Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Holder, FBI Now Most Under Scrutiny in Petraeus 'Scandal"?
1 view
Skip to first unread message
KalElFan
Nov 13, 2012, 8:32:20 PM11/13/12
to
The panel discussion on Special Report tonight made pretty good
sense of the whole Petraeus foursome scandal and its relationship
to Benghazi. Yes, Petraeus had the affair with his biographer Paula
Broadwell, but that's not a scandal in this day and age it's just a
personal matter. It was known at the end of October that there
was just nothing there.
As for security leaks, pretty much all gets leaked nowadays
anyways. So even the one "new" thing they might try to hang
on Broadwell, which came out today, won't work either. This
article alludes to it:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/11/13/petraeus-affair-could-end-broadwells-army-career.html?comp=700001075741&rank=1
"Paula Broadwell, a lieutenant colonel with a top secret
security clearance, is under investigation by the FBI for
sending anonymous, threatening emails to a Florida
woman who is friends with Petraeus."
That part's way overblown, but note the top secret security
clearance she had and then this:
"... according to Phil Cave, a retired Navy judge advocate
in Washington DC who specializes in military law in private
practice....
"If there is an issue with her judgment they can seek to
revoke her clearance," Cave said on Monday, noting
Broadwell's reported statements that the CIA was holding
prisoners in the Benghazi compound that came under attack.
The CIA has denied it was holding prisoners and that detail
has been reported by no other media outlet."
The denial was probably Clintonian, i.e. they were temporary
prisoners taken during the attack perhaps. So no story there.
Whether it was reported by a media outlet or not, again these
are things that leak and Benghazi is a major scandal that you
can be sure we'll know all the details about by the time this is
over. We should have known them a long time ago. So zero
chance that sticks to Broadwell either.
The big news from the panel discussion tonight may be the
revelation that AFTER Broadwell gave that speech in Denver
mentioning the prisoners, a speech she gave around October
25 I believe it was, she was at some black tie affair with David
Petraeus and other intelligence community types the very
next evening. Both she and Petraeus by all accounts looked
perfectly comfortable and as if it was business and lives as
usual.
Forget whether they were still having an affair or not because
that's irrelevant and their business even if they were. Most
likely not still having an affair, because reportedly they were
talking about a second and possibly third book updating the
first authorized biography she did. Point is that the whole
"investigation" has fizzled by then. There's nothing there,
and they both knew it at that point. Petraeus expects to be
at CIA, Broadwell expects to be writing more books.
In fact, the most salaciously funny tidbit in this whole "scandal"
is probably that the FBI guy assigned to the "complaint" ended
up sending shirtless pictures of himself to the complainant,
Jill Kelley, a married Florida woman and friend of the Petraeus
family. From that article link above, Kelley is:
"... an unpaid social liaison to nearby MacDill Air Force
Base... Kelley and her husband have been identified as
friends of Petraeus and his wife, Holly."
Kelley is the one who received what's described (in again,
a bogus and overblown way) as "anonymous, threatening
emails. Kelley reported the e-mails to authorities."
General Allen, the commander in Afghanistan and second
to Petraeus when he was there, also knew Kelley well.
Apparently there are emails between him and Kelley
that may have included social function discussions and --
gasp -- a "sweetheart" reference. Again, nothing there
but the Smearing of the Foursome continues. At worst,
it got a litte catty between Broadwell and Kelley, and
it triggered an investigation, which found nothing and
ended with the FBI guy sending shirtless pictures of
himself to Kelley.
Remember folks, barely 15 years ago the President of
the United States -- talk about security clearance -- was
covering up and lying under oath about getting blow
jobs off the Oval Office from a White House intern.
Nothing came of it beyond a House impeachment that
got resoundingly rejected by the Senate, and that ex-
President is considerably more popular today than he
was back then, and more popular than either of the
candidates for President were this time around.
The ENTIRE controversy was over well before the election.
Then, the day of the election, the details of an FBI probe
that had gone on for weeks and had FAILED to find any
security leaks or anything remotely criminal becomes a
leaking flood of SMEAR that has not stopped.
Holder KNEW about this investigation that found nothing
weeks and weeks prior, and never said a word even to
senior Congressional committee members. After the
investigation comes up empty, he still doesn't say a
word. The FBI he's in charge of has no leaks either.
Then, the day of the election, a massive smear campaign
begins based on an investigation that found nothing.
Don't ask don't tell has been replaced all right, with "Leak
and smear like mad all you like when it's convenient."
Petreaus is out, Panetta will be out, Hillary Clinton will
be out. They want Susan Rice the Serial Sunday Talk Show
Liar to replace Clinton. Meanwhiie, the Benghazi Scandal
investigation is just starting.
This Obama second-term thing could go either way folks.
sense of the whole Petraeus foursome scandal and its relationship
to Benghazi. Yes, Petraeus had the affair with his biographer Paula
Broadwell, but that's not a scandal in this day and age it's just a
personal matter. It was known at the end of October that there
was just nothing there.
As for security leaks, pretty much all gets leaked nowadays
anyways. So even the one "new" thing they might try to hang
on Broadwell, which came out today, won't work either. This
article alludes to it:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/11/13/petraeus-affair-could-end-broadwells-army-career.html?comp=700001075741&rank=1
"Paula Broadwell, a lieutenant colonel with a top secret
security clearance, is under investigation by the FBI for
sending anonymous, threatening emails to a Florida
woman who is friends with Petraeus."
That part's way overblown, but note the top secret security
clearance she had and then this:
"... according to Phil Cave, a retired Navy judge advocate
in Washington DC who specializes in military law in private
practice....
"If there is an issue with her judgment they can seek to
revoke her clearance," Cave said on Monday, noting
Broadwell's reported statements that the CIA was holding
prisoners in the Benghazi compound that came under attack.
The CIA has denied it was holding prisoners and that detail
has been reported by no other media outlet."
The denial was probably Clintonian, i.e. they were temporary
prisoners taken during the attack perhaps. So no story there.
Whether it was reported by a media outlet or not, again these
are things that leak and Benghazi is a major scandal that you
can be sure we'll know all the details about by the time this is
over. We should have known them a long time ago. So zero
chance that sticks to Broadwell either.
The big news from the panel discussion tonight may be the
revelation that AFTER Broadwell gave that speech in Denver
mentioning the prisoners, a speech she gave around October
25 I believe it was, she was at some black tie affair with David
Petraeus and other intelligence community types the very
next evening. Both she and Petraeus by all accounts looked
perfectly comfortable and as if it was business and lives as
usual.
Forget whether they were still having an affair or not because
that's irrelevant and their business even if they were. Most
likely not still having an affair, because reportedly they were
talking about a second and possibly third book updating the
first authorized biography she did. Point is that the whole
"investigation" has fizzled by then. There's nothing there,
and they both knew it at that point. Petraeus expects to be
at CIA, Broadwell expects to be writing more books.
In fact, the most salaciously funny tidbit in this whole "scandal"
is probably that the FBI guy assigned to the "complaint" ended
up sending shirtless pictures of himself to the complainant,
Jill Kelley, a married Florida woman and friend of the Petraeus
family. From that article link above, Kelley is:
"... an unpaid social liaison to nearby MacDill Air Force
Base... Kelley and her husband have been identified as
friends of Petraeus and his wife, Holly."
Kelley is the one who received what's described (in again,
a bogus and overblown way) as "anonymous, threatening
emails. Kelley reported the e-mails to authorities."
General Allen, the commander in Afghanistan and second
to Petraeus when he was there, also knew Kelley well.
Apparently there are emails between him and Kelley
that may have included social function discussions and --
gasp -- a "sweetheart" reference. Again, nothing there
but the Smearing of the Foursome continues. At worst,
it got a litte catty between Broadwell and Kelley, and
it triggered an investigation, which found nothing and
ended with the FBI guy sending shirtless pictures of
himself to Kelley.
Remember folks, barely 15 years ago the President of
the United States -- talk about security clearance -- was
covering up and lying under oath about getting blow
jobs off the Oval Office from a White House intern.
Nothing came of it beyond a House impeachment that
got resoundingly rejected by the Senate, and that ex-
President is considerably more popular today than he
was back then, and more popular than either of the
candidates for President were this time around.
The ENTIRE controversy was over well before the election.
Then, the day of the election, the details of an FBI probe
that had gone on for weeks and had FAILED to find any
security leaks or anything remotely criminal becomes a
leaking flood of SMEAR that has not stopped.
Holder KNEW about this investigation that found nothing
weeks and weeks prior, and never said a word even to
senior Congressional committee members. After the
investigation comes up empty, he still doesn't say a
word. The FBI he's in charge of has no leaks either.
Then, the day of the election, a massive smear campaign
begins based on an investigation that found nothing.
Don't ask don't tell has been replaced all right, with "Leak
and smear like mad all you like when it's convenient."
Petreaus is out, Panetta will be out, Hillary Clinton will
be out. They want Susan Rice the Serial Sunday Talk Show
Liar to replace Clinton. Meanwhiie, the Benghazi Scandal
investigation is just starting.
This Obama second-term thing could go either way folks.
JRStern
Nov 13, 2012, 8:44:44 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:32:20 -0500, "KalElFan"
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>This Obama second-term thing could go either way folks.
Oh, I hardly think so.
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>This Obama second-term thing could go either way folks.
Is Broadwell active military today, or this year, or last? I didn't
think so, so she would have no clearance (unless they finagled one for
her as a journalist and that isn't much done, is it?), and in no case
would she be allowed to have classified material on a home computer.
Nobody is under scrutiny because there are no standards any more, nor
laws, nor reason. Just hysteria and slander.
Have a nice day.
J.
Tom
Nov 13, 2012, 8:46:57 PM11/13/12
to
On Nov 13, 7:44 pm, JRStern <JRSt...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:32:20 -0500, "KalElFan"
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:32:20 -0500, "KalElFan"
>
Nice to see you've come around...
Tom
KalElFan
Nov 14, 2012, 10:15:54 AM11/14/12
to
"JRStern" wrote in message
news:3ot5a8denrqqkj2br...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:32:20 -0500, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> This Obama second-term thing could go either way folks.
>
> Oh, I hardly think so.
Sometimes on Usenet, inspiration comes in unusual ways.
Like logical proofs of factually incorrect statements posing
as opinions.
The issue is what part of "could go either way" you may
have overlooked. You obviously think you were disagreeing
with me on something, but the line you quoted is irrefutable
UNLESS...
You argue the fallacy that there's a precise but infinitesimally
small point, along an Obama second-term "this way" and "that
way" continuum, which is immovably fixed and is unaffected
by anything that happens with scandals surrounding it. Or by
extension is perpetually unaffected by anything else for that
matter, since there's no reason to believe in some Cosmic
Spooky Force neutralizing only the scandal effects.
If we get beyond that amusing (or not!) diversion, maybe we'll
find a clue what you really meant in the rest of your post I'll get
to. But this whole Benghazi-Petraeus scandal-vs-scandal stuff
is going to have an affect and a potentially very big one. I'm
rooting for the fallout to be bipartisan and a really great Obama
second term, but there are scenarios where it will all turn very
sour very quickly.
> Is Broadwell active military today, or this year, or last? I didn't
> think so...
Beyond pointing out that all you did there was ask a three-part
question and either answer it incorrectly or with a total non-
sequitur, take up your running around in circles with the article
then, will ya? It and multiple other sources have alluded to her
military background and top secret security clearance. The
specific article cite I gave was talking about the possibility of
the "sanction" being removal of her security clearance. Duh.
It'd be tough to remove what she doesn't have, and the article
says she has it.
She's doesn't have to be active military to have it, many people
who aren't military can have it. Maybe she's reserve and has it.
The point, when this smearing campaign started and the info
about Broadwell came out, was that she WASN'T some Paula
Jones civilian consultant or employee bimbo. One comment in
a talkback I saw quipped "Sounds like another astronut case"
or some such. It was alluding to that female astronaut who
had had a relationship with another astronaut, or thought she
did, and ended up driving from Texas to Florida all night, in
incontinence briefs so she wouldn't have to stop, in order to
not just confront a perceived romantic rival but forcibly confine
her with duct tape and who knows what else from there.
Aside from the fact there's ZERO evidence Broadwell did that
or ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING IT -- even the allegedly
"threatening" emails are reportedly overblown -- we get back
to the Paula Jones comparison not applying. Anyone wondering
how it could be that David Petraeus could allow some bimbo
off the street, or some intern or mail room babe, or stripper or
whatever else access has been fed the wrong spin. It never
happened. That's Bill Clinton, or John Edwards perhaps.
With Petraeus, it was a hot-looking competitive Military Babe
who can outrun a lot of men, and out push-up both her own
husband and John Stewart on Comedy Central. They're out of
gas at 30 or whatever and she's doing 60 before it's time to
end the segment and go to commercial. Petraeus first met her
in 2006 apparently. She may have been a Lieutenant Colonel
then, she may have started working on her PhD not long after.
Initially, there's probably no affair, but according to sources
close to Petraeus they start one in 2011, about 4-5 years later.
You've seen the pictures of her. She's written the successful
biography of him, and Petraeus has had 4-5 years of off and
on running with her. It doesn't matter much whether she's
ranking military or reserve or retired military, with security
clearance or previously having had it long-term, the point is
she's trustworthy from his point of view. He's at CIA so the
unenforceable (and even more unenforced after "Don't Ask
Don't Tell" is gone) "adultery" charge doesn't even apply.
So he succumbs. It happens. It's really nobody's business,
and more importantly this was ESTABLISHED -- i.e. that there
was no issue here -- at least a week or more before the 2012
election and possibly several weeks before. Yet, the day of
the election, the smear campaign all leaks out in a flood.
> ... so she would have no clearance (unless they finagled one for
different directions at once. She's a published author of a biography
of David Petraeus. Given that and her military background, she can
credibly assert as much right to a military "journalism" hat as 95%
of the poor excuse for so-called journalists in mainstream media.
Assume you're right that she was no longer military and no longer
had clearances -- something at odds with Military.com and their
story, and with AP as well perhaps, so you'll excuse my being a
bit skeptical about some guy on Usenet speculating otherwise with
nothing to back it up -- then we can say she's now a private citizen
and had a writer-journalist-speaker-citizen hat on. She and others
in the foursome may well become part of the whistle-blowing-
palooza festival we're going to be seeing in the coming weeks
and months.
There is no issue with a writer, journalist or whistleblower spilling
the beans on ANYTHING. They end up mostly folk heroes if there's
been wrongdoing. Right now, we're in the gossip-fueled joke phase
and the retort would be "Oh, she was blowing four-star whistles all
right" and yes ha ha ha that's a good one. But when that whole
media gossip orgy stops, the much more serious issues building
here WILL be getting much more scrutiny and Obama's second term
is and will be affected.
I think Holder should step down, i.e. say he wants to pursue other
interests and will not be staying for a second term.
Former Arizona governor and current Secretary of Homeland Security
Janet Napolitano would be a good, bipartisan, and confirmable choice
to replace Holder. Napolitano's worst faux pas were probably from
2009, the "man-caused disaster" euphemism for terrorism and the
later characterization of security having "worked" in the Underwear
Bomber case Christmas 2009. The terrorist there, or his bomb tech
supplier was inept, and so the plane to Detroit didn't get taken down.
But security definitely didn't "work" in that "man-caused disaster"
that almost happened.
Live and learn. The "man-caused disaster" Words Gone Wild thing
was funny and no big deal at worst, and at best may have helped hit
bottom on that kind of language lunacy. At least Obama didn't call
Benghazi a "man-caused disaster" in the Rose Garden. So I think
Napolitano would be confirmed easily. Leave Susan Rice at the UN
if she wants that. Kerry for Secretary of State.
At Homeland (if Napolitano accepts Attorney General) I'll suggest
this Senator from Maine be at least offered the job as a bipartisan
shout-out. She might take it. She's up for re-election in 2014 and
won in 2008, Obama's year, by 60%+ in Maine. So she wouldn't
be fearing losing in 2014, but maybe she wants a change and in
the bipartisan spirit maybe she'd take it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Collins
"First elected to the Senate in 1996, she is the ranking member
of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs."
So she'd certainly be qualified one would think, and probably get
confirmed 99-0 (would she be allowed to vote for herself? :-))
For Defence and CIA the choice is a bit more complex, because
of Benghazi being ongoing. I'd probably keep the Interim guy
there at CIA for now and into next year if that's possible, and
maybe ask Panetta to stay for now if he'd agree. Failing that,
Obama should perhaps ask Colin Powell or someone respected
and bipartisan-appealing enough to serve a term in either of
those jobs but maybe CIA. Powell is a former Secretary of State
not just a former General and head of the Joint Chiefs.
For Defence if Panetta won't stay for now, maybe again draw
from one of the Senate or House Armed Services Committees,
i.e. if the Senate then the same idea as Collins and Kerry (the
latter is Chairman on the Foreign Relations Committee). Carl
Levin is Chairman of Armed Services on the Senate side, John
McCain ranking Republican, and Joe Lieberman was second to
Levin but didn't run for another term this year and so will be
leaving the Senate in January.
If Lieberman would do it that would be a good bipartisan
choice, but if McCain would do it it might be a great message
to Iran that neither Obama nor Romney were lying about the
military option. That would increase the chances of a peaceful
resolution because Iran would know the military threat is very
credible. Kerry, who's statesman-like but also former military,
could do his best to get a diplomatic deal but still convey the
message Obama has, which is (paraphrasing) the clock's a
ticking. Negotiating as a stalling tactic while they get nuke
capability is not an option.
That would allow the Iranian regime to see the light. They could
blame the sanctions (which are hurting and will only hurt worse)
and do a deal, make themselves look better. Everybody wins,
peace wins, 100% verification is part of the deal and a military
outcome is avoided.
Or the nutjobs in Iran could dig in and by the end of it they've
probably lost not just their nukes but their regime if they shoot
back. Toppling of regimes is the relatively easier part especially
if they fire back after the nuke program is taken out. The U.S.
military is good at that, or having tyrants run for caves or the
hills. It's the 5-to-10 years of helping nation build that costs
most of the blood and treasure. So unfortunate as it may be,
a credible military option can at least solve the problem for
probably the next 20+ years and give a younger generation
in Iran a chance to replace the nutjobs. It becomes a win-
win for not just the U.S. and the West, but the region and
the World if the nutjobs insist on leaving early.
If Obama asks Romney to help with the new Department of
Business and Commerce, and once that's in place maybe
become the first Secretary of Business and Commerce,
again that'd be very bipartisan.
There was talk of Erskine Bowles, of Bowles-Simpson fame,
for Treasury. Good choice, especially in the signal it would
send that something reasonable and bipartisan may get done.
Bowles would also help justify the one area where I think Obama
needs to play hardball with the Republican House, which is to
let the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire this January. The
RATES need to go back up to the 39% for the rich, which was the
premise of Simpson-Bowles. Maybe Romney, Boehner, etc. get
the $250,000 raised to $350,000 and Obama agrees, but if the
Republicans in the House don't see they have to cave on this
they're idiots.
If the House digs in, the Democrats will be there every day,
along with the media, waving the legislation they're ready
to sign to extend the tax cuts on everyone making under the
$250,000. The Republicans will be massacred in 2014. They
have to give in, in fact they should embrace it. Maybe double-
down on middle class tax cuts by insisting on a drop in rates
BELOW Bush tax cuts level, to compensate for expiry of the
payroll tax holiday. Do the extension for six months or a year
max, during which time tax reform and spending cuts including
entitlement programs are on the table and negotiated.
The Republicans would become the champions of not hitting
the middle class with ANY tax increase in January, and after
biting the 39% bullet they'd be free to focus on areas less
damaging to them than "Protect the Rich At All Costs!"
The Democrats would have to agree to the additional cut
for the middle class I think, especially given the 39% being
conceded for the wealthy. It would also help the Norquist
Pledge-signing members Boehner has to herd, because the
increase to 39% (which they can't stop) will have been
transformed into middle-class tax cuts above and beyond
the Bush tax cuts. (Not sure if it would end up revenue
neutral or not; the numbers would have to be run.)
> Nobody is under scrutiny because there are no standards
> any more, nor laws, nor reason. Just hysteria and slander.
Sounds like a good description of the mainstream media to
me, but Tom thinks it's all about Fox News.
> Have a nice day.
You too and to all reading!
news:3ot5a8denrqqkj2br...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:32:20 -0500, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> This Obama second-term thing could go either way folks.
>
> Oh, I hardly think so.
Like logical proofs of factually incorrect statements posing
as opinions.
The issue is what part of "could go either way" you may
have overlooked. You obviously think you were disagreeing
with me on something, but the line you quoted is irrefutable
UNLESS...
You argue the fallacy that there's a precise but infinitesimally
small point, along an Obama second-term "this way" and "that
way" continuum, which is immovably fixed and is unaffected
by anything that happens with scandals surrounding it. Or by
extension is perpetually unaffected by anything else for that
matter, since there's no reason to believe in some Cosmic
Spooky Force neutralizing only the scandal effects.
If we get beyond that amusing (or not!) diversion, maybe we'll
find a clue what you really meant in the rest of your post I'll get
to. But this whole Benghazi-Petraeus scandal-vs-scandal stuff
is going to have an affect and a potentially very big one. I'm
rooting for the fallout to be bipartisan and a really great Obama
second term, but there are scenarios where it will all turn very
sour very quickly.
> Is Broadwell active military today, or this year, or last? I didn't
Beyond pointing out that all you did there was ask a three-part
question and either answer it incorrectly or with a total non-
sequitur, take up your running around in circles with the article
then, will ya? It and multiple other sources have alluded to her
military background and top secret security clearance. The
specific article cite I gave was talking about the possibility of
the "sanction" being removal of her security clearance. Duh.
It'd be tough to remove what she doesn't have, and the article
says she has it.
She's doesn't have to be active military to have it, many people
who aren't military can have it. Maybe she's reserve and has it.
The point, when this smearing campaign started and the info
about Broadwell came out, was that she WASN'T some Paula
Jones civilian consultant or employee bimbo. One comment in
a talkback I saw quipped "Sounds like another astronut case"
or some such. It was alluding to that female astronaut who
had had a relationship with another astronaut, or thought she
did, and ended up driving from Texas to Florida all night, in
incontinence briefs so she wouldn't have to stop, in order to
not just confront a perceived romantic rival but forcibly confine
her with duct tape and who knows what else from there.
Aside from the fact there's ZERO evidence Broadwell did that
or ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING IT -- even the allegedly
"threatening" emails are reportedly overblown -- we get back
to the Paula Jones comparison not applying. Anyone wondering
how it could be that David Petraeus could allow some bimbo
off the street, or some intern or mail room babe, or stripper or
whatever else access has been fed the wrong spin. It never
happened. That's Bill Clinton, or John Edwards perhaps.
With Petraeus, it was a hot-looking competitive Military Babe
who can outrun a lot of men, and out push-up both her own
husband and John Stewart on Comedy Central. They're out of
gas at 30 or whatever and she's doing 60 before it's time to
end the segment and go to commercial. Petraeus first met her
in 2006 apparently. She may have been a Lieutenant Colonel
then, she may have started working on her PhD not long after.
Initially, there's probably no affair, but according to sources
close to Petraeus they start one in 2011, about 4-5 years later.
You've seen the pictures of her. She's written the successful
biography of him, and Petraeus has had 4-5 years of off and
on running with her. It doesn't matter much whether she's
ranking military or reserve or retired military, with security
clearance or previously having had it long-term, the point is
she's trustworthy from his point of view. He's at CIA so the
unenforceable (and even more unenforced after "Don't Ask
Don't Tell" is gone) "adultery" charge doesn't even apply.
So he succumbs. It happens. It's really nobody's business,
and more importantly this was ESTABLISHED -- i.e. that there
was no issue here -- at least a week or more before the 2012
election and possibly several weeks before. Yet, the day of
the election, the smear campaign all leaks out in a flood.
> ... so she would have no clearance (unless they finagled one for
> her as a journalist and that isn't much done, is it?), and in no case
> would she be allowed to have classified material on a home
> computer.
Here again you're not just off on a tangent you're trying to go in two
> would she be allowed to have classified material on a home
> computer.
different directions at once. She's a published author of a biography
of David Petraeus. Given that and her military background, she can
credibly assert as much right to a military "journalism" hat as 95%
of the poor excuse for so-called journalists in mainstream media.
Assume you're right that she was no longer military and no longer
had clearances -- something at odds with Military.com and their
story, and with AP as well perhaps, so you'll excuse my being a
bit skeptical about some guy on Usenet speculating otherwise with
nothing to back it up -- then we can say she's now a private citizen
and had a writer-journalist-speaker-citizen hat on. She and others
in the foursome may well become part of the whistle-blowing-
palooza festival we're going to be seeing in the coming weeks
and months.
There is no issue with a writer, journalist or whistleblower spilling
the beans on ANYTHING. They end up mostly folk heroes if there's
been wrongdoing. Right now, we're in the gossip-fueled joke phase
and the retort would be "Oh, she was blowing four-star whistles all
right" and yes ha ha ha that's a good one. But when that whole
media gossip orgy stops, the much more serious issues building
here WILL be getting much more scrutiny and Obama's second term
is and will be affected.
I think Holder should step down, i.e. say he wants to pursue other
interests and will not be staying for a second term.
Former Arizona governor and current Secretary of Homeland Security
Janet Napolitano would be a good, bipartisan, and confirmable choice
to replace Holder. Napolitano's worst faux pas were probably from
2009, the "man-caused disaster" euphemism for terrorism and the
later characterization of security having "worked" in the Underwear
Bomber case Christmas 2009. The terrorist there, or his bomb tech
supplier was inept, and so the plane to Detroit didn't get taken down.
But security definitely didn't "work" in that "man-caused disaster"
that almost happened.
Live and learn. The "man-caused disaster" Words Gone Wild thing
was funny and no big deal at worst, and at best may have helped hit
bottom on that kind of language lunacy. At least Obama didn't call
Benghazi a "man-caused disaster" in the Rose Garden. So I think
Napolitano would be confirmed easily. Leave Susan Rice at the UN
if she wants that. Kerry for Secretary of State.
At Homeland (if Napolitano accepts Attorney General) I'll suggest
this Senator from Maine be at least offered the job as a bipartisan
shout-out. She might take it. She's up for re-election in 2014 and
won in 2008, Obama's year, by 60%+ in Maine. So she wouldn't
be fearing losing in 2014, but maybe she wants a change and in
the bipartisan spirit maybe she'd take it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Collins
"First elected to the Senate in 1996, she is the ranking member
of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs."
So she'd certainly be qualified one would think, and probably get
confirmed 99-0 (would she be allowed to vote for herself? :-))
For Defence and CIA the choice is a bit more complex, because
of Benghazi being ongoing. I'd probably keep the Interim guy
there at CIA for now and into next year if that's possible, and
maybe ask Panetta to stay for now if he'd agree. Failing that,
Obama should perhaps ask Colin Powell or someone respected
and bipartisan-appealing enough to serve a term in either of
those jobs but maybe CIA. Powell is a former Secretary of State
not just a former General and head of the Joint Chiefs.
For Defence if Panetta won't stay for now, maybe again draw
from one of the Senate or House Armed Services Committees,
i.e. if the Senate then the same idea as Collins and Kerry (the
latter is Chairman on the Foreign Relations Committee). Carl
Levin is Chairman of Armed Services on the Senate side, John
McCain ranking Republican, and Joe Lieberman was second to
Levin but didn't run for another term this year and so will be
leaving the Senate in January.
If Lieberman would do it that would be a good bipartisan
choice, but if McCain would do it it might be a great message
to Iran that neither Obama nor Romney were lying about the
military option. That would increase the chances of a peaceful
resolution because Iran would know the military threat is very
credible. Kerry, who's statesman-like but also former military,
could do his best to get a diplomatic deal but still convey the
message Obama has, which is (paraphrasing) the clock's a
ticking. Negotiating as a stalling tactic while they get nuke
capability is not an option.
That would allow the Iranian regime to see the light. They could
blame the sanctions (which are hurting and will only hurt worse)
and do a deal, make themselves look better. Everybody wins,
peace wins, 100% verification is part of the deal and a military
outcome is avoided.
Or the nutjobs in Iran could dig in and by the end of it they've
probably lost not just their nukes but their regime if they shoot
back. Toppling of regimes is the relatively easier part especially
if they fire back after the nuke program is taken out. The U.S.
military is good at that, or having tyrants run for caves or the
hills. It's the 5-to-10 years of helping nation build that costs
most of the blood and treasure. So unfortunate as it may be,
a credible military option can at least solve the problem for
probably the next 20+ years and give a younger generation
in Iran a chance to replace the nutjobs. It becomes a win-
win for not just the U.S. and the West, but the region and
the World if the nutjobs insist on leaving early.
If Obama asks Romney to help with the new Department of
Business and Commerce, and once that's in place maybe
become the first Secretary of Business and Commerce,
again that'd be very bipartisan.
There was talk of Erskine Bowles, of Bowles-Simpson fame,
for Treasury. Good choice, especially in the signal it would
send that something reasonable and bipartisan may get done.
Bowles would also help justify the one area where I think Obama
needs to play hardball with the Republican House, which is to
let the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire this January. The
RATES need to go back up to the 39% for the rich, which was the
premise of Simpson-Bowles. Maybe Romney, Boehner, etc. get
the $250,000 raised to $350,000 and Obama agrees, but if the
Republicans in the House don't see they have to cave on this
they're idiots.
If the House digs in, the Democrats will be there every day,
along with the media, waving the legislation they're ready
to sign to extend the tax cuts on everyone making under the
$250,000. The Republicans will be massacred in 2014. They
have to give in, in fact they should embrace it. Maybe double-
down on middle class tax cuts by insisting on a drop in rates
BELOW Bush tax cuts level, to compensate for expiry of the
payroll tax holiday. Do the extension for six months or a year
max, during which time tax reform and spending cuts including
entitlement programs are on the table and negotiated.
The Republicans would become the champions of not hitting
the middle class with ANY tax increase in January, and after
biting the 39% bullet they'd be free to focus on areas less
damaging to them than "Protect the Rich At All Costs!"
The Democrats would have to agree to the additional cut
for the middle class I think, especially given the 39% being
conceded for the wealthy. It would also help the Norquist
Pledge-signing members Boehner has to herd, because the
increase to 39% (which they can't stop) will have been
transformed into middle-class tax cuts above and beyond
the Bush tax cuts. (Not sure if it would end up revenue
neutral or not; the numbers would have to be run.)
> Nobody is under scrutiny because there are no standards
> any more, nor laws, nor reason. Just hysteria and slander.
me, but Tom thinks it's all about Fox News.
> Have a nice day.
You too and to all reading!
KalElFan
Nov 15, 2012, 5:26:14 PM11/15/12
to
"KalElFan" wrote in message news:aghqsb...@mid.individual.net...
[responding to JR Stern]
> Assume you're right that [Broadwell] was no longer military and
Since confirmed that she had such clearances (she was a reserve
Lieutenant Colonel in Army Intelligence). Yesterday it was reported
that she just had those suspended pending completion of the latest
investigation, over her Denver statement mainly about the CIA Annex
having had a couple of prisoners. However, the report also said
that FBI investigators had basically found nothing of significance
on that either and, though DOJ makes the final decision, they did
not expect any charges to be laid.
The biggest Benghazi/Petraeus story today may have been this.
It's behind the WSJ subscription wall but I'll quote and summarize:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595904578119293804968764.html
"In Final Days, Petraeus Hurt by Libya Clash...
Mr. Petraeus wanted his aides to push back hard and release
their own timeline of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic
compound in Benghazi and a nearby CIA [Annex] ..."
This was widely speculated last month when the intelligence
community leaks did push back. They'd been blamed for being
wrong, providing bad intelligence, and being the basis for Susan
Rice going out on the Serial Sunday Talk Show Lying spree on
five networks among other things. In fact the intelligence had
been very good for months, and on the day of the attack when
requests to assist, or for help, were denied and two of the CIA's
own ended up among the four dead.
Petraeus is testifying tomorrow before both the House and
Senate Committees looking into Benghazi. It's closed, but
it'll be interesting to see what he says when it gets reported
as much of it will. Eventually we may hear him publicly, and
also Army Intelligence Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Paula
Broadwell. :-)
I'm thinking way back to the Iran Contra affair when Oliver
North, Marine Lieutenant Colonel, wiped the floor with the
Democrats on the Committee(s) trying to score points against
Reagan's administration. If it turns out that indeed General
Petraeus, and Broadwell, both had good reason to believe
the "investgation" had fizzled and the affair would remain
private, but then on election day a week or weeks later it
was conveniently leaked, that may get snared into the
Benghazi net and Impeachment hearings.
I predict the Petraeus testimony may also reflect this, if
not specifically than as a backdrop...
Obama and Petraeus, perhaps ironically but perhaps also
understandably, probably saw fairly eye-to-eye on the big
picture aspects of Benghazi. Petraeus isn't into counter-
insurgent strategies that Surge with tens of thousands of
troops just for the sake of doing that, or to be perpetually
nation building. The ideas in Iraq included basically buying
off "Sons of Iraq" to fight the foreign terrorists, and winning
hearts and minds. Those were arguably the key to success,
as far as success -- a graceful exit that allowed the Iraqis
a chance -- could be had. The Surge was the way to get
there, and then out (as Obama was able to do) without just
leaving Iraq to chaos. Whether it worked or not we may not
know for sure for a decade or more.
If Petraeus had been President, he may have tried harder
to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq, and I think he
almost certainly would have had more security in Benghazi.
With more security there, it's quite possible there would've
been no attack. It's not a 1:1 ratio in terms of the fight. If
the U.S. teams that were REMOVED had been there, it would
have considerably dissuaded the attackers, and if they had
still tried to attack there'd probably be dozens of terrorists
in body bags the next morning and perhaps no Americans.
But, from Obama's point of view, the prospect of that was
problematic. It's probably one of the reasons he didn't put
in more security. They'd be a target, and even if a bunch of
terrorists die it'll be spun as innocent civilians dying, or in
this case protestors about a video dying. So he decides to
take the hit on the day it happens. Ostensibly, he gave an
order to "do whatever can be done" to protect Americans,
but in reality the signal he gave, and that Panetta followed
through on and State followed through on, was to take the
hit. They froze up, not confident enough to give the authority
to the ex-Seal CIA operatives who were on the scene to even
act initially, let alone receive assistance.
It was a "well meaning" at best, but nevertheless a double-
clusterfrak at that point, and they knew it. Four Americans
were dead, including an Ambassador who'd been practically
begging in the warnings about security up to the very day
of the attack, 9/11 of all days.
They knew the media would back them up, and so they then
got lulled into the cover-up Phase 3 of the Clusterfrak. As
that unravelled, they squirmed as required, as Obama did
in that second debate when he froze up in response to
Romney. Twice, Obama said "Proceed" and "Proceed,
Governor," rather than respond to Romney's very simple
question about whether he'd called Benghazi a terrorist
attack in the Rose Garden the following day.
Clapper, Petraeus, etc. were on board even through the
first and second parts of the Clusterfrak. Petraeus would
almost certainly have done it differently and it would be
interesting to find out if he ever had any input on the issue
of Benghazi security. But his Commander-in-Chief made
the call, and there WAS that video and the protests, so he
included that in his assessment. Then, though, the blame
and finger-pointing and cover-up was full throttle.
Petraeus, and maybe Clapper too we don't know, did not
like the way assessments were used. There was MASSIVE
evidence against the baloney the adminstration purveyed
for two weeks when they were trying to keep their cover-up
intact. Maybe both Clapper and Petraeus wanted to get
out from under it, and Clapper and Petraeus both figured
Petraeus should take his opportunity to do so when this
personal scandal was leaked on election day.
The Senate will never convict in any Impeachment hearings
of the various players. If things went bad enough for the
Dems and Obama, there could theoretically be a better
chance they would after the 2016 election, when 20 of
the 33 Senate seats up for re-election are Democrat. If
any Lying Under Oath happens, that could also change
how even the current Senate votes. It wouldn't be lying
under oath about a blow job as it was when Clinton was
impeached by the House. It'd be lying about a terrorist
attack where four Americans died, and a triple clusterfrak
that surrounded it.
Whether Impeachments that don't stick are all Benghazi
ever amounts to or not, anyone who's followed this and
knows how serious it is can understand how Sen. Lindsey
Graham felt when he said this yesterday after Obama's
"gallant defense" of his Lying Five Sunday Talk Shows
Emmisary...
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) issued this statement:
Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you
ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed
as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the
attack.
We owe it to the American people and the victims of
this attack to have full, fair hearings and accountability
be assigned where appropriate. Given what I know now,
I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to
their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle."
While one can admire Obama's chivalry, especially given
that he IS indeed responsible and will likely get away with
it with no worse than an Impeachment that the Senate
will not convict him on, I think he should back off on Rice
and appoint Kerry. Yesterday, on CNN and the like, is the
first time McCain, Graham and so on had a mainstream media
megaphone on Benghazi. Read that statement again, which
CNN carried but I doubt the nightly news on ABC, CBS and
NBC would have. It's damning, and a lot of the electorate
hasn't been told about how serious the Benghazi scandal is.
If Obama were to press on Rice, it's going to provide more
of a platform on Benghazi in the Senate Confirmation. Even
if five Republicans can be found to support Rice (at the cost,
possibly, of their seats next election, so I'm dubious), breaking
the filibuster will come at the cost of a Benghazi circus as well
as massive information dump that will tend to seep through
a bit more. That could be as perilous for Obama and the
Dems as the fiscal cliff tax increase on the rich is for the
Republicans.
[responding to JR Stern]
> Assume you're right that [Broadwell] was no longer military and
> no longer had clearances -- something at odds with Military.com
> and their story, and with AP as well perhaps...
Since confirmed that she had such clearances (she was a reserve
Lieutenant Colonel in Army Intelligence). Yesterday it was reported
that she just had those suspended pending completion of the latest
investigation, over her Denver statement mainly about the CIA Annex
having had a couple of prisoners. However, the report also said
that FBI investigators had basically found nothing of significance
on that either and, though DOJ makes the final decision, they did
not expect any charges to be laid.
The biggest Benghazi/Petraeus story today may have been this.
It's behind the WSJ subscription wall but I'll quote and summarize:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595904578119293804968764.html
"In Final Days, Petraeus Hurt by Libya Clash...
Mr. Petraeus wanted his aides to push back hard and release
their own timeline of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic
compound in Benghazi and a nearby CIA [Annex] ..."
This was widely speculated last month when the intelligence
community leaks did push back. They'd been blamed for being
wrong, providing bad intelligence, and being the basis for Susan
Rice going out on the Serial Sunday Talk Show Lying spree on
five networks among other things. In fact the intelligence had
been very good for months, and on the day of the attack when
requests to assist, or for help, were denied and two of the CIA's
own ended up among the four dead.
Petraeus is testifying tomorrow before both the House and
Senate Committees looking into Benghazi. It's closed, but
it'll be interesting to see what he says when it gets reported
as much of it will. Eventually we may hear him publicly, and
also Army Intelligence Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Paula
Broadwell. :-)
I'm thinking way back to the Iran Contra affair when Oliver
North, Marine Lieutenant Colonel, wiped the floor with the
Democrats on the Committee(s) trying to score points against
Reagan's administration. If it turns out that indeed General
Petraeus, and Broadwell, both had good reason to believe
the "investgation" had fizzled and the affair would remain
private, but then on election day a week or weeks later it
was conveniently leaked, that may get snared into the
Benghazi net and Impeachment hearings.
I predict the Petraeus testimony may also reflect this, if
not specifically than as a backdrop...
Obama and Petraeus, perhaps ironically but perhaps also
understandably, probably saw fairly eye-to-eye on the big
picture aspects of Benghazi. Petraeus isn't into counter-
insurgent strategies that Surge with tens of thousands of
troops just for the sake of doing that, or to be perpetually
nation building. The ideas in Iraq included basically buying
off "Sons of Iraq" to fight the foreign terrorists, and winning
hearts and minds. Those were arguably the key to success,
as far as success -- a graceful exit that allowed the Iraqis
a chance -- could be had. The Surge was the way to get
there, and then out (as Obama was able to do) without just
leaving Iraq to chaos. Whether it worked or not we may not
know for sure for a decade or more.
If Petraeus had been President, he may have tried harder
to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq, and I think he
almost certainly would have had more security in Benghazi.
With more security there, it's quite possible there would've
been no attack. It's not a 1:1 ratio in terms of the fight. If
the U.S. teams that were REMOVED had been there, it would
have considerably dissuaded the attackers, and if they had
still tried to attack there'd probably be dozens of terrorists
in body bags the next morning and perhaps no Americans.
But, from Obama's point of view, the prospect of that was
problematic. It's probably one of the reasons he didn't put
in more security. They'd be a target, and even if a bunch of
terrorists die it'll be spun as innocent civilians dying, or in
this case protestors about a video dying. So he decides to
take the hit on the day it happens. Ostensibly, he gave an
order to "do whatever can be done" to protect Americans,
but in reality the signal he gave, and that Panetta followed
through on and State followed through on, was to take the
hit. They froze up, not confident enough to give the authority
to the ex-Seal CIA operatives who were on the scene to even
act initially, let alone receive assistance.
It was a "well meaning" at best, but nevertheless a double-
clusterfrak at that point, and they knew it. Four Americans
were dead, including an Ambassador who'd been practically
begging in the warnings about security up to the very day
of the attack, 9/11 of all days.
They knew the media would back them up, and so they then
got lulled into the cover-up Phase 3 of the Clusterfrak. As
that unravelled, they squirmed as required, as Obama did
in that second debate when he froze up in response to
Romney. Twice, Obama said "Proceed" and "Proceed,
Governor," rather than respond to Romney's very simple
question about whether he'd called Benghazi a terrorist
attack in the Rose Garden the following day.
Clapper, Petraeus, etc. were on board even through the
first and second parts of the Clusterfrak. Petraeus would
almost certainly have done it differently and it would be
interesting to find out if he ever had any input on the issue
of Benghazi security. But his Commander-in-Chief made
the call, and there WAS that video and the protests, so he
included that in his assessment. Then, though, the blame
and finger-pointing and cover-up was full throttle.
Petraeus, and maybe Clapper too we don't know, did not
like the way assessments were used. There was MASSIVE
evidence against the baloney the adminstration purveyed
for two weeks when they were trying to keep their cover-up
intact. Maybe both Clapper and Petraeus wanted to get
out from under it, and Clapper and Petraeus both figured
Petraeus should take his opportunity to do so when this
personal scandal was leaked on election day.
The Senate will never convict in any Impeachment hearings
of the various players. If things went bad enough for the
Dems and Obama, there could theoretically be a better
chance they would after the 2016 election, when 20 of
the 33 Senate seats up for re-election are Democrat. If
any Lying Under Oath happens, that could also change
how even the current Senate votes. It wouldn't be lying
under oath about a blow job as it was when Clinton was
impeached by the House. It'd be lying about a terrorist
attack where four Americans died, and a triple clusterfrak
that surrounded it.
Whether Impeachments that don't stick are all Benghazi
ever amounts to or not, anyone who's followed this and
knows how serious it is can understand how Sen. Lindsey
Graham felt when he said this yesterday after Obama's
"gallant defense" of his Lying Five Sunday Talk Shows
Emmisary...
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) issued this statement:
Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you
ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed
as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the
attack.
We owe it to the American people and the victims of
this attack to have full, fair hearings and accountability
be assigned where appropriate. Given what I know now,
I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to
their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle."
While one can admire Obama's chivalry, especially given
that he IS indeed responsible and will likely get away with
it with no worse than an Impeachment that the Senate
will not convict him on, I think he should back off on Rice
and appoint Kerry. Yesterday, on CNN and the like, is the
first time McCain, Graham and so on had a mainstream media
megaphone on Benghazi. Read that statement again, which
CNN carried but I doubt the nightly news on ABC, CBS and
NBC would have. It's damning, and a lot of the electorate
hasn't been told about how serious the Benghazi scandal is.
If Obama were to press on Rice, it's going to provide more
of a platform on Benghazi in the Senate Confirmation. Even
if five Republicans can be found to support Rice (at the cost,
possibly, of their seats next election, so I'm dubious), breaking
the filibuster will come at the cost of a Benghazi circus as well
as massive information dump that will tend to seep through
a bit more. That could be as perilous for Obama and the
Dems as the fiscal cliff tax increase on the rich is for the
Republicans.
0 new messages