Petraeus resigns from CIA

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Uh, huh. I'm sure they didn't find out about the affair until AFTER the election. Someone needs a new schtick, perhaps up the ass.

I want you to take your time and use your imagination. Think of every possibility you can imagine and write them all down. Again, please take your time and give it some thought when answering this next question.
What difference could it possibly make?
Please show your work.

Answer: I have no idea.

As I suspected.

Why Petraeus waited until after the election is anybody's guess, but by all accounts it was completely his decision. It absolutely in no way prevents him from testifying in front of Congress on any one of a number of issues you seem to want to nail the Administration on.

I see no advantage nor disadvantage either way. Sometimes the timing of things simply is coincidental; like hurricanes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zenister 0]

Quote

The ironic thing about Clinton's attempt to shield himself by claiming to fall under the UCMJ is that the sanctions against adultery in the military are more severe with increasing rank. A PO3 who makes niknik outside of marriage might get punishment under Article 15 at worst. An Admiral will routinely get cashiered. ***

Maximum punishment for adultery according to UCMJ is actually two years of hard labor, and yes Leavenworth still has gravel pits! However, the maximum punishment is rarely enforced. As a matter of fact I have never seen it enforced and have even seen instances of senior leaders being involved with subordinate's wives. Usually the individual is simply forced to retire because nobody wants to taint someone's benefits.

There is also the fact that if you demand court martial proving adultery* requires physical evidence or sworn statements from a participating party. While the process might shame everyone involved regardless that standard of proof makes a settlement the far more likely course of action.

*dont as me how I know this ;)

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Gravitymaster 0]

If you believe the director of the CIA had an affair that went on for many months before the election and nobody in the Obama Admin knew about it, then you are further gone than even I originally suspected.

[quade 3]

Quote

If you believe the director of the CIA had an affair that went on for many months before the election and nobody in the Obama Admin knew about it, then you are further gone than even I originally suspected.

And if you believe it matters a single iota, then you're exactly as gone as I've believed.

Again, what difference could it possibly make?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Perhaps some perspective to help pull you back from the edge.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83678.html

[Kennedy 0]

Petraeus may not be the only embattled one on the way out. Holder mentioned he's not sure he'll stay on, and there are rumblings Clinton is on her way out within the month. Chalk some of it up to reelection turnover, but those three going first says a lot.

It'd be nice if we ever get a clear answer on Fast and Furious, Abbottabad, and Benghazi, but I won't hold my breath that it'll happen during his administration.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

Quote

Perhaps some perspective to help pull you back from the edge.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83678.html

I'm not "on the edge." I've asked you a question twice already and you can't seem to answer it. You've had pretty much all day to come up with one. Let me try once more.

With regards to your statement questioning the timing of his resignation, what possible difference could it make?

As I said before, use your imagination. Devise a scenario wherein it makes any difference whatsoever.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

I've given you some possibilities. I've also asked you several questions that you have had all day to answer. Perhaps you like the edge where government doesn't lie and cover things up for political reasons.

So I'll ask one more time, although I'm sure you will employ your usual avoidance tactics.

"This affair has been going on for quite a while. The woman involved has been covering Petraous for 5 years. The FBI has know what's been going on way before the election. Why is it just coming out now"?

There you go, I'll wait for your well considered answer.

[quade 3]

Quote

I've given you some possibilities.

No. You haven't. Not a single one.

You implied the timing was advantageous after the election, yet never explained how it could possibly make a difference. Never. The amount of times? 0.00.

In fact, here is your previous answer.

Quote

Answer: I have no idea.

My only reply to that is you either have no imagination or no case; possibly both. If you can't think of ONE logical and defendable way it would have actually affected the outcome of the election, then your entire point in that regard is moot.

Quote

Why is it just coming out now?

You'd have to ask the man himself. I certainly have no idea why but I can suppose quite a few scenarios, but that is all they are, suppositions.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

With all the drama about Bengahzi, the CIA director resigning would have ratcheted up the questions and kept the issue on TV screens and radios everywhere. This increased coverage would have prevented the Obama Admin form getting out their message in the last few days of the campaign.

I can't believe I had to actually spell that out to you.

[quade 3]

Okay, so now let's look at that logically.

Benghazi happened on September 11.

If Petraeus had resigned on September 12th, would that have made a positive or negative difference? Or, would folks have bitched about it being Petraeus falling on his sword to save the President? I'm guessing you would have said it was an attempt by Obama to shift blame and cover up the "truth" which is what you're doing anyway, so...no difference.

I can play scenarios out for every single day between September 11 and November 10 and every single one of them makes exactly no difference whatsoever.

Please, please, come up with one that actually makes a difference.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

You really need to get off that edge. The media did everything they could to keep Benghazi out of the headlines, only offering scant coverage. Had Patreous resigned, they could not have avoided covering it and the questions could have buried Obamas chances of re-election.

[billvon 2,396]

>With all the drama about Bengahzi, the CIA director resigning would have ratcheted up
>the questions and kept the issue on TV screens and radios everywhere.

Exactly. And if they had done this on October 4th, the right wing would have claimed "they're trying to distract from Obama's miserable debate performance! They want something else in the news to take away attention from him sleeping through the interview." If they had done it on Oct 11th, the GOP would have claimed that it was timed so that Bden's successful debate overshadowed the news, and thus it got less attention than it should.

October 22nd? "Trying to bury it under the final debate!"

October 29th? "Trying to bury it under hurricane Sandy!"

Overall it would have given the GOP one more thing to blame their loss on.

[Gravitymaster 0]

The Right Wing?
I think you mean that all the alphabet networks would have been asking those questions.

[quade 3]

Have you considered that maybe there is no "good day" to announce you've dramatically breeched your own rules, the end of an otherwise sterling career, as well as possibly destroying the lives of three other people?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Have you considered that maybe there is no "good day" to announce you've dramatically breeched your own rules, the end of an otherwise sterling career, as well as possibly destroying the lives of three other people?

Have you considered the timing was for political considerations? You do know that the FBI knew about this back in February, which means Holde would have known of it since then. So either Holder told the White House or he didn't. Either way, it was so obviously a political decision that it's hard to understand your denials.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Have you considered that maybe there is no "good day" to announce you've dramatically breeched your own rules, the end of an otherwise sterling career, as well as possibly destroying the lives of three other people?

Have you considered the timing was for political considerations? You do know that the FBI knew about this back in February, which means Holde would have known of it since then. So either Holder told the White House or he didn't. Either way, it was so obviously a political decision that it's hard to understand your denials.

I've considered it and rejected it because it's ridiculous.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

Have you considered that maybe there is no "good day" to announce you've dramatically breeched your own rules, the end of an otherwise sterling career, as well as possibly destroying the lives of three other people?

Have you considered the timing was for political considerations?

Is Petraeus a staunch Obama supporter?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Have you considered that maybe there is no "good day" to announce you've dramatically breeched your own rules, the end of an otherwise sterling career, as well as possibly destroying the lives of three other people?

Have you considered the timing was for political considerations? You do know that the FBI knew about this back in February, which means Holde would have known of it since then. So either Holder told the White House or he didn't. Either way, it was so obviously a political decision that it's hard to understand your denials.

And Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim communist, right?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Do you really think FBI personnel were investigating the DCI concerning black-mailable clearance-relevant conduct without the AG and POTUS being fully aware?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Do you really think FBI personnel were investigating the DCI concerning black-mailable clearance-relevant conduct without the AG and POTUS being fully aware?

Well, thank gOd we have the liberal media to cover that up.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Have you considered that maybe there is no "good day" to announce you've dramatically breeched your own rules, the end of an otherwise sterling career, as well as possibly destroying the lives of three other people?

Have you considered the timing was for political considerations?

Is Petraeus a staunch Obama supporter?

As usual, you don't seem to have a grasp on the subject material.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you really think FBI personnel were investigating the DCI concerning black-mailable clearance-relevant conduct without the AG and POTUS being fully aware?

Well, thank gOd we have the liberal media to cover that up.

So I'm a conspiracy nut, huh? Interesting then that federal agencies are putting information out there indicating that I'm correct. The only unproven point is when the president was informed. Based on his track record, he'll say he didn't know until it hit the news.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324073504578113460852395852.html

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you really think FBI personnel were investigating the DCI concerning black-mailable clearance-relevant conduct without the AG and POTUS being fully aware?

Well, thank gOd we have the liberal media to cover that up.

So I'm a conspiracy nut, huh? Interesting then that federal agencies are putting information out there indicating that I'm correct. The only unproven point is when the president was informed. Based on his track record, he'll say he didn't know until it hit the news.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324073504578113460852395852.html

So why would Petraeus's affair be embarrassing for the White House?

Seems the Republican leadership kept it quiet.

*** House majority leader Eric Cantor talked to an FBI official in late October about former CIA Director David Petraeus' involvement in an affair, a spokesman for the congressman told CNN Sunday.
Doug Heye said Cantor had a conversation with the whistleblower about the affair and national security concerns involved in the matter.
The New York Times reported Saturday that on October 31, Cantor's chief of staff phoned the FBI to inform the agency about the call between the congressman and the FBI official. The Times reported Cantor learned of the whistleblower through Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Washington.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[LyraM45 0]

I was just about to link to an article talking about Eric Cantor's knowledge on this since Oct. I highly doubt something that could have been bombshell in general to the election or to Obama would have been kept quiet by the Republicans, especially so close to the election.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)