BubberMiley Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 It's funny watching the right-wing truthers tie themselves up in knots over the idea that it makes any difference whether the attack was preplanned or spontaneous. Taking it to the next level that the administration was blackmailing Petraeus over this inconsequential matter is downright delusional. But no one can explain why Obama would play his hand and expose Petraeus now, before he gives his testimony. Wouldn't that ruin his whole fiendish plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 It's funny watching the right-wing truthers tie themselves up in knots over the idea that it makes any difference whether the attack was preplanned or spontaneous. Taking it to the next level that the administration was blackmailing Petraeus over this inconsequential matter is downright delusional. But no one can explain why Obama would play his hand and expose Petraeus now, before he gives his testimony. Wouldn't that ruin his whole fiendish plan? Nothing the right wingers on this board are saying makes any sense. Considering it was Eric Cantor that made this thing come out in the first place. It makes no sense and I am surprised someone like Sharkman is buying into this BS. I thought after the election the crazy would stop but it has driven some posters over the cliff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 It's funny watching the right-wing truthers tie themselves up in knots over the idea that it makes any difference whether the attack was preplanned or spontaneous. Taking it to the next level that the administration was blackmailing Petraeus over this inconsequential matter is downright delusional. But no one can explain why Obama would play his hand and expose Petraeus now, before he gives his testimony. Wouldn't that ruin his whole fiendish plan? Another question is how did Broadwell get her hands on classified documents? And how did she know that the CIA had a safehouse in Benghazi with 2 Libya prisoners, very classified information, and an illegal act. Why did an FBI agent get "outed" when all he did was send shirtless photos of himself(because he tried to blow the whistle on the FBI suppressing the whole thing, but his information got handed back to his boss). BTW, it has nothing to do with Obama, and Obama has nothing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Nothing the right wingers on this board are saying makes any sense. Considering it was Eric Cantor that made this thing come out in the first place. It makes no sense and I am surprised someone like Sharkman is buying into this BS. I thought after the election the crazy would stop but it has driven some posters over the cliff. But as I told and showed you, Cantor only gave the information he received back to the FBI director. Cantor should have released it to the media, but he did not. Cantor had it around Oct 31. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 But as I told and showed you, Cantor only gave the information he received back to the FBI director. Cantor should have released it to the media, but he did not. Cantor had it around Oct 31. Again the FBI closed the investigation and were about to close it and drop it until Cantor found out and blew the roof off it. I have quoted and sourced articles that say just as much. Sorry Sharkman what you are saying doesn't make any sense. What is the motivation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Another question is how did Broadwell get her hands on classified documents? And how did she know that the CIA had a safehouse in Benghazi with 2 Libya prisoners, very classified information, and an illegal act. Why did an FBI agent get "outed" when all he did was send shirtless photos of himself(because he tried to blow the whistle on the FBI suppressing the whole thing, but his information got handed back to his boss). BTW, it has nothing to do with Obama, and Obama has nothing to do with it. Here is a question why do you think Broadwell knew any of that in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Why? No idea, but hopefully the FBI will find out how she got the classified documents and info. And the reason I'm so interested in this may have something to do with it being a good mystery and I love such novels. A weakness I guess along with my weakness for politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Why? No idea, but hopefully the FBI will find out how she got the classified documents and info. And the reason I'm so interested in this may have something to do with it being a good mystery and I love such novels. A weakness I guess along with my weakness for politics. How about some proof of what you are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 How about letting the investigations and sunshine play out instead of trying to deflect attention away from a potential bombshell for the Obama administration? Wouldn't that be the hue and cry if a Republican was in the White House? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) How about some proof of what you are saying. Proof that FBI seized documents from Broadwell's home. The FBI seized classified materials from Paula Broadwell’s home this week and prosecutors are reportedly trying to determine whether to charge David Petraeus’ former mistress with a crime. Read more: http://www.nydailyne...3#ixzz2CEimMNar This one is an actual clip of her talking about the CIA safe house. It gets interesting at about the 50 second mark. Edited November 14, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Proof that FBI seized documents from Broadwell's home. The FBI seized classified materials from Paula Broadwell’s home this week and prosecutors are reportedly trying to determine whether to charge David Petraeus’ former mistress with a crime. Read more: http://www.nydailyne...3#ixzz2CEimMNar This one is an actual clip of her talking about the CIA safe house. It gets interesting at about the 50 second mark. Yah so someone who is a known liar and may have taken classified documents you want me to trust her word now? I come on I asked for proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 How about some proof of what you are saying. In Canada a proof is a proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I don't know why but the whole 'shirtless' FBI thing is very funny to me. The first time I read about it, it was here, AW had posted and she put 'shirtless' in quotes. I giggled, but now it's all over the headlines and always "quote/unquote". I crack up every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) That might be a media inside joke, surely they get amused with some of this nonsense. Edited November 15, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Punked I am not sure how you are not able to see something bigger here. But not we see Patreaus will testify in the Benghazi hearings, but now since he is not part of the CIA, you can bet some gag order will be put on him to prevent him saying things that would go counter to what Obama and Co are trying to put out. First it was a spontaneous attack on the consulate Then it was a reaction to some movie on youtube. Then it was a coordinated planned attack. Then there was no consulate but a CIA outpost. Clinton is made to take blame Patreaus resigns because of an affair Other top generals are implicated in this fiasco. The whole damn thing stinks and it did right from the start of the Benghazi attack. And you are telling people to put the tinfoil hat on? Something is wrong here and we are not being told something, and you know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Let's be honest, the guy couldn't keep an affair secret, do you really want him as the head of the CIA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) But not we see Patreaus will testify in the Benghazi hearings, but now since he is not part of the CIA, you can bet some gag order will be put on him to prevent him saying things that would go counter to what Obama and Co are trying to put out. Now that he is a civilian and the affair is public knowledge what can of gag order do you envision put on Petraeus' testimony? Edited November 15, 2012 by Bitsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Let's be honest, the guy couldn't keep an affair secret, do you really want him as the head of the CIA? The affair is a side show. And being the CIA Director you can bet some one knows every little detail about his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Now that he is a civilian and the affair is public knowledge what can of gag order do you envision put on Petraeus' testimony? Good point. Possibly by getting him to sign something in his resignation saying he wont talk. It's how some lawsuits are settled between a large company and the public. The company settles but gets the person to sign something saying they won't talk about the case. I know this is a horrible analogy, but the only one I could think of at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 http://occupycorporatism.com/petraeus-resignation-distracts-from-cia-asset-christopher-stevens-actual-mission-in-benghazi/ Seems like Stevens was not all he is said to be. Seems like a CIA asset, which makes sense if this was a CIA outpost and not a real consulate of any kind. Never mind the site name, the article is pretty good. Stevens seemed to have a crucial role in the Libyan NTC. Stevens background was as a diplomatic lawyer. Being a foreign exchange student in his youth and versed in multi-cultural government programs, Stevens had multiple deployments to Jerusalem as a political officer and deputy principal officer as well as working under the title of economic officer in Riyadh. Between 2007-2009, Stevens was an outwardly designated as a special representative to the National Transitional Council (NTC) during the US-sponsored Libyan revolution. Then suddenly, Stevens is elevated to the US Ambassador status in May of 2012 when he was stationed in Tripoli. The NTC is a defaco-government in Libya that assisted the US in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Headquartered in Benghazi, the NTC is the self-proclaimed “only legitimate body representing the people of Libya and the Libyan state.” Gets better Petraeus was well aware of Stevens’s role in Benghazi. When Stevens died, the CIA agents who worked with him during his intelligence gathering missions said that the agency “lost a good pair of eyes.” This comment explains the entire reason for a massive cover-up being perpetrated onto the American public complete with an extramarital affair to keep us distracted. In reality, Islamic terrorist factions that work with the US were employed by the Saudi Arabian government to take out one of Petraeus’ CIA spies. That spy’s name was J. Christopher Stevens. Hillary Clinton gave Stevens the title of US Ambassador to use as a cover to keep his mission covert. The attack at the villa demanded a quick explanation because the US government, Petraeus and Clinton were not going to admit that a CIA-asset was killed by the same extremist factions he was gathering intelligence on. This is the real reason why Clinton and Petraeus have resigned I just cant find anything on Clinton resigning. But the talk is out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.