Breaking: CIA Director Petraeus Resigning

reply to post by jimmyx

ok...sorry....the further i researched this site, the more leery i became of it's news reporting, and the veracity of this particualr article....my bad.

Yeah, I'm leery of their news reporting too. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. I generally take anything I read on Veteran's Today with a very large grain of salt and look for corroborating evidence through other sources. Sometimes they turn out to be correct on things, sometimes I think they are a bit crazy or perhaps a conscious or unconscious disinfo tool.

I would love to know if there is anything to the rumors of a planned coup or not. The Navy is apparently denying it but still refusing to say exactly why Adm. Gaouette was relieved of command. As for other sources, the lid seems to have slammed down pretty tight, with no further word except official denial and speculation from people who also don't know what's going on.

reply to post by ikonoklast


He was relieved because of what happened in Thailand ....let's just say there was some booze, paid ladies, and such...you get the picture! ...and a few of those aides were brought on board the stennis. That's a big no- no!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


If you are ready to listen, here is what I am saying. Benghazi was never State department. Benghazi was CIA gun running from day one. So was the compound, and so was Stevens for that matter. Real ambassadors don't run around violent countries with a couple of ex-seals. If you expect ANY president to send in the army whenever a clandestine CIA op gets it's nether region in a twist, we are going to need a MUCH larger army.

Also, I am wondering where your self-righteous indignation is for every other CIA op that ever went bad. Why does this one have so much of your attention? Oh, yeah. Because you are using it to justify your political anger.

Originally posted by Montana
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

If you are ready to listen, here is what I am saying. Benghazi was never State department. Benghazi was CIA gun running from day one. So was the compound, and so was Stevens for that matter. Real ambassadors don't run around violent countries with a couple of ex-seals. If you expect ANY president to send in the army whenever a clandestine CIA op gets it's nether region in a twist, we are going to need a MUCH larger army.

Also, I am wondering where your self-righteous indignation is for every other CIA op that ever went bad. Why does this one have so much of your attention? Oh, yeah. Because you are using it to justify your political anger.

Need a much larger army? Two HIGHLY trained seals held off a hundred or more terrorist. There was no gun running except fast and furious... Clinton took the blame for not heading the WARNING that they needed more security. SCAPEGOATS SCAPEGOATS SCAPEGOATS blood is on the hands
peace prize winning POTUS WITH CROOK INC.

Originally posted by Montana
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Oh, yeah. Because you are using it to justify your political anger.

ah hah! My thoughts exactly.

Our government doesn't need to cover anything up. Their arrogance shows that they think they can do anything and get away with it.

Originally posted by gangdumstyle
SCAPEGOATS SCAPEGOATS SCAPEGOATS blood is on the hands
peace prize winning POTUS WITH CROOK INC.

edit on 10-11-2012 by gangdumstyle because: (no reason given)

^^^^ Definition of political anger.......

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

I tried to explain it simply and gave a example involving recent history that is proven fact when you look through the facts which are easy to follow on Pelosi, Bush, Walter Isaacson and Steve Jobs.

I get your drift, check this out,

Sex under the desk?
AKA undercover operation,

har

www.newsmax.com...

Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.

FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

“The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com...
Follow us: @newsmax_media on Twitter | newsmax on Facebook
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

real nice of the FBI to hold off and accommodate Obama until after the election,

Is that even legal?

So in order to ensure Obama's reelection they compromise the safety of the country, are you serious?

Obama knew, I knew he knew, he wanted them to hold off.

more lies and cover ups from the Obama administration

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Wow.

I am surprised that the thread went this far without someone playing the race card. You threw a reference to Bush in there too. Sure sign that Obama is in trouble.

You obviously didn't even try to understand the meaning of the content. You just saw Bush and Black, and assume I'm an Obama supporter throwing the race card. You didn't even bother understanding my point, and I have a good one.
The only reason I went that far and used that analogy is because you people just ignored or denied my other posts. Even that analogy didn't wake you up, you still just look at one word of my posts, and dismiss the meaning. Instead of looking at how I used Bush, and to illustrate how silly you people are being, you just respond with an "OMGz he brought up Bush." When Bush was NOT even the topic of that sentence.
"OMG he asked us if we're racist because we ignore the facts and criticize a man no matter the circumstance."

Originally posted by Stormdancer777


real nice of the FBI to hold off and accommodate Obama until after the election,

Is that even legal?

I have no idea about legality, but I have heard about them not arresting a criminal immediately after they learn of his crime for many reasons before. Usually this is because of an on going investigation, though.

Blackmail only works when the crime is secret. Once the affair was known by others the threat of blackmail was no longer a concern. Holding off announcing the affair was wrong, but I don't believe it was a national security risk.

reply to post by Montana

FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

It says here agents were outraged,

So am I.

This really makes me angry

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by gangdumstyle

 

If both Obama and Biden are implemented (charges could be as serious as aiding the enemy in a time of war since they have Al-Qaeda connections) and impeached at the same time, Boehner becomes POTUS. Some other Republican becomes SoH and Boehner's empty Congressional seat is filled by either appointment or special election.

It really all depends on who was in the room and who did and said what. The only way to avoid impeachment proceedings after the initial investigation hearings is for a back room deal to occur. But it is going to take more than just extending the Bush Tax cuts. I would say that Obamacare is on the table at this point.

wow.
you actually believe that stuff could happen?
You believe "charges could be as serious as aiding the enemy in a time of war since they have Al-Qaeda connections."
Now you people went from "they didn't do anything to help" to "they aided Al-Qaeda in killing Americans."

Even when Bush was in the white house and actually TORTURED people, Democrats were never THIS bad.

Is it because he's black? Or are republicans just that delusional?
It's because he's black, right?

If you want to call Republicans delusional, that is one thing. If you want to use. The race card, do what you did in your l ost that I quoted. You know, finish it off with 'It's because he's black, right?' , then accuse others of not being able to fathom your context.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Montana

 

FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged.

It says here agents were outraged,

So am I.

This really makes me angry

I'm sorry agents were outraged. I'm sorry you are outraged as well.

I wonder why they are outraged this time when they delay prosecution regularly in other cases?

Could it be because of political anger again?

If it is, then I guess I really don,t care that they are outraged.

reply to post by Montana


I am outraged because this is one of the most corrupt administration and the press continually give them a pass.

Other admins. have had there fair share of investigation and suffered the consequence, this administration get the soft press.

I have to go do dishes,

reply to post by butcherguy


I don't understand their need to protect this guy?

Never seen anything like it.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Montana

 

I have to go do dishes,

I am outraged that you have to go do dishes!

Send them to Gitmo!

Originally posted by Montana

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Montana

 

I have to go do dishes,

I am outraged that you have to go do dishes!

Send them to Gitmo!

Originally posted by Montana
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

If you are ready to listen, here is what I am saying. Benghazi was never State department. Benghazi was CIA gun running from day one. So was the compound, and so was Stevens for that matter. Real ambassadors don't run around violent countries with a couple of ex-seals. If you expect ANY president to send in the army whenever a clandestine CIA op gets it's nether region in a twist, we are going to need a MUCH larger army.

Also, I am wondering where your self-righteous indignation is for every other CIA op that ever went bad. Why does this one have so much of your attention? Oh, yeah. Because you are using it to justify your political anger.

Well this would be the first one about which I have ever participated in a public forum first of all. Second of all, there is a difference between self-righteousness, and righteous indignation. Righteous indignation is what I claim because of what we know already about this Marxist POTUS and his desire to knock America down a notch to equalize all the nations and not have America be the Superpower she has been since WWII. Why would he want that? Just ask DSouza. He explained it in his movie 2016.

When this POTUS starts doing what is right for America I will defend his honor. Until then, I pray for DIvine Intervention and Judgement of the Almighty.

reply to post by Montana


Nah. No al Qaeda dinnerware there.

That is found at the White House, for special State dinners with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Dbl post