Do you really think it has anything to do with a former affair ? Do you really think that the Obots did not vett him and find out about the affair before he was appointed ? Do you think the adm. Would time his departure on the day the President was making his case on the approaching fiscal cliff ?

What do you think really happened here ?


I'll give you my take.

This isn't a case of beauty killing the beast . More likely he decided to leave now with the looming Nov. 15 scheduled Senate and House close door hearings on Benghazi.
This abrupt resignation frees him from any blackmail so he can come clean on Benghazi . I'm convinced that the affair was being held as leverage against Petraeus by the adm.The news is saying that he now won't have to testify . BS . He will be called to testify under oath eventually .
Previously he testified to Congress on Benghazi ;and toed the company line that it was about a YouTube video . Then he was NOT under oath. This time he will be .
The adm. Has a lot at stake in this long and short term. Of immediate concern is that they would like to replace Evita with Ambassador Rice at State . Also short term ,the cover-up is unravelling rapidly and among the casualties are potentially Tom Donilon,Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs, Biden ,and who know?? Dare I say the President himself ?

Even if they survive ,their policy for the ummah is exposed. This is not only about Benghazi, but also goes to the administration's secret policy in the Arab Spring of aiding warlords , regardless of their Jihadist connections. Had the compliant press done an ounce of their homework ,or honestly reported what is well known in open source ,we would've seen a different outcome Tuesday (maybe) .

Hmmmm, I don't know. SIC says there are no plans for him to testify and insiders are saying it's all about the affair. Apparently the affair was with his biographer who is under FBI investigation for trying to gain access to his emails and classified info. Time will tell, either way Benghazi is going to dog this administration.

The stink is so great even he could survive it this time

Steve ,
Either he will testify next week ;or he will be a rebuttal witness at some future date . Will Petraeus talk? Yes, if he is called in under oath He can't dodge it . South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy has made it clear that Petraeus will be called .

Generals have affairs ;Patton had them ,Ike had them . They were not exactly secrets and it would be difficult to keep them secret.

Did Obama Ben Ghazi sic the FBI on him after he publicly said "we weren't the ones who denied military support to Americans under attack in Benghazi"? Did they time the announced resignation or were they blindsided ? Once he came clean on the affair and resigned ,they have nothing to hold him to the party line.

Oh I bet he testifies. I'm just waiting...

Yep, looks like he was brought down by a woman. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-probe-of-petraeus-triggered-by-e-mail-threats-from-biographer-officials-say/2012/11/10/d2fc52de-2b68-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html)

The FBI discovered Petraus e-mails "by chance" . Call me skeptical .

Now Evita won't testify because it 'conflicts with her schedule'.

Skepticism is good. Would say they can only dodge so long but then I remember F&F.

Check out this video of Broadwell addressing an alumni association... about the 35-36 min mark (don't waste your time with the rest ) . She gets a question about Benghazi and reveals a possible motive to the attacks that I frankly have not heard anywhere else .She says the CIA station had taken prisoners ? Was there a secret detention operation there ?
How would she know ? Was it real info that she was given by Petraeus ;or perhaps false info fed to her ?

Alumni Symposium 2012 Paula Broadwell - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPaf5OJSskY)


Who was Broadwell ? She is a West Point grad, Army vet and national security professional... that sounds like a potential spook to me ;and of course ;sexual blackmail is a tried and true method of spycraft .

The FBI was investigating the CIA director and Obama wasn't informed until Thursday ? Is that plausible ?

So Bengazhi, a base for special rendition then, and Patraeus resigning; is that a smokescreen before the whole thing became too hot. I'm a cynic and so a resignation so soon after the election, a lot of smoke there

Yeah they are trying to make us believe that the CIA Director and former 4 star General was using personal Gmail for company business ? Please !

No, if the CIA director was being investigated you can bet your a$$ the White House knew.

You are just not comfortable with the idea that the President might know something you don't, are you? Why is it you will not allow him to do his job?

Bwa ha ha!! If he had done his job the ambassador would have had the security beefed up as he requested. Why don't you just let Congress do their job and get to the bottom of this?

Reality is, is it their job? I thought their job was to approve the budget and legislate. I'm not stopping anyone from enquiring into anything, I am suggesting that executive authority rests with the President and he should be left to exercise it, what the Congress is doing is indulging in a political witchhunt, chasing smoke trails of their own making. Do you think he doesn't have the facts on Benghazi? That he knows whether someone failed in their job? Perhaps it was Petraeus, or Evita, interestingly both are moving on. Has it claimed two scalps so far?

The reality is yes, oversight is the job of Congress.

Even that good liberal Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, agrees (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324073504578113460852395852.html?m g=reno-wsj) Congress should have been involved.


The top Senate Democrat on intelligence issues said Sunday she would investigate the FBI's handling of the inquiry, and why the matter wasn't shared earlier with Congress.

"It was like a lightning bolt," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D. Calif.) on "Fox News Sunday." "This is something that could have had an effect on national security. I think we should have been told."

You do get that even though Obama does do his job quite often as the imperial president that he is not king. He's still subject to oversight himself.

Executive authority is not well understood. Congress legislates, the Executive implements. Oversight is checking the programs are implemented not chasing after every little detail. What Congress is about is micro managing

I understand executive authority just fine, and when the sh*t hits the fan it's Congress' job to investigate. Period.

How many fans do you have over there it seems you spend all your time investigating shlt

The President cannot have a secret foreign policy unilaterally implemented without oversight. Many members of the Reagan Adm ended up in jail because the policy known as Iran/Contra was executed in secret.

I can't believe you think it would be perfectly acceptable for an imperial President . As I understand it executive authority in your system rests in the crown of England , Would you accept a decision by the monarch that was not discussed with the PM and the Parliament ? No... I didn't think so.

Your understanding of our system is imperfect. The executive authority in our systems rests in the Executive Council, the Governor-General(representative of the crown of Australia not Britain) acting upon the advice of Ministers of the Crown. Each of those Ministers of the Crown are elected representatives, not appointed officials, who must answer to the parliament as a whole, and only to select committees on a few specific occasions where the parliament delegates its authority. For practical day to day operations, the Prime Minister oversees the process and the Ministers in caucus agree the course of action

A good example of how it works is that a Royal Commission has just been instigated to examine child abuse in various institutions and will be wide ranging enough to enquire into police handling of cases. No Parliamentary Select Committee could investigate in sufficient detail. Parliament has delegated its authority to a judicial process. This has gotten beyond a state process because bodies have acted across state borders to usurp the course of justice

In 1975 the monarch of Australia sacked the PM and the government of the day because they no longer had the confidence of the people and could not guarantee supply, the equivalent of your fiscal cliff. This forced an immediate election at which the people upheld the action taken. Your ideas of what we might accept or not accept are way off

Good summary Clete. Tom is at least trying to understand what makes Australians tick. Having said that I also think he is one of the very few that makes the effort.

There is so much misconception over there about Australia.

The Crown of England, The Privy Council of England, The Parliament of Great Britain... whatever. They all have zero ability to influence our parliament. We are a sovereign nation. We make our own laws.

Tut

And since Britain hug us out to dry in WWII our focus has shifted and our ties are a little looser.

Yes Tom does engage in discussions with us, the others are more local focused, this is why I took some time to correct his impressions

To sum it up... your Executive Council is accountable to Paliament. For the same reason ;our POTUS/CIC cannot engage in a secret foreign policy without Congressional oversight. The whole Libya adventure was ill-conceived from the beginning ;and one of the big omissions was the President's vagrant violation of the provisions of the 'War Power's Act ' ,which actually allows him some flexibilty for independent action .But the act is very clear that after a short period ,the President has to make a full report .

how many fans do you have over there it seems you spend all your time investigating shlt

If the Obama administration wasn't so full of sh!t there would be no need for investigations. Back in 2006 when Dems took control of the House and the Senate I recall that part of their campaign agenda was they were going to investigate the hell out of everything (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/11/payback_time_wh/), even impeach Bush. I'm not moved by your objections to getting to the bottom of this.

People died, Obama lied - time to come clean.

Besides ;another 4 star is collateral damage. The leadership at DOD and CIA are going down faster than the Stalin purge that began with the Tukhachevsky set up .

To sum it up .... your Executive Council is accountable to Paliament. For the same reason ;our POTUS/CIC cannot engage in a secret foreign policy without Congressional oversight. The whole Libya adventure was ill-conceived from the beginning ;and one of the big omissions was the President's vagrant violation of the provisions of the 'War Power's Act ' ,which actually allows him some flexibilty for independent action .But the act is very clear that after a short period of time ,the President has to make a full report .

No Tom it is only convention that keeps the tie alive, like your President our Govenor-General is Commander in Chief. The office signs into law the bills the parliament has passed but can refuse and send them back. But you see we rarely get into the situation where there is unilateral action. The office is A-political, it has no alliegences to a party and a prominent person is usually appointed.

I hope you get that report in due course and it clarifies why your embassy was so vunerable. I see there is now more fallout from this Patraeus affair, you may need a clean sweep at the top of the military

No kidding... starting with all the political appointees like Leon Panetta ;and probably most of the Joint Chiefs . Also I can only think of a small handful of commanding Generals who have served well in the last decade. There are many very qualified Jr Officers who could step up and fill the General ranks .

No army can beat the US, but a bunch of cat fighting females can strip the stars off the generals.

It goes deeper than that . Our Generals generally have not been held accountable for their own failures . Tom Ricks writes about it in this month's Atlantic . He's right ;and these idiotic scandals just illustrate the degree of the problem .

General Failure - Thomas E. Ricks - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/)

That is because every failure you have is a political failure, your army doesn't fail in the field so much as it fails in the fan room. Your generals have support only so long as they have results. You think junior officers could do as well. Guts and glory maybe, but a cool head and keeping themselves out of the mire. Patraeus was successful because he rethunk strategy, now he is crucified for being human. When will you yanks learn to keep it buttoned up?

I love the smell of B/S in the morning, it smells like victory

Patraeus was successful because he rethunk strategy That's correct .Early in in Iraq you did not see the insuregency in Petraeus sector near Mosul that you saw in the rest of the Sunni and Shia sections of the country. That wasn't an accident . He thought ahead about what needed to be done when the invasion phase was over . Something that the author points out that Generals like Tommy Franks didn't .

You missed the point, it was Patraeus experience that counted, something junior officers lack

Ummm I think the Army is run by the Colonels an LT Colonels . The Generals are supposed to have strategic vision ,a trait I haven't seen often in the current crop .

Meanwhile it's great to see Evita has her priorities straight.
Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/exclusive-us-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-poised-to-visit-friends-in-adelaide-next-week/story-fndo471r-1226512913666)
Hope she has a great time wine tasting Down Under .

Generals are flawed like all us humans and deserve no higher pedestals than any of us. He screwed up with his tabloid behavior. But we are no better with our tabloid mentality.

We hate it when our heroes are caught with their pants down.

The sexual angle is a side show .it does the adm a favor by diverting from the bigger stories related to Benghazi .

Well Tom, conspiracy theories aside, do you think it was staged to divert attention with Patraeus the sacrificial goat or does this just mean the administration in inept in its selection of its various leaders?

What was an ambassador doing at an unprotected consulate that had security issue before? With no contingent of bodyguard?

Exactly... except it was not a consulate... and I defy you to find any adm quote using the word . What they continue to call it is a 'mission'.You should ask yourself some more questions . Why did Petraus have secret meetings with Turkish intelligence on Sept 3 ?

AFP: CIA chief visits Turkey for regional talks: official (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jVyW2yX__8A-YA5pkhvFCqwxo4Rg)

Why a couple days later did Ambassador Stevens meet a Turkish counterpart on Sept 11 before the attack?
We know that one of Stevens jobs was to oversee the destruction of Qdaffy's cache of weapons. In truth ;some of the inoperable ones were indeed destroyed . But the CIA operation there was to divert the weapons through Turkey ,to arm anti-Assad insurgents . It was also there to recruit insurgents to fight in Syria.

So Tom as you have all the facts would you care to back it up with some references and why would Al Qaeda object to the rebels in Syria being armed. It all seems a little twisted to me. If what you want to tell us is the CIA is up to its old tricks arming terrorists and overthrowing regimes, this is not news. Are you sure there weren't weapons closer than Libya with which to arm Syrians, after all the conflict has been going on for eigtheen months. Your next theory will no doubt be that Gaddafi had to be overthrown to arm Syrian rebels when no doubt he would have done it for free

I've laid out the facts .here is some corraborating links (there are plenty in open source )
The President is secretly aiding the Syrian rebels :
Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801)

A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.

The Slimes also reported it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/world/middleeast/us-to-focus-on-forcibly-toppling-syrian-government.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Slimes also reported that the bulk of weapons flowing into Syria are going to jihadist groups
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all
Some of the weapons they've acquired are SAMs
Rebels forcing Syrian jets to bomb from high altitude - France | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/17/syria-crisis-weapons-idUSL5E8LH6RE20121017)

The question you pose has bothered me too . I had heard one theory about the attack being a false flag operation by jihadists sympathetic to Iran and Syria. But I'm rethinking that in light of the Broadwell revelation (info she obtained from Petraeus ) that the CIA station was holding prisoners. What if the attack was to free them or to take hostages for an exchange ?

If they held prisioners it could well have caused an attack to free them, but no mention of freed prisioners, not like a jihadist group not to crow. I think the attack was opportunist, the jihadists couldn't believe their luck but we should understand the attitude to american boots on the ground in Libya and we should understand that a lot is going on across the border in Mali. There was also action taken on local groups after the attack so it is easy to blame jihadists. You don't have a lot of friends in Africa you know

Except the group that claimed responsibility is AQ linked ;it happened on 9-11 as was the other coordinated demo in front of the Cairo Embassy(which also had nothing to do with a video) ;and the head of AQ called for revenge because our drone took out the Libyan born 2nd in command at AQ . There was no mention of freed prisoners because there weren't any . The CIA held their position . And CIA ops thwarted any kidnapping when they intervened .

Yes the CIA held their position and got the ambassador killed, very heroic

Lol if you want to blame anyone for Ambassador Stevens death ;blame the idiots who decided to outsource his security detail so the US would not have a heavy footprint.

the sexual angle is a side show .it does the adm a favor by diverting from the bigger stories related to Benghazi .

Yessiree. Some reported asked McCain yesterday if the Petraeus affair was a bigger national security concern than Benghazi. He responded of course...


“Well, I say with great respect, that’s one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard. Okay? There’s four dead Americans. Four dead Americans. Not a socialite. I’m answering your question. Do you want me to answer your question or do you wanna interrupt? Which do you want? There’s four dead Americans. The lives of other Americans were put in jeopardy,” McCain said. “It’s certainly a national security issues, but it doesn’t rise to the level of four dead Americans.”

Been making that point myself and I'm still floored by the nonchalant attitude expressed over that point.

Acting DCI Michael Morell will testify today that the reason there was no military aid during the attack is because the CIA only requested an un-armed drone to survey the scene. He will lie and say that they thought the attack was over when the CIA agents evacuated the mission and there was a lull before the CIA building came under attack . He ignores the fact that the CIA vehicles came under attack on their way back to the CIA compound. During that lull ;the enemy was able to vector in mortars that proved deadly later . He will also make the claim that the agents on the ground NEVER asked for assistance.

And did you catch Obama protectin' his wimmen?

"If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. When they go after the U.N. ambassador apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me."

Can Sen Ayotte go after her without ruffling your chauvinistic feathers Mr. President?

And then of all things comes this jaw dropper, "I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador? Who had nothing to do with Benghazi?"

So why didn't any of those hardcore journalists ask him why they sent her out on 5 Sunday talk shows as the admin's lead on Benghazi if she had nothing to do with Benghazi?

Answer, they were too busy fawning over him (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333399/reporter-fawns-over-obama-nathaniel-botwinick#)...

lol if you want to blame anyone for Ambassador Stevens death ;blame the idiots who decided to outsource his security detail so the US would not have a heavy footprint.

You mean to say the US is incapable of hiring mercenaries? What no Delta force hiding in the shubbery? Some times this becomes so pathetic I have to wonder are you serious?

you mean to say the US is incapable of hiring mercenaries? what no Delta force hiding in the shubbery? some times this becomes so pathetic I have to wonder are you serious?

Dude, when did you get the impression that the Obama administration had any level of competence?

About the time they took out OBL

My information is that the President had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the situation room... that the call to wack OBL was made without his input.

Be that as it may, and he may have trusted wiser heads than his, the job got done, and the leader takes the credit as well as the kicks.

Should be interesting what Petraeus says in testimony today . The Obots are letting the press establish the narrative that Benghazi is an agency failure . If he comes clean then the news will be that this was an op run internally in the WH... using foreign funding (primarily Saudi )so the President can get around accountability to Congress (ala Iran-Contra) .

Found out that his wife was installed in a plum $187,605-per-yer job; in the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB);a bass turd child of the Dodd-Frank law .Holly Petraeus is the assistant director for the Office of Servicemember Affairs ,a posting that did not require Senate confirmation (also funding for CFPB comes from the Federal Reserve and does not require Congressional oversight) .She was appointed by the new Sen from Mass. Elizabeth Warren when Warren was setting up the agency .

So the Obots still hold some leverage over the General.

It is reported as closed doors, so unlikely you will get the full story, what you are saying is we have Saudi-Lybia affair, but the saudi's can give aid to Libya without a by your leave

Reportedly he intends to testify that he knew it was terrorism "almost immediately", that he had his own talking points and that those that Rice went out with came from somewhere else in the administration.

It is reported as closed doors, so unlikely you will get the full story, what you are saying is we have Saudi-Lybia affair, but the saudi's can give aid to Lybia without a by your leave

What's your point ?Of course they could.. But the President CAN'T do it without foreign money unless he reports to Congress about the operation.

Reportedly he intends to testify that he knew it was terrorism "almost immediately", that he had his own talking points and that those that Rice went out with came from somewhere else in the administration.

From somewhere else in the CIA, as the general has already said he had to verify his suspicions further.

The video was a ruse ;even in Cairo .

Maybe it was but the ruse worked thruout the 22 embassys in the muslim world.

Yup ;and there will be other days of rage now that Israel has gotten tired of the barrage of missiles out of Gaza . But the day of rage won't be against Hamas and Islamic Jihad (the Iranian based terror organization that is launching the Iranian supplied Fajr-5 solid fuel missiles aimed at Tel Aviv ). It will be about Israel defending itself.
As Ex says ;none of this is happening in a vacume.

Its been a mess for centuries. A spark will ignite a raging fire for all affected. No good guy here no matter what they say. They both get burned in the end.

I think it is clear who has been the provocateur, no doubt there are a lot of bystanders who are going to suffer but it cannot be allowed to continue. When you are at war even a small war force must be used

The White House was definitely briefed that Benghazi was a terrorist attack within 72 hours. Game over on these lame defenses from Obama - the Obama administration duped the voters and intentionally sent Susan Rice out to lie to the American people.


BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/breaking-the-president-knew-the-truth-about-benghazi/2012/11/16/39aecaf0-3034-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_blog.html)
By Jennifer Rubin

In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.

Citing officials directly familiar with the information, Solomon writes in the Washington Guardian that Obama and other administration officials were told that “that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region.”

He adds:


The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris [Stevens] were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.

Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”

How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?

This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.

This is a full-blown scandal, and in light of this information, the press corps’s slothful indifference to uncovering the truth at Wednesday’s news conference with Obama is all the more shocking. It is time for the president to come clean. The scandal has now enveloped the Oval Office and will define his second term, if not resolved satisfactorily.

What did he know and when did he know it? Answered. When will the media pick up on this? Will they hold his feet to the fire? That remains to be seen.

When will the media pick up on this? Will they hold his feet to the fire? That remains to be seen.
Why does the American public have a right to know this instantaneously, as soon as he does?

It's debatable ,although I think we absolutely need and deserve the truth about the murder of an American ambassador But that is not the issue. We were misled and lied to ;and they tried to maintain that false narrative despite it unravelling around them.
As you may have noticed;I am convinced that the lie was concocted to cover a much bigger policy failure that makes the narrative that it was about the election a minor issue in comparison.

a much bigger policy failure
And that was?

Well maybe not a failure... but one of those policies that you think we shouldn't know about. A policy that the President didn't want Congress to know about for that matter . It involves recruiting and arming anti-Assad 'rebels '. The mission in Benghazi( it has never been called a consulate by the White House ) was the base of the operation.

We couldn't have done anything about it anyway. And it was a security issue.

Maybe ;maybe not . But that doesn't change that the adm had a compelling reason to cover it up .

maybe ;maybe not . But that doesn't change that the adm had a compelling reason to cover it up .
But maybe that is not what was happening. Just because I don't tell my adult children something right away doesn't mean I am covering it up.

Unless you tell them something completely different

unless you tell them something completely different
"Yes, your father and I fight a lot" vs. "Yes, your father and I are getting a divorce."

No ; the least of it was political . One week before the President danced on OBLs grave and said AQ was on the run. He was never going to admit that AQ hit us on the anniverary of the 9-11 attack.
But he would've survived that . There was something deeper ;something that required foreign financing so he could keep the operation hidden from the Congressional Intelligence Committees.

Congressional intelligence isn't that an oxymoron somewhat similar to military intelligence

If the ambassador or anyone was so concerned over the lax security of a previouly besieged mission/consulate, what was he doing there without his security detail? Least we forget the ambassador to Syria among the Syrian people a year or so ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?pagewanted=all


Benghazi residents circulated photographs online of Mr. Stevens frequenting local restaurants, relishing local dishes, and strolling city streets, apparently without a security detail.

On Wednesday, some friends of Mr. Stevens suggested that his faith in his bond with the people of Benghazi may have blinded him to the dangers there.

There was something deeper ;something that required foreign financing so he could keep the operation hidden from the Congressional Intelligence Committees.
And you and I were doing so well...

But maybe that is not what was happening. Just because I don't tell my adult children something right away doesn't mean I am covering it up.

The point is, with my last post it's more than obvious Obama intentionally lied to us. Why?

People died, Obama lied.

The point is, with my last post it's more than obvious Obama intentionally lied to us. Why?

People died, Obama lied.
So if he would have filled us in from the get-go, no one would have died?

what was he doing there without his security detail?

yes ask yourself why the Ambassador in a hot zone was not assigned a security detail commensurate with the threat matrix . Why did the State Dept rely on locals for the Ambassador's security ? Why would he risk going to Benghazi on the anniversary of 9-11 to meet with the Turkish envoy ,and why was the Ambassador there when every other western nation had bugged out of Bengazi because it was unsafe. Then ask yourself ;was the Ambassador really conducting a diplomatic mission?. this Ambassador who's previous job was to coordinate and arm anti-QDaffy forces .

yes ask yourself why the Ambassador in a hot zone was not assigned a security detail commensurate with the threat matrix .
Maybe he was but declined to use it. He knew he was greatly loved and respected.

Hmmmm!

With or without adequate security, he went anyway knowing he had NONE. Knowing the whole region was hyped up over this film deal. Knowing this particular spot was a target, knowing he was a target.

I don't think this guy knew anything, he had an agenda, a job, and there weren't any other considerations

Knowing the whole region was hyped up over this film deal.

No one was hyped up about the video . Please don't tell me you are still clinging to that falacy .

No oddly Libya wasn't hyped up over the video

No let-up in protests over anti-Islam film - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/world/film-protests/index.html)

US consulate 'easy target' for extremists - Features - Al Jazeera English (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/09/201291684555157640.html)


Fawzi Abd al-'Aali, the interior ministry's representative for eastern Libya, told Al Jazeera that the American diplomats should have heeded the advice of Libyan officials and evacuated the building as soon as the protest began.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and 10 Libyans were killed on Tuesday, after what began as a protest against a film mocking the Prophet Muhammed evolved into an armed attack.

"We expected something might happen, and we thought they would evacuate the American consulate sooner, while they still had a good chance," he said.

During the first two hours of the protest, he said, the crowd was small enough that they would probably have been able to escape. Al-'Aali said that Stevens had gravely miscalculated, and had believed the protest would soon die down.

No let-up in protests over anti-Islam film - CNN.com
The attack happened on Sept 11 ;not the 18th


It appears that US officials paid little heed to the implications of this security vacuum for their own staff. The diplomatic mission in Benghazi had light security, even though the building was hit by an improvised explosive device on June 6.

The International Red Cross was attacked in Benghazi in May, and there was an attempted attack on the British ambassador's motorcade.

There has been a spate of assassinations in Benghazi in recent months, which have killed more than a dozen top security officials who had defected from Gaddafi's regime during the revolution.

And yet the Ambassador was there on the anniversary of 9-11 ;with a light security contingent of locals ,to meet with a Turkish representative . Instead of focusing on Stevens lack of prudence; you should be asking yourself what was so compelling about that meeting that would make the Ambassador choose to ignore the security threat ,that he had identified to the State Dept. and risked travelling to Benghazi .

There were 30 Americans saved by the actions of former Seals who ignored direct orders to run to the rescue. Who are the 30 ? Where are they ? Why haven't we learned their names ? Why haven't they been interviewed ?

But continue believing that lie that even the White House has abandoned .


At least al Jazzera gets it right when they call the complex a 'mission ' and not a consulate .

With or without adequate security, he went anyway knowing he had NONE. Knowing the whole region was hyped up over this film deal. Knowing this particular spot was a target, knowing he was a target.

It had nothing to do with the film, I can't believe you'd still mention that as an excuse it's been so thoroughly debunked. And to use Al Jazeera to back you up? Please.

It had nothing to do with the film
That was the excuse to hype up the especially male populace which became cover for terrorism.

Nope ;you still don't get it... it was a coordinated attack . Video of the whole thing was viewed by the Congressional Intelligence committee and no one Democrat or Republican came out and said there was a protest that preceded the attack .That was open source info on Sept 13
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/13/168415/no-protest-before-benghazi-attack.html

Nope ;you still don't get it ... it was a coordinated attack .
Ignorant males were duped into believing it was about the film. This was the cover story.

The attack itself, the guard said, was immediate and bold, initiated by a group of [125] men who approached the compound and lobbed grenades over the wall. Just behind them were scores of men, shooting wildly and yelling “God is great.”

Meanwhile, fallout continued Thursday from anger over an online video that Muslims said denigrated their religion.

-from your link

That narrative works for the Cairo Embassy . Not for the Benghazi mission. The Cairo Embassy could've been a diversion to the Benghazi attack that's true. But there was no protest preceding the Benghazi attack . That's indisputable.

that narrative works for the Cairo Embassy . Not for the Benghazi mission. The Cairo Embassy could've been a diversion to the Benghazi attack that's true. But there was no protest preceeding the Benghazi attack . That's indisputable.
I didn't say there was. But to the watching world, the protest was deliberately made to look like it was about the film.

Yes which brings up another interesting question. The video was out for months . Who fed the Egyptians the info on the existence of the video so they could coordinate "spontaneous" demonstrations on 9-11-12 ?

Hello again,

Personally, I think there's poetic JUSTICE when a country that LOVES spying on its own people, loses its OWN top spy because of it.

Republicans LOVE shooting themselves in the foot. I wonder if they had anything to do with THIS invasion of our privacy?? Oh, that's right, they DID.

excon

Republicans LOVE shooting themselves in the foot. I wonder if they had anything to do with THIS invasion of our privacy??? Oh, that's right, they DID.

excon

What are you talking about?

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I know you righty's have trouble remembering beyond 4 years. But, there WAS a time in this country when the Fourth Amendment MEANT something... Then we got George W. Bush, a REPUBLICAN, who DECIMATED it. Our spy agencies were set loose upon US.

Now, jump ahead a few years... The FBI was spying on the top CIA guy, and BUSTED him. Now, maybe YOU can't make the connection, but I can. Look. You can't make the connection between the crash Bush caused and the unemployment Obama is suffering, so I DOUBT whether you'll be able to make THIS connection..

excon

He's talking about the FBI reading Petraeus gmails. Ummm G mail is not private . It is owned by the government .

Hello again, tom:

Well, there you go... The guvment is JUSTIFIED for violating Petraeus. I know you LOVE spying on your own people. I don't understand it, but I know you LIKE it.

Uhhhh, doesn't the clear Constitutional violation bother you?? I thought you guys LOVED the Constitution.. No, huh?

excon

He is not entitled to privacy if it means using his government Gmail account any more than I am entitled to it using my company account.

Or was it his private g-mail (Google mail) account?

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I know you righty's have trouble remembering beyond 4 years. But, there WAS a time in this country when the Fourth Amendment MEANT something... Then we got George W. Bush, a REPUBLICAN, who DECIMATED it. Our spy agencies were set loose upon US.

Now, jump ahead a few years... The FBI was spying on the the top CIA guy, and BUSTED him. Now, maybe YOU can't make the connection, but I can. Look. You can't make the connection between the crash Bush caused and the unemployment Obama is suffering, so I DOUBT whether you'll be able to make THIS connection..

excon

Seems I recall that what started this was a complaint against Paula Broadwell for "cyber-harassment" via email. You find it odd that emails were read? Bwa ha ha!

Or was it his private g-mail (Google mail) account?

It was via Broadwell's account, she was the one being investigated for cyber harassment via email. If you don't want something to become public, don't send it in an email.

You are right... I just did some more research and it was accounts with Goggle G mail .

you are right ... I just did some more research and it was accounts with Goggle G mail .
OMG! I was right about something! My eyes are now sparkly and my pearly whites show when I grin from ear to ear.

Yes it was Google Gmail, but if someone who files a complaint allows access to their email it's going to lead to other people's email, period. Like I said, if you don't want something public, don't send it in an email.

Yes it was Google Gmail, but if someone who files a complaint allows access to their email it's going to lead to other people's email, period. Like I said, if you don't want something public, don't send it in an email.
Why would they allow access to private email?

Follow me here, no one said "they." Paula Broadwell harassed Jill Kelley via email and Jill Kelley complained. To validate her complaint Kelley would have given the FBI access to some of her email. The rest is just following the tracks.

You have no way to control what happens with your email and all of it's routing information once you click send. Petraeus should have known that.

And to top it off Petraeus and Broadstone shared the same account (both under pseudonyms);and thought that if they left messages in the draft folder for the other one to read without sending that it would be more difficult to trace(a method called “dead drop,” ). Problem is the FBI knows about that trick since jihadists like the 2004 Madrid Train Bombers routinely use it and there is software to beat it.

It is also worth noting that Petraeus resigned . He was not fired ,and is under no charges that I know of. Like Speech said. The FBI was investigating a threat that Broadwell made against Kelly . As far as I can tell ,there were no 4th Amendment violations ;although there probably should be an updated version of the Electronic and Communications and Privacy Act,which has has some tinkering updates over the years ;but pretty much remains the same since 1986.

Why would they allow access to private email?

Actually it's about to get worse in the US concerning your privacy:
Senate Bill Rewrite Lets Feds Read Your E-mail Without Warrants - Slashdot (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/20/1331255/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants)

I said "why would they allow access." "They" is Petraus and Company. Why they were so stupid is beyond me.

Written by that Dem champion of rights Sen Leahey .

I said "why would they allow access." "They" is Petraus and Company. Why they were so stupid is beyond me.

"They" didn't have to allow access since Kelley allowed access to hers. What are you missing about this?

You have no way to control what happens with your email and all of it's routing information once you click send. Petraeus should have known that.
Except that's not what they did:
Petraeus used Canadian navy spy's email trick - Technology & Science - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/11/13/tec-petraeus-email-drafts.html)

I read a summary that compared the email searches to a physical search of a home with a warrant let's say they were looking for evidence of theft, and "in plain sight" in that home they saw illegal drugs, the opinion stated that they could also prosecute the drug charge from that search.
But--the article went on to say- that didn't allow them to go next door and search another person's property, the point being that is what the writer compared what is being done with email searches.
I have a theory (this theory was not part of the article I described above) that emails have replaced a lot of conversations that used to take place on telephones. They couldn't tape phone calls in the old days without a warrant, but with emails it is comparable to there having been a policy that they could tape all phone calls but not listen to them unless someone was suspected of a crime and then they could listen to all the tapes they had made, and use them against the parties to the call.
I don't know if any of this makes any sense because I haven't expressed it very well I realize, but maybe I can find the article and post it.

This is the article I referred to, and a quote from the article below:
FBI investigation of Broadwell reveals bureau’s comprehensive access to electronic communications - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-investigation-of-broadwell-reveals-bureaus-comprehensive-access-to-electronic-communications/2012/11/17/5f27d636-3012-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_story.html)

"Law enforcement officers conducting a legal search have always been able to pursue evidence of other crimes sitting in “plain view.” Investigators with a warrant to search a house for drugs can seize evidence of another crime, such as bombmaking. But the warrant does not allow them to barge into the house next door."

Except that's not what they did:
Petraeus used Canadian navy spy's email trick - Technology & Science - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/11/13/tec-petraeus-email-drafts.html)

Tom already covered that here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3329609-post110.html).

The FBI is going to investigate the person doing the harassing which would be Broadwell and her email messages, the method of harassment. You of all people should know that following her email tracks could lead to other things and smearcase is right, if it's in front of them in the process of another investigation they're going to look deeper.

written by that Dem champion of rights Sen Leahey .

Dems have a penchant for giving us exactly the opposite, a bill that's supposed to give us more privacy gives us less, kind of like the "Affordable Care" act makes health care more expensive. But I digress...

You are not complaining about polispeak, are you? I didn''t hear you complaining when Romney outlined his ambitious program

Privacy in the US is a thing of the past.

you are not complaining about polispeak, are you? I didn''t hear you complaining when Romney outlined his ambitious program

Why would I complain about not raising taxes, fewer regulations and no Obamacare? Far less worrisome than a guy that campaigned on Romney is evil and everything is Bush's fault.

Apparently your counterparts think that Obama is so evil that seceding from the republic is preferable. Are you immune to what the right says about Obama??

Apparently your counterparts think that Obama is so evil that seceding from the republic is preferable. Are you immune to what the right says about Obama???

You do realize those petitions could have been put there by liberals trying to create mischief don't you? No one is actually trying to secede, don't be so naïve.

Wow, it's amazing what your mind will believe in order to keep the ideology alive. It's like a cult.

Wow, it's amazing what your mind will believe in order to keep the ideology alive. It's like a cult.

It's more like reality, you should try it some time.

What's your proof that the creators and signers are all "liberals trying to create mischief"?

What's your proof that the creators and signers are all "liberals trying to create mischief"?

See there? What's your aversion to reality? The words "could have been" have a much different meaning than "are all". Are you done playing your puerile games today or are you up for more humiliation? I'm perfectly willing to humiliate you more if you insist.

What are you so defensive? I only asked for the reason you believe it to be the work of liberals, to see if it is based on any facts at all. I see that it isn't.

What are you so defensive? I only asked for the reason you believe it to be the work of liberals, to see if it is based on any facts at all. I see that it isn't.

I see you chose to be further humiliated. Do they pay for psychiatric care in Canada?

Why are you consistently attacking me instead of simply answering with facts?

Why are you consistently attacking me instead of simply answering with facts?

Dude, just living in reality as I said way back. As always you started it with this mockery, "Wow, it's amazing what your mind will believe in order to keep the ideology alive. It's like a cult. "

When you stop the buillsh*t and trolling I'll stop humiliating you in response. Seems fair to me.

So no facts then, just a hunch on your part.

I was admonished a couple of months back and accused of insulting another member which was reversed by management I believe. But you folks openly admit your intention to humiliate other members and get away with it. I admit I don't know the rules of this site very well but I see this type of bickering with questions in many categories and I think it deters a lot of folks from asking questions or trying to help others when they anticipate attacks from their fellow members.

So no facts then, just a hunch on your part.

Troll someone else, and grow up. What are you, 12?

I was admonished a couple of months back and accused of insulting another member which was reversed by management I believe. But you folks openly admit your intention to humiliate other members and get away with it. I admit I don't know the rules of this site very well but I see this type of bickering with questions in many categories and I think it deters a lot of folks from asking questions or trying to help others when they anticipate attacks from their fellow members.

It does distract, but if the mods aren't going to restrain this dude and his constant trolling/creeping/attacking/insulting it won't change.

I was admonished a couple of months back and accused of insulting another member which was reversed by management I believe. But you folks openly admit your intention to humiliate other members and get away with it. I admit I don't know the rules of this site very well but I see this type of bickering with questions in many categories and I think it deters a lot of folks from asking questions or trying to help others when they anticipate attacks from their fellow members.
More off-topic chat is allowed on this board because it is a "discussion board" and more free wheeling. Rarely does it attract new members, maybe because politics is such a hot-button topic. Unless a member is extremely disruptive here and/or is reported, mods mostly ignore what said on Current Events.

If you see a comment anywhere on the site that annoys or upsets you or is out of line in some way, please report it. Mods don't read every thread and every post but we do follow up on every report.

This comment was in response to speechless (hadn't seen WG comment)
I won't judge who is right or wrong but I respect your willingness to openly discuss the issue. And you are correct-- rules are never effective if they aren't applied equally for everybody subject to them.

Sometimes a member gets too emotionally involved with a topic or another member and needs a calming PM discussion or even time away from the site. Rather than have members frustrated with someone or something (a post, a thread, a comment), please RIP it and let us figure out what to do about it. The mods are amazingly sensitive as they wield their velvet hammer. :)

It does distract, but if the mods aren't going to restrain this dude and his constant trolling/creeping/attacking/insulting it won't change.Quite certain he was referring to you.

Quite certain he was referring to you.

And I responded appropriately. See how easy that is?

Ah, I wasn't aware you were speaking of yourself in the third person.

Obviously you still choose to be immature. Have a nice day.

You actually never answered the original question.

Why don't you start your own thred for a pissing match .

Have a nice day.

Thanks, you too.

Hey!

Nothing new on this front as the US is taking a holiday weekend of eating turkey and watching American football . On the political front we are reduced to watching the President pardon two turkeys (last year's pardoned turkey was euthanized this week;so it was only a temporary reprieve) .

Euthanized, this that PC for he got the axe and is now the President's dinner? Quaint customs you have over there

Oh they say the bird didn't end up on anyone's dinner table ,but I have my doubts.

oh they say the bird didn't end up on anyone's dinner table ,but I have my doubts.

PETA wasn't even happy that the turkey gets pardoned...


Dear Mr. President:

People who are vegetarian for religious, health, environmental, or ethical reasons—with all due respect, I'm writing on behalf of them all as well as on behalf of PETA's millions of members and supporters, particularly young vegetarians who look to you to recognize their very existence.

You understand so well that African-Americans, women, and members of the LGBT community have been poorly served throughout history, and now I am asking you to consider other living beings who are ridiculed, belittled, and treated as if their sentience, feelings, and very natures count for nothing.

The White House turkey "pardon" is a sorely outdated event. It makes light of the mass slaughter of some 46 million gentle, intelligent birds and portrays the United States' president as being in some sort of business partnership with the turkey-killing industry. Turkeys do not need to be "pardoned"—they are not guilty of anything other than being born into a world of prejudice. They are innocents who should be respected for who they are: good mothers, smart birds, and interesting animals.

This year, we encourage you to forgo this event, which so many Americans find offensive, and choose a delicious, healthy Tofurky roast for your family's holiday table. Thank you for your consideration. We wish you, your family, and all Americans a happy, violence-free Thanksgiving.

Very truly yours,

Ingrid E. Newkirk
President

Turkey's have feelings?

No they don't, that's why they don't have to be pardoned. Surely they must have better things to do... but then again, it is PETA.

PETA got "Sir " Paul McCartney to make a public service commercial to get us to eat tofurkey

Ok.
You should make a competing commercial talking about the deliciousness of turkey.

Does the follishness never stop

Smoked turkey is delicious. That's NOT foolish!