November Surprises

[Just_A_Guy]

So . . . Iran shot at one of our drones five days before the election. The Pentagon squelched the news until today.

And, there's this "fiscal cliff" thing which got minimal coverage . . . until yesterday.

Oh, and it's now being publicized that the Treasury department quietly announced last week that it's time to raise the debt ceiling again. That one just found its way onto CNN's front page today.

I wonder what other November surprises our noble fourth estate has in store for us?

[pam]

My son actually shaved during No Shave November. That was a surprise to me.

[Guest]

I could just cry.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well . . . looky here.

Petraeus resigns as CIA head, a week before he was set to testify on Capitol Hill re Benghazi.

Since when do Democratic administrations think extramarital affairs disqualify someone for public office?

[carlimac]

A scandal a day!

[annewandering]

Well . . . looky here.

Petraeus resigns as CIA head, a week before he was set to testify on Capitol Hill re Benghazi.

Since when do Democratic administrations think extramarital affairs disqualify someone for public office?

When the person holds top secret clearance and compromises it in an affair. There is an investigation going on right now concerning the woman who wrote an biography about him and may have had access to classified information. Even the hint of this kind of impropriety is enough to fire the person responsible.

This doesnt even cover the fact that he was in a position to have to fire people over the same kind of security risks. How can he fire them when he has put himself in the same sort of position? I admire the man for having the strength of character to do this and to shoulder the blame for his lack of judgement.

[Guest]

The drone was new news.

The Fiscal Cliff has been talked about ad nauseum. If you watch C-Span, they had a powerpoint presentation on it...

The problem is - for some reason, people don't think it is news unless it's on CNN...

[annewandering]

The drone was new news.

The Fiscal Cliff has been talked about ad nauseum. If you watch C-Span, they had a powerpoint presentation on it...

The problem is - for some reason, people don't think it is news unless it's on CNN...

Boy is that the truth. Nice for CNN but not so good for people being informed.

[Guest]

When the person holds top secret clearance and compromises it in an affair. There is an investigation going on right now concerning the woman who wrote an biography about him and may have had access to classified information. Even the hint of this kind of impropriety is enough to fire the person responsible.

This doesnt even cover the fact that he was in a position to have to fire people over the same kind of security risks. How can he fire them when he has put himself in the same sort of position? I admire the man for having the strength of character to do this and to shoulder the blame for his lack of judgement.

Anne, that's a nice take on the matter but it doesn't add up.

Petreus tried to sell the story that Benghazi was not a terrorist attack but a protest. It is now coming out that it WAS a terrorist attack - even the President said so in the 2nd debate.

Now, I'm going to assume that what the President said at that 2nd debate is the truth. This makes Petreus a class act liar.

So, it doesn't add up that somebody who lied to the American people would have qualms about extra-marital affairs. The guy is the head of the CIA - if he wanted that extra-marital affair secret, it will remain secret. It would be silly to think that the head of the CIA can't stop that information from leaking. And it doesn't add up that a guy who can lie to the American people about the deaths of 4 Americans - one the Ambassador which is the level of a 4-star general - will have a conscience-attack over an extra marital affair.

Now, if we consider the possibility that the President is the liar... then the extra marital affair becomes another cover-up.

So, either way - this resignation because of an extra-marital affair is meant to be believed only by those who can't accept the alternative.

Edited November 10, 2012 by anatess

[annewandering]

Anne, that's a nice take on the matter but it doesn't add up.

Petreus tried to sell the story that Benghazi was not a terrorist attack but a protest. It is now coming out that it WAS a terrorist attack - even the President said so in the 2nd debate.

Now, I'm going to assume that what the President said at that 2nd debate is the truth. This makes Petreus a class act liar.

So, you think somebody who lied to the American people would have qualms about extra-marital affairs? The guy is the head of the CIA - if he wanted that extra-marital affair secret, it will remain secret. It would be silly to think that the head of the CIA can't stop that information from leaking. And it doesn't add up that a guy who can lie to the American people about the deaths of 4 Americans - one the Ambassador which is the level of a 4-star general - will have a conscience-attack over an extra marital affair.

I dont know. Honest I dont know he lied about what happened in Libya. When exactly did he say that? Aside from that if he did lie it was not a case of leaking classified information. In fact it may well have been not knowing exactly what did happen at that time and was an opinion which is not a lie. I dont know.

The affair is a serious moral issue and was something that compromised his entire career not to mention his family relationships.

My feelings on it is that he was very good at his job till he failed big time with this. Its a sad loss for our country. I have wondered if he cant be useful on some other way but I just dont see how his talents and knowledge can be used now that it is compromised.

[Guest]

I dont know. Honest I dont know he lied about what happened in Libya. When exactly did he say that? Aside from that if he did lie it was not a case of leaking classified information. In fact it may well have been not knowing exactly what did happen at that time and was an opinion which is not a lie. I dont know.

The affair is a serious moral issue and was something that compromised his entire career not to mention his family relationships.

My feelings on it is that he was very good at his job till he failed big time with this. Its a sad loss for our country. I have wondered if he cant be useful on some other way but I just dont see how his talents and knowledge can be used now that it is compromised.

Petreus declared it the result of a protest on September 14. 3 days after the event, 2 days after the President supposedly announced it was a terrorist attack at the Rose Garden.

Even I - an ordinary person who followed international affairs by whatever is out on the internet - cannot come up with a logical way to conclude that Benghazi was the result of a protest. If the facts were not clear at the time, Petreus would have said, we are not clear on the cause, instead, he blamed the video. Then a few days later, Susan Rice made the media blitz about the video. And then Vice President Biden stated in the VP debate that the Intelligence they got at the time said it was the video... pointing smack dab at Petreus.

But, even if we think that Petreus really thought it was the video (now, remember this is CIA - the INTELLIGENCE Agency) - that would have been questionable because the people who were responsible for the Benghazi attack claimed the event. And, they had reams of video surveillance that the CIA was watching LIVE as the event unfolded. It wouldn't have made sense to blame a video 3 days after the event unfolded when there is NOTHING connecting it to the video.

9/11 - a clear surprise to the CIA and the FBI - had the names of all 19 hijackers plus the conclusion of a terrorist plot within days of the event. Yes it took them months to tie it to Al-Quaeda, but there was no question it was a terrorist attack - we just didn't know which terrorists. This time, Benghazi timeline is very clear. Benghazi has been repeatedly attacked - one as recent as August - so it would be really terrible for an Intelligence organization to not know anything. So, Petreus saying it was a video - if it was his idea and not a strong-arm by the President - would be very, very damaging to his reputation and his career.

Well, it is already damaged by Benghazi - regardless of whether he lied about it or he was asked to lie about it. He didn't need the extra-marital affair to do that.

Edited November 10, 2012 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

Anatess, a couple of observations:

1) My understanding was that Petraus was addressing a closed committee of Congress and that the only version we have of his comments comes from a Democratic congressman who was present. Did I miss something (else)?

2) Hasn't it been established that someone at CIA issued multiple orders for the CIA officers in Benghazi to "stand down" when they were about to go to the consulate's rescue?

3) We were actually pretty darned quick on 9/11 - Rumsfeld was mentioning Al Qaeda and Bin Laden at a meeting that same afternoon, and we were at war with Afghanistan within a month.

[Just_A_Guy]

When the person holds top secret clearance and compromises it in an affair.

Gee, it's a good thing no sitting President or member of a congressional intelligence or armed services committee has ever had an extramarital affair. Because surely the masses would rise up in protest and that politician would be immediately removed from office.

As for the investigation: If it's in progress now, do you think it likely that it was ongoing three days ago?

That's kind of the point of this thread: all the strange and wonderful things that the American people really should have known about sometime ago, but have miraculously remained under wraps until after the election. The process of "cooling out" or - as an ex-Clinton staffer put it - "telling the truth, slowly".

Edited November 10, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[annewandering]

Gee, it's a good thing no sitting President or member of a congressional intelligence or armed services committee has ever had an extramarital affair.

As for the investigation: If the investigation's ongoing now, do you think it likely that it was ongoing three days ago?

That's kind of the point of this thread: all the strange and wonderful things that are coming to light, now that the election is over.

Actually the investigation is on going so no telling how long its been going on. Congress has stunk on its ability to keep secrets. They ought to be charged with treason for some of the things they have leaked.

You do know that the CIA has a procedure when you are applying or getting a job in it that you have to pass a polygraph test and one of the questions is if you have had an affair. If you fail you do not get the job. If you are involved in one during your stay you are fired.

Presidents are politicians and guess what? They are on a need to know basis. CIA heads have access to everything. They can decide if the president has access. In fact they have scary power. Because of that they have to be unimpeachable in all they do.

[talisyn]

What really set off the resignation of Petraus was the revelation that his biographer/only named female in this whole mess had access to his email.

[trubludru]

It is blatantly obvious to me that a cover up is going on. If you look at the timeline and actions and things said by Pres. Obama, Sec. of State Clinton and the white house press secretary it is clear that the administration suppressed the truth on Benghazi and the sad thing is few media outlets cared to cover or investigate what was an obvious story.

[trubludru]

And it the precedent is if there is any questionable actions at all discovered by head CIA officials, that they resign. There job is too delicate to have any chance of being blackmailed or compromised although the timing was strangely suspicious in this case.

[Guest]

Anatess, a couple of observations:

1) My understanding was that Petraus was addressing a closed committee of Congress and that the only version we have of his comments comes from a Democratic congressman who was present. Did I miss something (else)?

The VP debates. Well, still a democrat source. So, you can always conclude that the dems put a sticker on the head of Petraeus with Scapegoat written on it. I was trying to give the dems the benefit of the doubt...

2) Hasn't it been established that someone at CIA issued multiple orders for the CIA officers in Benghazi to "stand down" when they were about to go to the consulate's rescue?

No. Yes there was an order. We're not sure who the order came from.

3) We were actually pretty darned quick on 9/11 - Rumsfeld was mentioning Al Qaeda and Bin Laden at a meeting that same afternoon, and we were at war with Afghanistan within a month.

We don't know what the CIA has said. The media is not interested in the story so we don't have a good cross-section of what is going on. If you notice, only Fox News is ferreting out the story. And for a lot of people - including Anne - Fox News is not news.

[Guest]

And it the precedent is if there is any questionable actions at all discovered by head CIA officials, that they resign. There job is too delicate to have any chance of being blackmailed or compromised although the timing was strangely suspicious in this case.

If I'm Petraeus, and I'm sleazy enough to cheat on my wife, I will be sleazy enough not to put it on my resignation letter... It was not an exposé, it was a confession...

[Just_A_Guy]

Actually the investigation is on going so no telling how long its been going on. Congress has stunk on its ability to keep secrets. They ought to be charged with treason for some of the things they have leaked.

Also, a certain US President gave China space technology that also has application for nuclear missiles after receiving laundered campaign money from the Chinese military, and no one on the left batted an eye.

You do know that the CIA has a procedure when you are applying or getting a job in it that you have to pass a polygraph test and one of the questions is if you have had an affair. If you fail you do not get the job. If you are involved in one during your stay you are fired.

So why doesn't that apply to Presidents, who have even more power? I lack confidence in your assertion that they can be successfully kept on a "need-to-know" basis--at the end of the day the CIA director works for the President, not vice-versa.

In fact they have scary power. Because of that they have to be unimpeachable in all they do.

Funny how the discussion as to whether functionaries of the executive branch should even have that much power sort of petered out once Dubya's term ended.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

What really set off the resignation of Petraus was the revelation that his biographer/only named female in this whole mess had access to his email.

But Broadwell was embedded (no pun intended) with Petraeus back when he was still in the Army, and seems to have done most of the work on her book back then.

Is it more likely that the administration just found out about this? Or is it more likely that they knew, but held that tidbit of information for an opportune moment such as now when Petraeus threatened to expose the party?

My prediction: the House will still subpoena Petraeus individually, and the White House Counsel's office will fight the subpoena like mad. My uninformed, speculative guess is that someone in the administration tried to blackmail Petraeus into giving dodgy testimony next week, and Petraeus decided to beat the blackmailer to the punch and publicly confess/resign rather than live under that perpetual threat.

If I'm wrong . . . good for the country. If I'm right, it'll be fun watching the President try to wriggle his way out of impeachment.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

But Broadwell was embedded (no pun intended) with Petraeus back when he was still in the Army, and seems to have done most of the work on her book back then.

Is it more likely that the administration just found out about this? Or is it more likely that they knew, but held that tidbit of information for an opportune moment such as now when Petraeus threatened to expose the party?

My prediction: the House will still subpoena Petraeus individually, and the White House Counsel's office will fight the subpoena like mad. My uninformed, speculative guess is that someone in the administration tried to blackmail Petraeus into giving dodgy testimony next week, and Petraeus decided to beat the blackmailer to the punch and publicly confess/resign rather than live under that perpetual threat.

If I'm wrong . . . good for the country. If I'm right, it'll be fun watching the President try to wriggle his way out of impeachment.

I'm leaning towards your logic too...

But impeachment? I don't know what that's going to accomplish. Sure, the house can impeach... And, more than likely the Senate is going to acquit.

Besides, if Obama gets impeached by the Senate, then we'll get Biden who, for a Republican, would be a worse choice for President than Obama. So, the House will have to make a move for impeaching both of them. That puts Boehner on the succession line... And not a single Dem Senator on the jury will go for that regardless of what's going on in the Court.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm leaning towards your logic too...

But impeachment? I don't know what that's going to accomplish. Sure, the house can impeach... And, more than likely the Senate is going to acquit.

Besides, if Obama gets impeached by the Senate, then we'll get Biden who, for a Republican, would be a worse choice for President than Obama. So, the House will have to make a move for impeaching both of them. That puts Boehner on the succession line... And not a single Dem Senator on the jury will go for that regardless of what's going on in the Court.

I'm not convinced Biden would be worse. His debate performance notwithstanding, the guy can be much more conciliatory than the President. During a stall amidst the debt ceiling brouhaha earlier this year, Biden surreptitiously approached Eric Cantor and said something to the effect that if it was the two of them rather than Obama and Boehner running negotiations, things would be going very differently.

[Echo2002]

According to factcheck.org, Hillary Clinton was the first person to publicly state the attack was the result of the video.

[Just_A_Guy]

Food stamp figures for past August were due out from the USDA ten days ago.

They were finally released late last night.

47.1 million Americans on food stamps, a monthly jump of 420,000 - the largest monthly increase in the past 12 months.

Surprise! The economy stinks after all. Who'd a thunk?