David Petraeus Resigns

[carlfense]

Carl- So do you accept this story at face value; that he resigned for no other reason than an affair was discovered? I'm feeling a bit like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory but the circumstantial evidence is getting very deep. If every person in DC resigned over an affair, there would be nobody to run the country. I think Patreous is either taking one for the team pr bailing on something he was responsible for or both. No way this is really just about an affair and/or a hacked email account.

They fabricated all of those old emails? Fabricated proactively . . . literally months before September 11, 2012? The FBI went so far as to institute a fake investigation in late summer of 212?

 

All to assist in a cover up (no one knows what is being covered up) of an attack in Benghazi that occurred months later?

 

Do people actually believe this? You've got to be joking JJ. That or you need to take a serious break from the right wing media/blogs.

[strigori]

I don't buy the conspiracy theory at all. The way things came out on this is kinda scary really. The way they follow trails through emails, and are allowed to nail people, unrelated to the search warrants, for emails send to others is probably crossing the line into 'illegal search and seizure'

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/david-petraeus-case-raises-concerns-about-americans-privacy.html?_r=0

[knapplc]

I don't buy the conspiracy theory at all. The way things came out on this is kinda scary really. The way they follow trails through emails, and are allowed to nail people, unrelated to the search warrants, for emails send to others is probably crossing the line into 'illegal search and seizure'

 

http://www.nytimes.c...ivacy.html?_r=0

 

Isn't this why they instituted the Patriot Act?

[sd'sker]

Just as it was reasonable to assume that the consequences of Mitt Romney not releasing his taxes to the American voter were less than the consequences of releasing them (since releasing them was so easy, and such a no-brainer thing to do), it's also reasonable to assume that Petraeus' resignation at this odd time, for this odd reason, is in some way designed to mitigate the fallout from a potentially bigger scandal.

 

Is it ironclad? Hardly.

 

I'm not a believer in coincidences. Not like this.

everyone knows that you are not allowed to be the cia director if you keep secrets from people.

[strigori]

Just as it was reasonable to assume that the consequences of Mitt Romney not releasing his taxes to the American voter were less than the consequences of releasing them (since releasing them was so easy, and such a no-brainer thing to do), it's also reasonable to assume that Petraeus' resignation at this odd time, for this odd reason, is in some way designed to mitigate the fallout from a potentially bigger scandal.

 

Is it ironclad? Hardly.

 

I'm not a believer in coincidences. Not like this.

everyone knows that you are not allowed to be the cia director if you keep secrets from people.

Its more fear of blackmail if someone else got the 'dirty little secret'

[strigori]

I don't buy the conspiracy theory at all. The way things came out on this is kinda scary really. The way they follow trails through emails, and are allowed to nail people, unrelated to the search warrants, for emails send to others is probably crossing the line into 'illegal search and seizure'

 

http://www.nytimes.c...ivacy.html?_r=0

 

Isn't this why they instituted the Patriot Act?

Side effect of it probably. As the people who pitched it (and the fools who thought/think its a good idea at all) preached that it was to protect against 'terrorism' not snoop around people's personal lives.

[sd'sker]

Just as it was reasonable to assume that the consequences of Mitt Romney not releasing his taxes to the American voter were less than the consequences of releasing them (since releasing them was so easy, and such a no-brainer thing to do), it's also reasonable to assume that Petraeus' resignation at this odd time, for this odd reason, is in some way designed to mitigate the fallout from a potentially bigger scandal.

 

Is it ironclad? Hardly.

 

I'm not a believer in coincidences. Not like this.

everyone knows that you are not allowed to be the cia director if you keep secrets from people.

Its more fear of blackmail if someone else got the 'dirty little secret'

that was a joke, because, you know, cia is all about them secrets and all.

[ZRod]

This thing is such a cluster f#*k, I explained it in detail to my girlfriend and told her everything but the shirtless photos. She said hmm seems confusing I should read up on it, and I said good luck. Everything I told you is all that's out there and I'm confused as hell. Nobody would believe this if it was a Hollywood script.

[JJ Husker]

Carl- Call me crazy or paranoid if you wish but I am not getting this from rightwing blogs or sources. Here's my theory at this point in time. Somebody screwed up on the Benghazi deal, Patreaus or higher up. Patraeus approved the release of the statement that no one in the CIA told anyone not to act to help those people. This happened before the election and indicates to me that someone did advise to not help those under attack at the consulate, either before or during the attack. We already know that the story coming out of the administration in the weeks following the attack was murky at best and possibly manipulated on purpose at the worst. I don't know if Patraeus is a team Obama player or not but guessing he is since he was dir of CIA. I think he had/has some information that is either critical of himself or someone higher in the administration. I think someone did not want that information coming out in the informative hearings process. I'm guessing that as dir of cia, he would have a hard time invoking the fifth amendment protections but, that may be much easier to do as the ex director. As for the affair, it may be real and is being used as the excuse to resign or it may be a complete fabrication. Either way I'm thinking the details surrounding the affair are a fabricated smokescreen. Anyway that's my theory. My favorite genre of books and movies has always been political thrillers and intrigue. No arguments here, I may be way off base but it all seems very plausible to me. Take one for the team and bury the information where it can't be found out.

[carlfense]

Carl- Call me crazy or paranoid if you wish but I am not getting this from rightwing blogs or sources. Here's my theory at this point in time. Somebody screwed up on the Benghazi deal, Patreaus or higher up. Patraeus approved the release of the statement that no one in the CIA told anyone not to act to help those people. This happened before the election and indicates to me that someone did advise to not help those under attack at the consulate, either before or during the attack. We already know that the story coming out of the administration in the weeks following the attack was murky at best and possibly manipulated on purpose at the worst. I don't know if Patraeus is a team Obama player or not but guessing he is since he was dir of CIA. I think he had/has some information that is either critical of himself or someone higher in the administration. I think someone did not want that information coming out in the informative hearings process. I'm guessing that as dir of cia, he would have a hard time invoking the fifth amendment protections but, that may be much easier to do as the ex director. As for the affair, it may be real and is being used as the excuse to resign or it may be a complete fabrication. Either way I'm thinking the details surrounding the affair are a fabricated smokescreen. Anyway that's my theory. My favorite genre of books and movies has always been political thrillers and intrigue. No arguments here, I may be way off base but it all seems very plausible to me. Take one for the team and bury the information where it can't be found out.

Will it ease your fears if he testifies (this week?) without seeking the protection of the fifth?

[JJ Husker]

 

Will it ease your fears if he testifies (this week?) without seeking the protection of the fifth?

 

I don't have any "fears", just some wild theories. I would like to see him testify but I'm sure it depends upon how the questioning goes if he would have to take the fifth. I'm not real up on my congressional hearings but, at this point, with it seemingly a lower level informational hearing, I'm not even sure if they get sworn in so, possibly he could say anything without a chance of perjury later. You probably know much more about this process than I do.

 

Look, I've got nothing to gain or lose if my speculations are right or wrong. I just feel there are way too many details and issues combining here for there not to be something deeper. Heck, I hope I'm wrong and a totally plausible and logical scenario gets revealed but, it kust doesn't feel likely yet.

[BigRedBuster]

Carl- Call me crazy or paranoid if you wish but I am not getting this from rightwing blogs or sources. Here's my theory at this point in time. Somebody screwed up on the Benghazi deal, Patreaus or higher up. Patraeus approved the release of the statement that no one in the CIA told anyone not to act to help those people. This happened before the election and indicates to me that someone did advise to not help those under attack at the consulate, either before or during the attack. We already know that the story coming out of the administration in the weeks following the attack was murky at best and possibly manipulated on purpose at the worst. I don't know if Patraeus is a team Obama player or not but guessing he is since he was dir of CIA. I think he had/has some information that is either critical of himself or someone higher in the administration. I think someone did not want that information coming out in the informative hearings process. I'm guessing that as dir of cia, he would have a hard time invoking the fifth amendment protections but, that may be much easier to do as the ex director. As for the affair, it may be real and is being used as the excuse to resign or it may be a complete fabrication. Either way I'm thinking the details surrounding the affair are a fabricated smokescreen. Anyway that's my theory. My favorite genre of books and movies has always been political thrillers and intrigue. No arguments here, I may be way off base but it all seems very plausible to me. Take one for the team and bury the information where it can't be found out.

 

 

Can't argue any of your theories. Something just doesn't feel right about this entire issue.

[knapplc]

Former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify before the House and Senate intelligence committees, Fox News has learned.

 

 

Prior to his abrupt resignation last week, Petraeus had been scheduled to testify this Thursday on the burgeoning controversy over the Libya terror attack.

 

LINK

[Creighton Duke]

vs.

I can sorta understand the logic that a cover up may have occurred, but reality seems a lot simpler than that...

[BigRedBuster]

Here is a big part of why this needs to be investigated thoroughly.

 

LINK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petraeus Scandal: Paula Broadwell in Classified Document Probe

 

 

I believe this is a huge issue. A so called author gets close to the top dude in the CIA, sleeps with him and ends up with large amounts of classified documents at her home. Hmmm....Now, I am someone who loves spy novels and movies. Maybe I have seen way too many of them and read too many books. BUT, this cries "spy" to me. I can not imagine any reason why classified documents should be at the home of an author doing a biography on someone.