WSB Forum » Politics

(94 posts)

Petraeus Scandal - I don't get it


  1. skeeter
    Member Profile

    I'm confused. Why is it a "scandal?" Are CIA employees prohibited from having an extramarital affair?

    I get it that some people would interpret this as immoral behavior. But why is it a scandal? Was government money misused or something?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  2. because it put him in a compromising situation regarding the CIA...you know, that blackmail thing ...he's supposed to know better than that. But..he is, like all of us only human.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  3. skeeter
    Member Profile

    Hmm. I guess the blackmail thing makes sense. Seems to me like he could admit the affair (no blackmail opportunity) and continue to do his job.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  4. KatherineL
    Member Profile

    My impression was that the fact he used a non-secure gmail account was a problem. Hackers could get into that account and possibly get other information that would allow them to hack into CIA accounts. Bad judgement on his part.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  5. Bostonman
    Member Profile

    There was an article I read this morning that indicated nothing he did was illegal. Just not in good form. I think they are looking to see if the affair started while he was still active military. I heard that could be an issue.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  6. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Many things were done wrong. First a civilian had access to his personal CIA e-mail account, Her letters to the yet another "woman" also went via internal government e-mail. That is in itself a security breach. Second, while few can rise to the levels of trust and security... his oath of allegiances included the one to his wife. Second, when you are a spook, you are required to self report if you are a philanderer. In this case the law requires that any senior intelligence officer who may be compromised, is immediately reported to the Senate ... by the FBI... which it now appears, like most of the record of this DOJ, did not do at the insistance of the White House. I guess skeeter, the solemn oath of a trusted intelligence officer means nothing? He made two of them... one included the one to his wife. And his children... nice way to protect the two young children of his paramour too... standing up for the family. No, the head of Centcom, CIA is not like all of us. That's why we don't tolerate men of no honor. Pillow talk is old espionage trade craft. This administration lacks a moral compass. Hope he enjoyed it. She is a pig, he is a dog. The FBI it now seems was told not to report until after the election.. like Benghazi... what a dream team.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  7. skeeter
    Member Profile

    Thanks Kootch.

    Well now I'm really curious. If he did indeed break the law, then that's a whole other matter.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  8. Lindsey
    Member Profile

    Lindsey

    Kootch is wrong. His CIA email was not compromised, nor was his personal gmail account. It started as an FBI investigation into a cyber harassment charge, which let them to Broadwell's email account, which revealed the affair.

    "The FBI investigation found only a personal drama and no security issues connected to the affair, and no charges are expected, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr."

    And, congress can absolutely still compel him to testify about Benghazi even after he has resigned. They can and they will.

    At question, from my understanding, is what level of access Broadwell was improperly granted as a biographer, private citizen and secret mistress.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  9. So, kootch, is it your view that the crumbling of Petraeus' honor is the result of him becoming a member of the Obama administration? Fascinating, does the losening of morals work like cooties, or ringworm? Can you get it from a toilet seat?

    What is interesting to me about this tempest-in-a-teapot over filandering, is that a FBI agent told Dave Reichert about it first, and then, on Reichert's advice, told Eric Cantor.

    Sounds like the long knives were out for General Dave, I guess he's just not a Washington player.

    Tom Delay only spanked lobbyists for working with the Democrats, now the Rs will pummel one of their own who works for the other side. And a big deal military hero, at that.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  10. And they 're trying to link prior knowledge about Benghazi somehow to all of this. Yeah, right. It's all an evil conspiracy. Kootch, you will stoop to anything to make Obama the devil incarnate. Your guy lost fair and square - get over it!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  11. Affairs are considered blackmail material, as is debt. So was being gay, while that was still illegal. So having a blackmail vulnerability is very bad for someone in a sensitive position, even if it's nothing illegal and is not being exploited.

    I'm not sure what the position is once the supposed blackmail material is revealed. Could Petraeus have simply told the President and his wife, taken his lumps from her, and stayed on?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  12. In 1942 John F. Kennedy was having an affair with a married woman. Her name was Inga Arvad, a columnist for the The Washington Post. The juicy gossip caught J. Edgar Hoover’s eye because Arvad was a former Nazi sympathizer and a suspected spy. The FBI had had her house bugged for months.

    It is said that Kennedy's notorious father, Joe, was worried about the damage to his son's future prospects, and the result was a deal with Hoover that got young Lt.j.g. JFK assinged to PT-109, a dangerous assignment which allowed Kennedy to rise to hero status, with a bad back from a torpedo attack.

    I guess JFK could never have become Director of the CIA, too bad for him.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  13. valvashon
    Member Profile

    As historian Juan Cole explained on today's Democracy Now!, Petraeus was in a no-win situation due to the failure of the counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm guessing he needed to take the fall for that, but couldn't go down for the failure of the counterinsurgency since that would have called the last 11 years of U.S. foreign policy into question, including, and most importantly, those years when Obama was in charge. So they dug up an affair and had him fall on that sword.

    Read/watch here:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/12/juan_cole_real_petraeus_failure_was

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  14. elikapeka
    Member Profile

    My question is why do all of these supposedly intelligent people leave e-mail trails of their transgressions? Is it arrogance or are they not as smart as we've been led to believe?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  15. they are human

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  16. Re: JFK's sexual indiscretions (#12)

    They didn't end in 1942 but continued (probably without interruption) until his assassination. One of them was Judith Exner, a woman connected to the mafia.

    So yeah. I think you could make a case that JFK was a security risk. Doesn't mean he was a bad Prez. But he was known to take stupid risks, and his sexual affairs are proof of that. (See also: "Bay of Pigs")

    But here's another historical titbit for ya, and this one should put to rest the idea that who the POTUS sleeps with isn't anyone's business but his own . . .

    After being elected President, JFK thought he might like to get him a new FBI director.

    Huh-uh. Nothing doing. J. Edgar calmly explained to him that if he got fired, he'd call the press and hand them the "Kennedy File."

    (D'oh!)

    So that meant the country was stuck with J. Edgar.

    Which meant that the country was also stuck with Hoover's "COINTELPRO" domestic spying program, which was being used to harass Martin Luther King and other Black leaders whom Hoover considered to be communists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

    All because ole JFK couldn't keep his pecker in his pocket.*

    Still think this shit isn't important?
     

    *****************************************************************************************

    *I'm not letting the other Presidents off the hook here. Hoover probably had the goods on all of them.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  17. That's a bit of circular argument, isn't it DBP?

    J. Edgar Hoover has "the goods" on presidents and other officials because he knows about their sex lives (and other minutiae). So, don't have sex where JEH doesn't want you to, particularly with Clyde Tolson.

    How about just telling gossips like Hoover that we don't give a damn.

    I know I don't give.

    Keeping peckers in pants isn't the problem, the problem is irritating snoops who keep gossiping.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  18. Maybe in some fantasy world – mine for example – you can shtup whomever you want without consequence. But in the real world, it's never worked out.

    BTW, JFK wasn't worried about JEH. He was worried about JQP. And rightly so.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  19. Well, of course not, but you career and livelyhood shouldn't be at risk for being human.

    Is that the "real world" you seem perfectly comforatble with?

    Since, from what I gather, the supposed character and moral fiber of the fallen is what is at issue.

    Why does a guy who, basically, kills for living need to be so upright in the sex department? Is snuff to be enough?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  20. valvashon
    Member Profile

    Inspired by c@lbob's last paragraph, I find it interesting that killing on the scale of a CIA director is celebrated, yet "cheating" on a spouse of many years will get you fired. Homo Sapiens is not biologically monogamous, yet that is the urge we are supposed to repress, with the urge to kill fellow human beings institutionalized. I know which one I would like to see more of in the world and which should carry virtually no penalties.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  21. Imagine a world where Supreme Allied Commander and President Dwight Eisenhower had resigned because he was banging his driver.

    Es könnte sehr unterschiedlich gewesen sein.

    There was a time when a General's worth was judged by his performance in the field. He wasn't hired to be a good husband, he was hired to get a job done.

    I would much rather have a leader who produces results and cheats on his wife that one who is a faithful failure. But that's just me.

    Of course, with the nature of the CIA, he has been compromised.

    It is weird to me that he has enough professional integrity to remove himself (as he was not fired), but lacks the personal integrity to find himself here in the first place.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  22. I give him credit. He was human and made a mistake. He did not lie that he had the affair (as many others would or have. ((Hi Bill))). I looked up the CIA code of ethics. He broke them.

    https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-vision-mission-values/index.html

    There are a lot of levels to this. I want to know what Dave Reichert's thoughts on this are. One FBI agent passed along information which then went to Cantor, after the FBI agent ended up being taken off the case. But he kept Reichert apprised of more information. Should be interesting.

    I will add this. What is wrong for holding people accountable for their actions? Or has political correctness erased those standards too?!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  23. This originally had nothing to do with him. It started with an investigation of harrassing emails from one woman to another...and in the end, this came out. The investigation was never about him, and he did nothing illegal But ultimately this is all resting on his shoulders. What about the woman he was sleeping with, who sent the emails saying "stay away from my man" Therein lies the problem. She did this to him by being a lovesick b*tch. Definitely not the roll of the "other woman". If you're going to play at that game, you have to realize what it is that you're playing. Or don't play at that game.

    Bad stuff all around...and makes me wonder about Petraeus' judgement, if he didn't realize that she would do something like that. No, he let his tiny brain fog up his judgement...and it raises a lot of questions about his judgement in general...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  24. kootchman
    Member Profile

    oh the old democratic washing machine is in spin cycle. Well so far today, the FBI has found classified documents on her computer. Much the eternal humiliation of her husband and children... they raided their house and took her computers. Then, we find.. (just to keep you updated) she announces at U of CO seminar, that shades of Dubya, the CIA has a little detention program going in Benghazi.. against executive order... 13941, This 'everything is a-ok" spin in Libya is far from over. Well,.. you make a good point JaN we have the director of the CIA poking an imbalanced nut case.. who threatens another women she thinks might be doing Petraeus too. My oh, my... you better believe Bhengazi is at the center of this... Where is Hilary? Australia to "coordinate" their defense cuts, post Peru... When ya all gonna call it a poo poo pie? Glad there was some sex involved now the mainstream media will get involved. I see open hearings... including the entire command of the state department, CIA, DOJ. ... perfect. Love sick bitch...? oh that is too precious.. Spodie that would be all well and good... except we have seen the cleaning house of multiple senior officers for screwing the little helpless blossoms under their command. She is also .. an Army reserve officer.. called to active duty at least three times... she was a subordinate. That is against the UCMJ.

    I am amazed.. this is one flawed administration... character means nothing to them. Jan David Koresh would have love you as a devotee.... right up until the inferno. This will stun some of you... but there are trusts reserved for a very few. Trusts that require you think more about things than your dipping your Johnson into a " sleep yer way to the top, imbalanced subordinate. He sure as hell did illegal things... you don't screw the help in the US military. Now ,, I will at least give her more status than Paula Jones.. who was as powerless and such a low pay grade as to make it abuse. This was a West Point graduate... she knows the rules on fraternization... as does he. Yes indeed when you submit for your "Q" clearance and above,.... you do indeed roll out of the bedsheets and tell all.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  25. I knew there were gonna be some sad wingers around here on Nov 7. Watch them try to huff and puff on this clusterf**k. I have another theory about this event that involves neo-cons, the CIA, B Netanyahu, and the recent failed Presidential candidate. I'll tell you about it sometime.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  26. Geez, Kman...what the fu*k? David Koresh? You're a bit dingy yourself tonight. What a damned insult. No, I don't believe that Obama walks on water. I also don't believe there was some grand conspiracy in the Petraeus affair. It was about sex, and started by the woman when she sent dingy emails to another woman. Now, there's something...I bet he realizes now that what is said between the sheets is not totally private. He had bad judgement, and proved that he is human, not a god, no matter what he did on the battlefield. We are all just human. Obama did not appoint Petraeus to anything - they didn't even like one another much...the man was in the military climbing up for longer than Obama has been in politics. So, get over yourself and trying to make this something it isn't.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  27. Just curious, Jan, how do you know that Obama and Patraeus "didn't like one another much? I haven't seen that in the news stories that I've read so wondering if I've missed something. I was under the impression that Obama thought very highly of him.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  28. "The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009... Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless," CIA spokesman Preston Golson told CBS News.

    So, if she got it from Petraeus, he was treating her as a double agent, real spycraft afoot!

    But, keep going Kootch, you may make this story more entertaining than facts would suggest. Your fiction livens it up. Tell us about how the FBI is covering up this scandal. Broadwell just gave that speech last month, did the Bureau not investigate her statement? Inquiring minds want to know!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  29. in the alternative world of faux news..
    anything is possible

    i get i love conservative women facebook posts now...
    this looney tunes thing isn't specific to kootch :(

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  30. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Guess ya didn't watch the U of Co speech...eh c@bob....? And because there is a law... that means it can't happen? This is an administration that has obfuscated, lied, in the face of glaring contrary information. Personally, I believe this administration is responsible for the death of 4 Americans to give the illusion our foray into Libya isn't what it is. This is Eric Holder... Puleeeze... Fast n' Furious himself. She has been under investigation since August, something the intelligence committee of the Senate is mightily pissed about. We created a new terrorism safe haven and are reaping the fruits. Inquirng minds? From the left? Precious thought. You still sticking with it was a video that caused this? You are in good company.. half the administration rolled that one out... until the intelligence community said we don't get thrown under the bus.... we send Senators and Congressman cables, timelines, correspondence, and live video feed copies. I can't wait for the confirmation hearings for Susan Rice... we will either find out what a patsy she is... or who gave her the talking points. Some men and women, exceptional ones, are not held to the pedestrian standards, of plumbers, civil servants, farmers, mechanics, stock brokers.. et al... disappointment they fell short. But, you don't move the standards because some can't live up to them.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  31. Do you also believe that "9/11 was an inside job"?

    Do you think Al Gore sent Sandy to New York so that we could get actual footage of his submerged New York Inconvenient Truth computer models?

    New World Order?

    Just curious what level of Conspiracy Theorist we're dealing with.
    Your first round of Fox News jibberish has been exposed as BS, so now it's time to double down.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/02/world/la-fg-benghazi-attack-20121103

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/02/world/la-fg-libya-cia-20121102

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  32. Spodie, just to set the record straight, "9/11 was an inside job" is a left-wing conspiracy theory, so it's not likely that the kootchman would subscribe to that.

    And again, for the record, it's important to understand that conspiracy theories and other non-sensical beliefs crop up in equal numbers on both sides of the political spectrum.

    Examples:

    Jews control the media (right)
    Patriarchy explains everything (left)

    GW Bush is going to invade Iran & cancel elections (left)
    Y2K is the End (right)

    Big Bad Gay Agenda (right)
    Big Bad Fox News Agenda (left)

    And so on.

    I could probably fill up a page just using material from right here on the Blog. If anything, there are more examples of leftist theories on WSB, but that's just because there are more leftists here.

    Here's a good analysis for any insomniacs who might want to probe a little deeper into the whole conspiracy-theory theory thing:

    http://clichesofpolitics.com/paranoias.htm

    It was written by the Trilateral Commission, so you know you can trust it.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  33. Betty T
    Member Profile

    All people of authority are only humans, like the rest of us. None of us are perfect and that old sex thing messes up a lot people. Unless it deffinitely involves security Why should we know about it. other than the fact he admitted to the affairs and did what he thought was right. Women can become nasty when it involves being an ex or competition. This has been goimg on for years and our Government still exsists and the CIA is still at work. I really don't want to hear all the personal stuff unless it involves security.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  34. There is a difference between us DBP.
    I don't categorize the world into 'left' vs. 'right'. I put it into 'facts/science/truth' vs. 'nonsense/speculation/rumor/propaganda/lies'.

    In your world there are 'left' and 'right' conspiracy theories. In my world there are only ridiculous ones.
    As far a politics go; Reason, critical thinking, and science will steer you in only one direction.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  35. DBP..

    did you not notice that some of your examples were not like the others..

    it isn't a conspiracy if it is true..

    aka FOX news does knowingly present false information along with it's innuendo and gossip..
    And it's legal...

    i don't see a conspiracy there
    just an assessment of fact

    and i don't know any liberals who think patriarchy explains much...

    where do you come up with this stuff anyway?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  36. kootch..

    chill...
    the FBI uncovered a couple of grown men who should have known better acting like testosterone flooded teenagers...

    it's a conspiracy all right...
    men who don't want to acknowledge that men in positions of power act just like the guy on the next block...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  37. JoB:

    Well, we used to say they pull it out of their ....

    But that's too gross for this very prim board.

    Your assessment of what the Petraeus affair really is strikes me as on the mark, but a little abbreviated.

    Lessee, Jill Kelley get's some "annonymous" emails telling her to stay 'way from my man.

    Conveniently, she knows a FBI agent, one who sends her a shirtless photo, who is more than willing to start a FBI investigation into this crime of the century.

    Tell me, do you think if you had a similar complaint and took it to the Seattle field office of the FBI, that a full scale investigation would ensue? You do, tell me about it....

    The agent, a little upset at the regard that Kelley has for Petraeus, decides that there are vast security breaches going on, that the FBI investigation isn't getting to the bottome of. He tells Dave Reichert who, true blue American that he is, tells Eric Cantor.

    Back at the ranch, it turns out the ram tupping the agents ewe isn't Petraeus, but Dave's successor in Afghanistan, John Allen (well, it may be Petraeus, too, but .... stay tuned.)

    This is a swinger's club gone bad!

    Where are the photos (pant, pant, pant; hubba, hubba, hubba, hubba)?

    Ah, the stoic respectability of our senior military men!

    This should leave Bill and Elliott feeling a bit serene.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  38. bettytheyeti
    Member Profile

    bettytheyeti

    A secret is not black mail when it is a fact known to everyone. The P and B affair known to anyone in the field. The outrage belongs to Mrs. Petraeus's not to you!

    By the way I don't feign surprise when professional killers are not boy scouts.

    We have Iraq & Afganistan with how many US citizen killed a week, and knicker's are in a twist over 4 in Benghazi? Come on!

    Shirtless-FBI guy IS the story. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/13/petraeus-scandal-women-general-agent

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  39. good heavens...

    doesn't it make you wonder about shirtless?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  40. The basic scandal here is adultery. And yet we have c@lbob and bettytheyeti using phrases like "a guy who kills for a living" and "professional killers".

    Veterans' Day doesn't register with some people, nor do they apparently understand what 'professional' even means.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  41. I don't know about others, but I sure do know what a professional is, so I will take your statemnet as a question. I'm happy to elucidate.

    A professional is a person who is paid to undertake a specialized set of tasks and to complete them for a fee.

    The hagiofication of those we pay to organize mass death is intended to put them on a pedestal and confuse the view of them from the reality of their actions.

    I don't buy it.

    It is interesting that Veterans Day is a memorial to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people arranged by generals.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  42. kootchman
    Member Profile

    You didn't finish the Wiki quote... there is some context there. I assume them to have advanced degrees, high autonomy.. everyone in a cubicle is not a professional, much as they would like to be considered one. When was the last time any general or admiral took a division of battle group into combat and arrange the deaths of thousands. You did that buddy. The dogs are let loose when the civilians let slip the leash. Be it Libya, drone across the waters, Afghanistan... etc..

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  43. kootch..

    "The dogs are let loose when the civilians let slip the leash"

    really dude?

    I have been around for more wars than i care to remember and i don't remember one time when civilians were given the opportunity to even voice an opinion on whether we went to war.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  44. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Your duly elected representatives. President, (aka commnader-in chief, reference Libya) Irag, Afghanistan, all three of them voted for those two, and the current CIC is there by choice. But I see you can't counter my point... generals and admirals don't take national assets off on grand adventures... civilians send them.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  45. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say none of you have any idea of what you're talking about.

    It's the ouster of the director of the CIA. Do you honestly think you have anywhere close to all the facts?

    Really?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  46. So let's see . . . What DO we know about the CIA, exactly?

    ► We know they were responsible for plotting the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1952. (With thousands murdered as a result.)

    ► We know they were responsible for plotting the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Guatemala in 1954. (Again, thousands murdered.)

    ► We know they were responsible for plotting the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Chile in 1973. (Tens of thousands murdered this time. Good work, guys! You're due for a promotion.)

    ► We know they were responsible for plotting the overthrow of a democractically elected government in Cambodia in 1973. (With millions murdered this time due to productivity measures enacted by the Khmer Rouge, an outfit that the CIA also supported, after they lost power 1979.)

    ► We know they ran Iran/Contra in the 1980s. Selling guns to the I-ass-hollah and using the money to pay for an army of goons in Nicaragua, in direct violation of a Congressional order: Give these guys an "A" for creativity.

    [Skipping ahead to save time.]

    ► We know that they went along (or even encouraged) GW Bush's claim that Saddam had WMDs.

    ► We know that they were/are responsible for running torture and rendition programs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    ► Brought waterboarding and electric-shock torture back to the mainstream.

    ► Run the drone program that kills civilians in countries with which the US is not at war.

    ► Are eavesdropping on DBP's computer right now as a result of Google searches he did in the last ten minutes.

    Let's see . . . anything else?

    Not off the top of my head.

    *****************************************************************************************

    Personally, I don't give a crap about what happens to ANYONE who works for an outfit like this.

    If I saw Petraeus slip on a banana peel and fall on his ass, I'd laff.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  47. kootch..

    all my duly elected Representative get to do is approve or deny a budget and/or ratify the decision to go to war.

    The fellow who makes that decision is wearing his commander in chief hat .. not his civilian duly elected representative hat.. when that decision is made.

    I will agree that wars are not waged solely on the recommendations of generals..
    but those generals have a lot more to say about it than our duly elected civilian representatives do...

    and i would add one more point to this kootch..
    civilian is not a dirty word.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  48. another question that we all need to pay attention to....this all started with ANONYMOUS emails to Jill Kelley that were not threatening in the least, just stoopid. She mentioned it to a friend who just happened to work for the FBI, and, voila, they started looking into someone's personal e-mail account.And then the ball started rolling. Petraeus' "scandal" was the result of that.

    Are all of us potentially subject to having our personal stuff investigated and used against us? Are we already at "Big Brother" levels because of the internet? Is that even legal? Or does the FBI have Carte Blanche to do anything they want? Stuff to think about, folks.

    And, DBP..have always felt that the CIA was a bit evil...the stuff we really don't want to know about...covert operations, operating above the law, etc...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  49. WorldCitizen

    it is the ouster of the head of the CIA

    in a politically driven investigation that may have been motivated more by a desire to affect the election than to insure an effective CIA

    do i think we know the entire truth? No.

    And i doubt i will hear it in what is left of my lifetime...

    But i am weary of the distractions.

    Have none of these bozos figured out yet that the welfare of this nation might be more important than petty political gamesmanship?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  50. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Learn the term National Command Authority.... it's usually in the opening flash traffic to the military. Admirals and Generals go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. Has ever been such. Jeesh.. ya think if this administration was candid about Benghazi instead of pushing their line of BS about a movie in front of the UN, every media outfit the White House could rely on as friendly?. Obama broke the pottery.. and ducked, dodged, and weaved to keep his vision intact. But... we have hearings coming up... too bad behind closed doors.

    Posted 2 years ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2014, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^