What do you think?


#1

What do you think about Gen. Petraenus’ resignation? I don’t think he resigned becaused of an “affair”. I think he resigned because he knows something about Benghazi and is resigning so he can’t be questioned–thereby implicating BO as a murdering traitor. I also think that Killary Klinton resigned because she too knows too much about BO’s responsibility for the deaths of the 4 Americans. I don’t trust these guys at all. They’re all liars and comrades of BO. Any thoughts about this?


#2

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:1, topic:37023”]
What do you think about Gen. Petraenus’ resignation? I don’t think he resigned becaused of an “affair”. I think he resigned because he knows something about Benghazi and is resigning so he can’t be questioned–thereby implicating BO as a murdering traitor. I also think that Killary Klinton resigned because she too knows too much about BO’s responsibility for the deaths of the 4 Americans. I don’t trust these guys at all. They’re all liars and comrades of BO. Any thoughts about this?
[/quote]My thoughts are that even if they abdicated to avoid questioning, they are still subject to subpoena. They can run, but they cannot hide.
I think they know what the next 4 years will bring, and do not want to be associated with the fall of America.


#3

:yeahthat: sigh


#4

I don’t think resigning will effect whether Congress calls him to testify, it might even give him more liberty to “tell it like it is” without White House pressure.


#5

I’m thinking that:

  1. He resigned because the affair was being held over his head.
  2. By confessing…and resigning he removed the threat in an honorable manner.
  3. By resigning …he is free to testify as a “civilian” without being disloyal to his boss…something no one in the chain of command likes to do.
  4. He will be subpoenaed as a private citizen…and testify shortly.
    Make sense?

#6

Congressman Trey Goudy said he will appear either voluntarily or by subpoena.


#7

No we just live in a PC nation. France and others are laughing there heads off at us uptight Americans. People of power draw the chicks has been that way since forever. We should accept it and move on its all so silly. I mean look at highschool for instance, you have the ugliest, rudest football players getting the cheerleaders and the chicks. Do you really think it was because of their looks or great personality? Look at the old frt with all the pretty ladies on thier shoulder its not because all those girls are turned on by a fat frog looking old man because of his good looks, its the money and power they are drawn two.
So we should accept it of our leaders and move on.


#8

What an utterly ridiculous statement to make! Accept it and move on? Maybe in your world that sounds logical, but not in mine.


#9

So you saying that you cannot think of any reason beyond prudishness that would cause anyone to be concerned about the head of the Central Intelligence Agency cheating on his wife with a married woman?

You cannot muster up any possible scenario where this might have some very negatives ramifications for many people and produce some incredibly tragic consequences?

Are you also saying that the Heads of Intelligence in other Nations “like France” are so dense that they would not be able to fathom why this could lead to great tragedy?

Just the “Prude Factor”, that is the only explanation you can come up with?

Here is a tip;
The time to worry is not when France is laughing at you, the time to worry is when France approves of what you are doing.


#10

wild applause!!!


#11

Good point however, if we want absolute security at the top by your reasoning then only “monks” should serve in such positions. We would be even more secure if we only had single people serve in such positions as spouses could also be seen as a security risk for similar reason. Spouses have friends and they talk. A husband has a level if intimicy and trust with thier spouse that could lead to sharing of information.


#12

Although perfect fidelity in society is unachievable by humans, it used to be a lot better, and less risk of such happening in such sensitive situations.


#13

Wow. The assumption is that “all men cheat?” I suppose that’s because “all women are evil, seductive temptresses?”

As far as Petraeus goes, here’s what Noel Sheppard from News Busters reported that Krauthammer had to say on the subject:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.

And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?

As a point of reference, ABCNews.com reported on September 14:

“The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.”

This of course was the administration line for almost two weeks after the attacks.

With that in mind, Krauthammer drove his point home further a few minutes later:

KRAUTHAMMER: Of course it was being held over Petraeus’s head, and the sword was lowered on Election Day. You don’t have to be a cynic to see that as the ultimate in cynicism. As long as they needed him to give the administration line to quote Bill, everybody was silent. And as soon as the election’s over, as soon as he can be dispensed with, the sword drops and he’s destroyed. I mean, can you imagine what it’s like to be on that pressure and to think it didn’t distort or at least in some way unconsciously influence his testimony? That’s hard to believe.

If Krauthammer is correct, it’s going to be very interesting to see if and how the Obama-loving media reports it.

Stay tuned.

Read more: Krauthammer: White House ‘Held Affair Over Petraeus’s Head’ For Favorable Testimony On Benghazi | NewsBusters.org

Head meet nail, if you ask me.