Petreausgate

[Coito ergo sum]

This letter to the New York Times has been speculated about as possibly being written by Paula Broadwell's husband:

My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/magaz ... .html?_r=0

[Coito ergo sum]

A computer used by Paula Broadwell, the woman whose affair with CIA Director David Petraeus led to his resignation, contained substantial classified information that should have been stored under more secure conditions, law enforcement and national security officials said on Wednesday.

The contents and amount of the classified material - and questions about how Broadwell got it - are significant enough to warrant a continuing investigation, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to comment publicly.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/ ... GT20121115

[Gerald McGrew]

I've already told you. It was one of the extremes mentioned in the media.

Which one?

The shenanigans about a local "socialite" being given unsupervised on-base access as a "social liaison." It's obvious to me that people like Kelley are folks being brought on base for shenanigans.

????? Really? When you said, "That about seals it for me", you meant "I'm just about convinced that there are shenanigans going on"?

As to the last part, I realize that as a conservative, you expect every discussion to adhere to the outline you have in your head and everyone to toe the line accordingly. You can handle dissent, as long as it's within the bounds of what you already expected. IOW, "You are allowed to disagree with me, but only on my terms".

However, this is a pretty open internet forum. The fact that you get all whiney and bitchy because someone dared to deviate from your carefully planned discussion path is your problem, not anyone else's. In this case, when you start a thread and (even if it's unintentional) parrot Glen Beck conspiracy theories, people like me are going to point it out and laugh at you.........because it's funny. And whether you like it or not, it is topical. It just happens to make you look like a hyper-partisan idiot who is unable to evaluate a situation outside of his extreme loyalty to his "team". But again, that's your problem, not mine.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've already told you. It was one of the extremes mentioned in the media.

Which one?

Already listed several.

The shenanigans about a local "socialite" being given unsupervised on-base access as a "social liaison." It's obvious to me that people like Kelley are folks being brought on base for shenanigans.

????? Really? When you said, "That about seals it for me", you meant "I'm just about convinced that there are shenanigans going on"?

That she was given a made up position to be allowed to come and go on base as she pleases, for shenanigans purposes only, and not for any legitimate purpose. I was not willing to automatically assume that the position was a pointless, shenanigans only position, but after looking into it a bit, and after seeing that they couldn't get an answer from the base as to what this silly "social liaison" position was all about and what it entailed, that sealed it for me.

As to the last part, I realize that as a conservative,

I'm not. I'm just not a sycophant. Most of my views are quite liberal.

you expect every discussion to adhere to the outline you have in your head and everyone to toe the line accordingly.

Not at all. I just prefer people discuss the issue, rather than post endless screeds about how the issue shouldn't be discussed.

You can handle dissent, as long as it's within the bounds of what you already expected. IOW, "You are allowed to disagree with me, but only on my terms".

I can handle any dissent. It's not dissent that you're advancing here, though. It's disruption. You're upset that the discussion is being had at all. If you were simply taking a contrary position or dissenting from some position I had taken, I would very much enjoy the conversation. Unlike you, I prefer to talk to people I disagree with. I prefer to hear them out. But, talking to an ignoramus whose sole contribution to multiple days of conversation has been "GlenBeck! GlenBeck!" and its equivalent is not particularly enlightening.

However, this is a pretty open internet forum. The fact that you get all whiney and bitchy because someone dared to deviate from your carefully planned discussion path is your problem, not anyone else's. In this case, when you start a thread and (even if it's unintentional) parrot Glen Beck conspiracy theories, people like me are going to point it out and laugh at you.........because it's funny. And whether you like it or not, it is topical. It just happens to make you look like a hyper-partisan idiot who is unable to evaluate a situation outside of his extreme loyalty to his "team". But again, that's your problem, not mine.

The thing is, it wasn't anything to do with Glen Beck. That particular question, which you seem to assign to Glen Beck, was widely reported in several mainstream news reports, and I listed several of them above, none of which had anything to do with Glen Beck.

What makes you look like a sycophant and an idiot is the suggestion that my politically neutral OP had any sort of "partisan" bias in it. You seem to think that presenting the issue in light of what both extremes of the issue could be, and opening up the floor to discussion of all gradations in between is partisan. Your idea of "nonpartisan" is to not include the extreme ends of the discussion spectrum, but limit it only to the view that you're comfortable with. That is fine, but you'll have to create your own thread for that. Go ahead and do so -- start a thread concerning the Petreaus matter that you find acceptable and nonpartisan. Show me how it's done.

[klr]

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

When I first heard the details, Bucky was the first character I thought of.

[Coito ergo sum]

Korean Official Laughs at Jill Kelley’s Diplomatic Prowess

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... c-prowess/

And, http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/11/15/152318/46

What the fuck, man?

Jill Kelley was appointed an honorary "consul" to the Republic of South Korea?

This shit demands a serious investigation. What the fuck is our State Department doing? How many "socialites" are appointed to these positions and how are they getting these positions -- and what are they expecting to get out of them?

Here, we have Jill Kelley apparently suggesting to someone that she can "broker" a billion dollar deal and she wants a 2% commission. I mean, it sounds awfully close to influence peddling and kickbacks. I can't say for sure, but if a government official "brokered" a deal and got a commission from it, that would be criminal. I am not sure whether this lady's position being "honorary" makes a difference.

[amused]

What the Fuck CES? Multi-national corporations like Halliburton (based in Dubai) have influence at the highest levels of our government. That influence is exactly what should be triggering the treason clause of the US constitution, but it doesn't. Some bitch taking kickbacks is the least of our worries.

[Coito ergo sum]

What the Fuck CES? Multi-national corporations like Halliburton (based in Dubai) have influence at the highest levels of our government. That influence is exactly what should be triggering the treason clause of the US constitution, but it doesn't. Some bitch taking kickbacks is the least of our worries.

What do you mean "what the fuck?" If Halliburton does something illegal, they should be prosecuted.

As an honorary consul for South Korea, Jill Kelley represented South Korea in the Tampa area. Kelley helped get support for the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and arranged meetings between the ROK Ambassador and Tampa businessmen. So, while the position doesn't come with any specific job duties, she is a representative of South Korea, now if she's selling her influence for an $80 million commission, I can't say I know if it's against the law for sure, but it sure smells funny, doesn't it?

[amused]

What the Fuck CES? Multi-national corporations like Halliburton (based in Dubai) have influence at the highest levels of our government. That influence is exactly what should be triggering the treason clause of the US constitution, but it doesn't. Some bitch taking kickbacks is the least of our worries.

What do you mean "what the fuck?" If Halliburton does something illegal, they should be prosecuted.

As an honorary consul for South Korea, Jill Kelley represented South Korea in the Tampa area. Kelley helped get support for the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and arranged meetings between the ROK Ambassador and Tampa businessmen. So, while the position doesn't come with any specific job duties, she is a representative of South Korea, now if she's selling her influence for an $80 million commission, I can't say I know if it's against the law for sure, but it sure smells funny, doesn't it?

As long as she isn't a US government official she can do whatever she wants within the law.

[Coito ergo sum]

As long as she isn't a US government official she can do whatever she wants within the law.

Everyone can do whatever they want within the law. It's the last three words there that count.

[Gerald McGrew]

Already listed several.

No, not really. You just keep suggesting it might be a "smokescreen for something bigger".

That she was given a made up position to be allowed to come and go on base as she pleases, for shenanigans purposes only, and not for any legitimate purpose. I was not willing to automatically assume that the position was a pointless, shenanigans only position, but after looking into it a bit, and after seeing that they couldn't get an answer from the base as to what this silly "social liaison" position was all about and what it entailed, that sealed it for me.

So you think she was basically a prostitute?

Not at all. I just prefer people discuss the issue, rather than post endless screeds about how the issue shouldn't be discussed.

You made this claim ("you don't want this discussed") early on, but the problem is, I can't find any instance where I even suggested that no one should be talking about it. So could you do me a favor and show me where I said this issue shouldn't be discussed?

I can handle any dissent.

Totally. Your "fuck you, fuck you, fuck you" posts are testament to that.

But, talking to an ignoramus whose sole contribution to multiple days of conversation has been "GlenBeck! GlenBeck!" and its equivalent is not particularly enlightening.

Now you're lying again. My first post to you was pointing out that your description of R. Maddow's report on this wasn't totally accurate and that the notion this was being kept secret until after the election isn't backed up by the available evidence.

[amused]

As long as she isn't a US government official she can do whatever she wants within the law.

Everyone can do whatever they want within the law. It's the last three words there that count.

Yup. I think there's a roiling discontent within the nation that is animated by the suspicion that the ruling class is either moving the line of 'within the law' or ignoring it completely.

[Coito ergo sum]

Already listed several.

No, not really. You just keep suggesting it might be a "smokescreen for something bigger". [/quote]

Yes, really. You asked for links to news sources which discussed that suggestion. I presented several.

That she was given a made up position to be allowed to come and go on base as she pleases, for shenanigans purposes only, and not for any legitimate purpose. I was not willing to automatically assume that the position was a pointless, shenanigans only position, but after looking into it a bit, and after seeing that they couldn't get an answer from the base as to what this silly "social liaison" position was all about and what it entailed, that sealed it for me.

So you think she was basically a prostitute?

No. I wrote what I meant.

Not at all. I just prefer people discuss the issue, rather than post endless screeds about how the issue shouldn't be discussed.

You made this claim ("you don't want this discussed") early on, but the problem is, I can't find any instance where I even suggested that no one should be talking about it. So could you do me a favor and show me where I said this issue shouldn't be discussed?

Sure you have. Your constant suggestion that this is all just a GlenBeckish conspiracy theory. You keep on about it.

I can handle any dissent.

Totally. Your "fuck you, fuck you, fuck you" posts are testament to that.

Only in response to your particularly noxious posts. You act like such a tool so often that sometimes it generates that kind of a response.

But, talking to an ignoramus whose sole contribution to multiple days of conversation has been "GlenBeck! GlenBeck!" and its equivalent is not particularly enlightening.

Now you're lying again. My first post to you was pointing out that your description of R. Maddow's report on this wasn't totally accurate and that the notion this was being kept secret until after the election isn't backed up by the available evidence.

LOL -- the only thing you suggested was evidence that it wasn't kept secret was the shirtless FBI agent's telephone call to Cantor. It absolutely was kept secret until after the election. What there is no evidence of at this point was whether that was in any way purposeful, or whether it was standard operating procedure.

[Pappa]

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.

Zilla, this is a reminder that personal attacks are against the rules, and also to please play nice.

[Coito ergo sum]

As long as she isn't a US government official she can do whatever she wants within the law.

Everyone can do whatever they want within the law. It's the last three words there that count.

Yup. I think there's a roiling discontent within the nation that is animated by the suspicion that the ruling class is either moving the line of 'within the law' or ignoring it completely.

Obama and the Democrats would never do that, would they?