Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm trying to stitch this together, as one has to do with all things that go on these days...
But the easy dismissal of the Benghazi fiasco just before the General was to testify is more than interesting...will he now testify? Will he be let off the hook? Was his testimony going to be scrutinized to the point where pretty big implications would be apparent? I found this quote on ABC rather telling.
I'm trying to stitch this together, as one has to do with all things that go on these days...
But the easy dismissal of the Benghazi fiasco just before the General was to testify is more than interesting...will he now testify? Will he be let off the hook? Was his testimony going to be scrutinized to the point where pretty big implications would be apparent? I found this quote on ABC rather telling.
He can no longer testify as "the head of CIA" which is what will be required at the upcoming hearing. However, should more information be required, he most certainly can be required to testify.
And when the FBI informant found out and notified Eric Cantor who notified FBI director Meuller, it was Meuller's job to take that information straight to the president. Or the president might have already known earlier. That is what we need to find out in the hearings. Pat Buchanan brought up a good question last night. He asked 'Why didn't the CIA find out about this affair when they did their initial full field investigation (vetting) into Petraeus?
Nice Try, ...Apparently it wasn't just Cantor.
Quote:
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.
If you dig deeper into all the links out there, the investigation has been going on for some time and it apparently came to the attention of Eric Cantor back in October. The Republicans have known about this scandal for quite some time and, for some reason, did not bring it to light and use it as we would hope. Enough Republicans hate Obama and wanted to see him ousted that I CANNOT believe that they were able to be suppressed in any way. Time will tell.
Cantor is the one that sent it to the FBI...
Quote:
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 the 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.
Why did they keep it quiet? Why are they keeping it quiet now? Why did they NOT inform the committee that Patraeus was being investigated?
Further still, now the Feds are claiming that NO security was breached b/c of the affair. If that is the case, what would prompt Petraeus to resign so suddenly, and to chalk it up to "being a bad husband and leader" simply because of it? No President has resigned due to admitted affairs, so why this high general doing that? Clearly something is going on and the only thing I can think of is an invented drama to muffle a full investigation into Benghazi. Petraeus would be key figure in that investigation. It should be interesting to see the "official WH spin" as it gets played out in the media this week.
Further still, now the Feds are claiming that NO security was breached b/c of the affair. If that is the case, what would prompt Petraeus to resign so suddenly, and to chalk it up to "being a bad husband and leader" simply because of it? No President has resigned due to admitted affairs, so why this high general doing that? Clearly something is going on and the only thing I can think of is an invented drama to muffle a full investigation into Benghazi. Petraeus would be key figure in that investigation. It should be interesting to see the "official WH spin" as it gets played out in the media this week.
Probably plausible dependability. I think the White House just wants this to go away because Stevens was actually playing economic hitman in Benghazi and probably using surrogates to fun "freedom fighters" or something like that.
You can laugh or call me absurd but we've seen it at least twice over the past 3 decades. Once with Reagan and Once with Clinton. Who knows if Bush senior was funneling money and we know bush junior "lost" lots of money via the DoD in Iraq.
I just have something I want to throw out there--especially to the tinfoil hat brigade who so easily believe everything is some sort of coverup.
Amongst our elected officials, as well as some very filthy rich folks who support them, there are a TON of people who have been waiting for some scandal to hit the Obama administration.
This Patraeus thing, we are finding out, has been going on since October when Eric Cantor (republican, tea party darling, Eric Cantor) knew about it. He wasn't the only one because he's not that special. Do you not think that with all the people out there ready to pull some stank down on Obama that this would not have the perfect thing to do it with? To find out that the Obama administration was trying to suppress Patraeus in some way? Do you really think a 4 start general, along with a political writer, would idly sit back and let themselves be used in that way? I think it's crazy to even think that. I mean, look at Clinton. Once his disgression got out, that was latched onto and he was ruined. Do you not think that the same thing would happen now if there was ANY way to link this business to Obama.
Sometimes what you see is what you get? This Patraeus thing is just getting more and more sordid with the two women. I really don't think this has anything to do with Benghazi. If it truly did, some smart Republican would have sewn up the Romney win with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
