion is improper and ought not be had ought to be embarrassing to you. Maybe not,though. Maybe you are an ApeLuster. Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

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?

Well, some of the things that have been kicked around include that it came up and is being used as a means of delaying or possibly preventing Petraeus from testifying as he was scheduled to do. Other speculation is that the "something bigger" may well be serious security breaches.

We don't know - so, part of the purpose of this thread is to collect the latest information from any sources people find, so that people who are interested in reading about and understanding what is going on can exchange ideas.

You may not want to do that. You may know all the answers, and have it all figured out. Good for you.

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

If you actually read what the FBI said about it, they were concerned about even starting an investigation, because there were no actual threats. It was just anonymous emails saying stuff like "stay away from my man." The investigation started because Jill Kelley had a friend in the FBI. That "friend" has since been taken off the case because he was becoming "obsessed" (says the FBI) with the case. The agent is a personal friend of Jill Kelley's. When she received Broadwell's emails, that agentapparently pushed the cyber squad in Tampa to investigate. Over time he became disgruntled when higher-ups in the FBI essentially cut him out of the information flow of the investigation. He then took his concerns of a possible cover-up to a congressman friend who forwarded the information to Rep. Eric Cantor.

Now - the link that you just posted does NOT use the word "threatening" or "threat." Kelley reported what she said to her "personal friend" at the FBI were "harassing" emails.

The messages were instead what the source terms “kind of cat-fight stuff.”

“More like, ‘Who do you think you are? … You parade around the base … You need to take it down a notch,’” according to the source, who was until recently at the highest levels of the intelligence community and prefers not to be identified by name…

When the FBI friend showed the emails to the cyber squad in the Tampa field office, her fellow agents noted that the absence of any overt threats.

“No, ‘I’ll kill you’ or ‘I’ll burn your house down,’” the source says. “It doesn’t seem really that bad.”

The squad was not even sure the case was worth pursuing, the source says.

“What does this mean? There’s no threat there. This is against the law?” the agents asked themselves by the source’s account.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ealed.html

Now, I'm certainly open to the possibility that there were, in fact, "threats" -- but the that doesn't appear to be the case. Does it? If so, what's your evidence?

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.

Dude - I didn't "invoke" anything. Read the OP again. I prefaced a discussing by referencing two ends of a spectrum of discussion about this topic.

Link to something Glen Beck wrote that is similar to what I wrote in the OP. The only thing I've gone by is mainstream source material.

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.

That is precisely what you're doing. You're like ApeLust. Don't like the discussion. Shout it down.

Don't like that description? Then try being a polite and discussing the issue like a grown up.

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.

Maybe, maybe not. People have opposed subpoenas before. But, you have it all figured out.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]

Another 4 star general, getting involved in a child custody case, thousands of emails, shirtless agent pictures, special passes for civilian "friends" - God DAMN this is getting good. I am enjoying this immensely.

EDIT I'm going to watch Fox, just to see how much spittle flies.

It is an amazing soap opera - the Tampa socialite has a personal friend in the FBI who she had some email exchanges with -- the FBI agent sent her "shirtless photos." She reports some tepid, "stay away from my man" and "who do you think you are?" emails to her personal friend, who starts investigating, and turns up Paula Broadwell. The "personal friend's" bosses get miffed about his investigation into the tepid emails and pull him off the case. He then does an end-around and goes to report the matter to Eric Cantor, who doesn't know what is going on so he reports the shirtless FBI agent's communication to FBI director Mueller.

Petraeus and Allen, two high level generals, are good pals with the socialite, and for some reason become involved in the socialite's twin sister's divorce and custody trial. They testify to help the twin sister, somehow. Details are slim as to what these Generals were testifying to in a child custody hearing. In the end, the twin sister is found by the family court judge to have committed perjury and she loses custody of her kids to the father.

The socialite goes on to start a cancer for kids charity, and she spends "zero" dollars helping cancer ridden kids, and uses all the money raised on "meals and entertainment," legal fees, administrative costs, and other expenses. The charity files bankruptcy.

The twin sister filed bankruptcy to the tune of $3 million in debt.

The Kelleys have a huge house that they bought in 2004 for about $1.2 million, which nobody can figure out how they bought it so cheap. It is THE prime real estate in south Tampa, right on the bay, and probably was worth nearly 3 times that price. They've been in foreclosure for some time now, and aren't paying on the house they're living in anyway, though.

Broadwell met Petraeus in 2006 when Petraeus was still in the army. Their "affair" only started, so they say, after Petraeus left the army. They were very responsible in delaying the start of their affair, though, because had it started while he was still in the military, it would have violated the Code of Military Conduct, and both of them would have been subject to disciplinary action for it. No such code applied to Petraeus when he was with the CIA.

This is just so sordid and seedy, it's fascinating. Can't wait for the movie to come out!

[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.

[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...

[Ian]

Somebody wake me when this whole thing has fallen off the media's radar. Or when nude photos of Paula Broadwell surface.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Or when nude photos of Paula Broadwell surface.

None yet.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

NSFW

[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?