Petraeus...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The fact that this was covered up till after the election is an issue not to mention that after an obvious screw up in Libya with the CIA directly in the middle of it it is ironic that its director is outed a few days after the election and prior to his testimony on said screw up. Obama didn't cause Petraeus to exercise poor judgement but the timing of the matter is very odd and lets not forget that the President is responsible as he himself has said many times though usually while deflecting the blame elsewhere.

Would it have cost Obama the election? Highly doubtful but i'm sure this story would have been spun far more aggresively had it occured during the election media frenzy as opposed to during the victory lap.

sorry, just don't see that it is a big coverup. if the media isn't making a big deal about the actual attack, with supposed real time knowledge but no action, i don't see why petraus dipping his wick was something to worry about. besides, most people didn't think it was a big deal about clinton, so how could it be with the general?
and he will still be compelled to testify, regardless of whether he is in or out of the cia. i think there would have been something to it had the other woman been a libyan terrorist. other than that, it's just the latest fodder for folks who watch that pageant kid.

and yeah, you're right about the tmz-ization of america. and it's embarrassing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

sorry, just don't see that it is a big coverup. if the media isn't making a big deal about the actual attack, with supposed real time knowledge but no action, i don't see why petraus dipping his wick was something to worry about. besides, most people didn't think it was a big deal about clinton, so how could it be with the general?
and he will still be compelled to testify, regardless of whether he is in or out of the cia. i think there would have been something to it had the other woman been a libyan terrorist. other than that, it's just the latest fodder for folks who watch that pageant kid.

and yeah, you're right about the tmz-ization of america. and it's embarrassing.

A coverup is a coverup. IMO it is more about the President saving face before an election especially since the FBI started investigating long before Libya ever happened.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A coverup is a coverup. IMO it is more about the President saving face before an election especially since the FBI started investigating long before Libya ever happened.

i just don't think petraus' case is a coverup. could be wrong...but i just don't see what happened and who with is worth the energy of a cover up.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i just don't think petraus' case is a coverup. could be wrong...but i just don't see what happened and who with is worth the energy of a cover up.

You think that the FBI has been investigating the head of the CIA for months and the White House is claiming the President didn't know about it is truthful? You dont think if when Obama started slipping a bit in the polls that this story breaking wouldn't have hurt him even if just slightly? It might not have effected the final result but are you ok with the White House lying to us about a matter that you feel isnt of national security?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You think that the FBI has been investigating the head of the CIA for months and the White House is claiming the President didn't know about it is truthful? You dont think if when Obama started slipping a bit in the polls that this story breaking wouldn't have hurt him even if just slightly? It might not have effected the final result but are you ok with the White House lying to us about a matter that you feel isnt of national security?

if i don't feel it is a matter of national security, why would i care about who knew what and when?
he was screwing a girl. so what?!
and if the first debate, and the libya attack and all the other real problems didn't matter, why would it matter that some guy not named obama was screwing someone other than his wife?

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if i don't feel it is a matter of national security, why would i care about who knew what and when?
he was screwing a girl. so what?!
and if the first debate, and the libya attack and all the other real problems didn't matter, why would it matter that some guy not named obama was screwing someone other than his wife?

He's the head of the CIA. Dammit. Some people are PAID not to "screw some girl".

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

He's the head of the CIA. Dammit. Some people are PAID not to "screw some girl".

yeah, it was common knowledge back in the day that thom jefferson was playing pattycake with 'dashing' sally hemings, and that he had kids with her. i bet it would be a lot quicker to name the po-lie-ticians and others in d.c. that AREN'T cheating.
david vitter anyone? wasn't just cheating, he was paying for it. still in the senate.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You think that the FBI has been investigating the head of the CIA for months and the White House is claiming the President didn't know about it is truthful? You dont think if when Obama started slipping a bit in the polls that this story breaking wouldn't have hurt him even if just slightly? It might not have effected the final result but are you ok with the White House lying to us about a matter that you feel isnt of national security?

Having lived through an eight-year administration that lied us into a war and then lied about how it was going so as not to hurt their own reelection prospects, I can say this is not anywhere on the same level.

In fact, Petraeus himself wrote an op-ed piece in 2004, totally lying about what was going on in Iraq, in order to bolster Bush's reelection prospects in an election that was much closer than the one we just had.

But, as this article points out, Petraeus' first blow job came from the media:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/th...david-petraeus

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Having lived through an eight-year administration that lied us into a war and then lied about how it was going so as not to hurt their own reelection prospects, I can say this is not anywhere on the same level.

In fact, Petraeus himself wrote an op-ed piece in 2004, totally lying about what was going on in Iraq, in order to bolster Bush's reelection prospects in an election that was much closer than the one we just had.

But, as this article points out, Petraeus' first blow job came from the media:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/th...david-petraeus

So it is ok because Bush did it?

When people start being ok with their guys doing something wrong because the other guys did something wrong where are we headed? Is it a crime or the worst thing that this administration has done? Not by a longshot. But they knew, they lied about it and there are very few non scripted acts in Washington.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Danzig

sorry, just don't see that it is a big coverup. if the media isn't making a big deal about the actual attack, with supposed real time knowledge but no action, i don't see why petraus dipping his wick was something to worry about. besides, most people didn't think it was a big deal about clinton, so how could it be with the general?
and he will still be compelled to testify, regardless of whether he is in or out of the cia. i think there would have been something to it had the other woman been a libyan terrorist. other than that, it's just the latest fodder for folks who watch that pageant kid.

and yeah, you're right about the tmz-ization of america. and it's embarrassing.

The "media" seems to do a lot of "selective reporting" these days doesn't it? Corruption INC.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

The "media" seems to do a lot of "selective reporting" these days doesn't it? Corruption INC.

these days? you mean always i think.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Danzig

these days? you mean always i think.

Most always!