Breaking: CIA Director Petraeus Resigning

reply to post by hadriana


So the guys at the top aren't a security concern? They have to have background checks and go through all the other checks that everyone else has to go through as well, to ensure that they aren't doing something they aren't supposed to do.

SO....

Patraeus resigning means he won't be testifying before ANY of the Committees and Hearings scheduled to take place in coming weeks.

As the SNL Church Lady would say .... How Convenient .... :shk:

[ETA]

Benghazi anyone !?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Didn't say that. Said it's how the information flows. Why have a clearance? To keep it from flowing too far.


IMO, the folks at the top are the BIGGEST security threat. lol
AIn't no security check going to stop them from doing what they do though.

I guess you think any general or high level official has never had an affair. Right.
***Clinton*** Guess they never gamble, date or befriend anyone with a drug habit or deviance, or anything else.

Like, you can never be friends with someone that does drugs. They tell low level grunts this while they have agents who's job it IS to get out and be part of that community. I've met some of these folks and they are so straight with a stick up their butt believing they have to be perfect tin soldiers or they'll 'lose everything' ...they SCARE me.

These people at the top - they ARE the secrets. They MAKE em. This is a coverup using some phoney baloney nationalistic crap that they think people will buy.

Sure...........the guy can keep thousands of national secrets............and can't keep an affair secret?

Seems like an excuse/cover story. Two days after the election as well? Someone trying to send a message?

reply to post by hadriana


The guys at the top have to have a clearance just like the guys at the bottom.

I know that they have had them. They didn't get removed for them because either A) no one found out, or B) they were covered for and covered up. Most Army Generals are members of the West Point Society, which will cover your ass unless you do something along the lines of walking into a tent and tossing a grenade, or opening fire.

As for politicians, I don't trust them as they're all scum sucking liars anyway. Someone didn't like something that he did in this case, (maybe he fired a REMF that deserved it) and his affair was found out, so it was leaked.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Sure...........the guy can keep thousands of national secrets............and can't keep an affair secret?

Seems like an excuse/cover story. Two days after the election as well? Someone trying to send a message?

Its been three days...

Agree with the rest

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well if it was leaked, it wasn't a secret anyway.
Of course they have to have clearances. Does NOT mean they will LOSE a clearance over an affair!
Or that they can't be blackmailed over one IN or OUT of office.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c

Seems the new acting director will be taking Petraeus's spot at the hearings.

A spokesman for the committee said acting CIA Director Mike Morell would testify Thursday in place of Petraeus, who resigned Friday after admitting to an extramarital affair.

politico.com


Interesting notes about Morell:

In a Vanity Fair article about the decision to kill bin Laden, Mark Bowdon described Morell as "the head of the C.I.A.’s bin Laden team".
The article also states that Morell "had been personally involved in the flawed analysis of Saddam’s weapons capability", and was told the president he was only 60 percent sure the Al Qaeda leader was actually living in the Pakistani property

businessinsider.com

reply to post by hadriana


In ways to lose a clearance, having an affair was number 1. You are more likely to leak something to a lover than you are to anyone else, even a blackmailer.

Originally posted by hadriana
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Well if it was leaked, it wasn't a secret anyway.
Of course they have to have clearances. Does NOT mean they will LOSE a clearance over an affair!
Or that they can't be blackmailed over one IN or OUT of office.

This has everything to do with Benghazi don't be fooled...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by hadriana

 

In ways to lose a clearance, having an affair was number 1. You are more likely to leak something to a lover than you are to anyone else, even a blackmailer.

Can you believe these same people call conspiracy theorist nuts? (some crazy ones like 9.11 conspiracy)
but there are REAL conspiracies, this is one.

They hand us this crap on a platter..

Hillary Clinton likely to resign
John Kerry > Susan Rice?


Who will be Obama's new Treasury chief?
Jacob Lew > Larry Fink?

Next up, Panetta ? (no link yet)

reply to post by Zaphod58


The whole clearance system is bunk and used illegally anyway. Let's classify EVERYTHING. Let's use it to cover up evidence of inefficiency, potential embarrassment, and illegal activity. Wait, we already are.

let's fear an extra marital affair. Let's yank the clearance from some old goat that has been there when the secrets were made. That will help.

That's not making any sense, unless you are looking at it from a grunt's perspective.

reply to post by hadriana

President Obama plans to nominate him as the Director.[4] Morell is a native of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.[5] He joined the CIA in 1980. He was chief of the CIA's division on Asia, Pacific and Latin America.[6] Most of his work in the agency was devoted to Asian projects

Does this tell you anything?

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by gangdumstyle


Oh, I'm sure that this was used against him to get him out. He is too straight laced and a rule player for a lot of people, especially at the CIA. I don't know if it had to do with Benghazi or not, or if it's just timing, but he pissed off someone that was able to dig up some information on him and use it against him.

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

Originally posted by IsawWHATtheyDID
my conspiracy senses are tingling. how many rats have been jumping ship, or making preperations to jump? i believe holder is contemplating to. could just be because he caught caught cheating or something embarrassing about his life is about to come to light, or something big this way comes, and they are starting to head to their bunkers.

You my friend, might be on to something:

(Reuters) - Citigroup Inc's Vikram Pandit quit as chief executive on Tuesday after months of simmering tensions with the board - an abrupt change that surprised investors and employees of the third-largest U.S. bank.

www.reuters.com...

(CNN) -- Scott Forstall, one of the most visible faces of Apple in the wake of Steve Jobs' death, is leaving the company in a surprise shakeup at the head of Apple' ranks.

www.cnn.com...

9/01/11 (USA NY) Bank of New York Mellon Chief Robert P. Kelly Resigns in a Shake-UP
9/15/11 (USA NY) Morgan Stanley, Chairman John Mack resigns
11/16/11 (EUROPEAN COMMUNITY) International Monetary Fund Europe, director Antonio Borges resigns for personal reasons.

americankabuki.blogspot.com...

I'm sure there are others. Wonder what's up?

This is gettng weird here's another one. This just happened:

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. /quotes/zigman/150087/quotes/nls/lmt LMT +0.07% said late Friday that its chief operating officer, Christopher Kubasik, has resigned after an ethics investigation confirmed that he had a close personal relationship with a subordinate employee. Lockheed Martin had planned to make Kubasik its CEO in January. Instead, the company's board has elected Marilyn Hewson to be its new chief operating officer immediately, and to ascend to the role of CEO Jan. 1. Lockheed Martin said its board asked Kubasik to step down following the probe, because he violated the company's code of ethics and business conduct.

www.marketwatch.com...

All of a sudden everyone has morals?

First of all, thank you Jack for making this thread. General Petraeus was removed from his command (Commander US Forces Afghanistan) and made the D/CIA to replace Leon Panetta who became Sec of Defense. There we some murmurings that Petraeus was not a huge Obama and the move was to keep a better eye on him lest he should decide to run for POTUS on the Republican ticket.

To say that this "affair" is suspicious to me is an understatement. And with his not being required to testify, I look to see him have to take the blame for Benghazi if the blood the Republicans are going to be screaming for needs a scapegoat. As for Hilary, she will depart as Sec of State so she can ready for her 2016 run by being properly divorced from Obama's second term...unless she thinks there is no chance for her to be elected.

Ladies and Gentlemen, now you are starting to see what an Obama that does not have to worry about re-election is all about. And the uninformed people of this country bought it hook, line and sinker. And just as the MSM said it was all over a video, so shall they say that the resignation was over an affair. As far as that looming fiscal cliff goes...that will be cakewalk compared to what comes afterwards.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by gangdumstyle

 

Oh, I'm sure that this was used against him to get him out. He is too straight laced and a rule player for a lot of people, especially at the CIA. I don't know if it had to do with Benghazi or not, or if it's just timing, but he pissed off someone that was able to dig up some information on him and use it against him.

I think your on the right trail, I think most of us are, and it is a little bit of ALL our theories.
I got a gut feeling though it has (something) to do with benghazi.

I am hearing about how honorable and upright a man Petraeus is....

Then why in the h*ll would he air his dirty marital laundry for everybody to see? How honorable is it to humiliate your wife of 37 years before the entire world? Was there not another way to resign quietly? Hmmmm...I'm suspicious but I can't quite put my finger on it.

reply to post by queenofswords


ding ding ding ding

Why WOULD he?
Look at the comments- everyone is speculating on the way she looks, as the media has been so nice to include a picture of an older, heavy - perfectly normal - woman in their articles.

It's sickening. First they throw out Americans to die without sending aid, then they throw an older woman under the bus - one who NO DOUBT loves her country very much to have lived the life she has had to live married to that man in the first place.

*SHE* probably agreed to be the sacrificial lamb.

I feel like throwing up.