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 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.
First, I respect your point of view and do not necessarily disagree. I am a Democrat, but not above investigating the foul doings of any party in power. Second, Clinton did not have his career ruined. He survived just fine despite the attempt at impeachment.
Look, these high-up people are way above the petty stuff that keeps the peons absorbed for hours in front of their TVs. They can sit around in a conference room together and decide the best way to handle big stuff and what to spin on the public, and they do not really hurt themselves in so doing. It's all about what do we tell the public. What was happening all during the long OJ trial? The secret runup to the Iraq war. It is not the idea of "conspiracy theory" that should make us constantly question our government. It is reading between the lines and trying to get at the real story. Cover-ups through dramas are legion; they happen as a matter of routine and to think otherwise is naive.
I'm not saying that this is the case with the exposé of the Petraeus-Paula affair, but the least we can do as sort of smart Americans is to delve deeper than what the mouthpieces of the White House spew out (i.e., the mainstream media).
It's not Cantor's responsibility to inform the IC. His responsibility was to inform the F.B.I., which he did.
The F.B.I. should have informed the IC since they were the ones with legal authority to investigate.
There are reports just coming out that Obama knew for months when the FBI back in the spring started investigating. It all makes sense why they sat on it. They wanted to sit on the story in case Romney chose Petraeus as his VP.....and his name was indeed being floated around by the Romney camp. So....if Romney would have chosen him as his VP running mate, Obama would have exposed it as his October surprise and destroy Romney's ticket....which it would have. Now since Obama won......and the election is over and the Benghazi hearings is next week, they decided to get him to resign right at a crucial time.
Last edited by Jesus Christ Superstar; 11-11-2012 at 05:09 PM..
There are reports just coming out that Obama knew for months when the FBI back in the spring started investigating. It all makes sense why they sat on it. They wanted to sit on the story in case Romney chose Petraeus as his VP.....and his name was indeed being floated around by the Romney camp. So....if Romney would have chosen him as his VP running mate, Obama would have exposed it as his October surprise and destroy Romney's ticket....which it would have. Now since Obama won......and the election is over and the Benghazi hearings is next week, they decided to get him resign right at a crucial time.
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.
Just a reminder:
Quote:
In April 1996, however, a press report suggested that the Clinton administration had secretly given its consent to covert arms shipments by Iran to Croatia and Bosnia. An April 5 Los Angeles Times article by James Risen and Doyle McManus claims that the U.S. ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, and then- U.S. Contact Group representative, Charles Redman, responded to an inquiry from Croatian President Tudjman about whether the U.S. would object to the transshipment of arms through Croatia from Iran to the government of Bosnia by saying that the U.S. had ``no position.'' According to the story, the two U.S. diplomats were acting on instructions from National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, and President Clinton himself. The policy was known only to a small group of State Department officials, with Congress, the CIA and even several regional U.S. embassies kept out of the loop. When then-CIA Director James Woolsey became aware of the Iranian shipments, he contacted Mr. Lake and conferred with then-White House counsel Abner Mikva. The matter was then referred to the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), which began an investigation in November 1994. In May 1995, the Clinton- appointed IOB concluded that no US laws had been broken, despite the administration's failure to issue a presidential finding and to notify Congress. In testimony before the House International Relations Committee on April 23, 1996, the basic assertions of the article were confirmed by Undersecretary of State Peter Tarnoff.
After the Nunn-Mitchell legislation went into effect in November 1994 prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for the purpose of participation in, support for, or assistance to the enforcement of the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United States modified the rule under which its forces in SHARP GUARD operated. For example, U.S. ships with SHARP GUARD no longer diverted or delayed vessels that contained arms or other cargo for the purpose of enforcing the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The enactment of Nunn-Mitchell had little impact on the enforcement of other aspects of the arms and economic embargo on other parts of the former Yugoslavia. U.S. ships with SHARP GUARD continued enforcing other UN Security Council Resolutions, such as the economic embargo on Serbia and Montenegro, and tracked vessels containing arms for Bosnia even after maritime inspections had been concluded in order to ensure that destination and cargo dispensation claims had been met. The overall efficiency of the SHARP GUARD operation may have decreased somewhat after Nunn-Mitchell, however, because of limitations on the sharing of information by U.S. ships with other SHARP GUARD participants on whether cargos had been cleared because they were free of prohibited items or because they contained weapons bound only for Bosnia.
Some in Congress have raised the question of whether Ambassador Galbraith's response to President Tudjman in 1994 that he had `no instructions' on whether the Croatian government should allow an arms shipment to pass through its territory to Bosnia constituted U.S. covert action. The answer is that it did not. Under the law, covert action is defined as `an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, while it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly.' The definition does not include, among other things, traditional diplomatic activities.
Sincerely,
BARBARA LARKIN,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
And here's what the democrats brought to the table:
Quote:
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, last week the House of Representatives decided on an almost strict party line vote to create a special subcommittee to investigate the Clinton administration's decision not to stop Iran from shipping weapons to the Bosnian Government in violation of the arms embargo. And they voted to spend an additional $995,000 above their planned budget to conduct this investigation. $995,000. While not technically correct, I hope you can indulge me if I just round up and call it an even million. That's really what it is.
I know the House is just as concerned as the Senate about the cost of performing necessary Government functions in these times of billion dollar budget deficits. The new Republican House leadership took some important, difficult measures to cut the cost of running Congress when they took control in 1994. I believe that was the right thing to do. So why spend a million dollars unnecessarily? Especially in this election year, you do not have to be a cynic to believe it was for political reasons. But even a cynic would be dumbfounded trying to figure out why the House Republicans went this extra, excessive step to try to try and make a political point.
April 5: Lewinsky is removed from her White House job and transferred to a public affairs position at the Pentagon, because of her superiors' perception that she was spending too much time around the president.
April 7: On Easter Sunday, Lewinsky told the president that she was being transferred. He promised to bring her back to the White House after the 1996 election. Then they had a sexual rendezvous during which he spoke on the telephone with political consultant Dick Morris. They were interrupted again when Clinton aide Harold M. Ickes called out for him from the Oval Office. Clinton rushed to see Ickes, and Lewinsky left.
1997
Feb. 14: The Washington Post published an anonymous Valentine's Day note placed by Lewinsky, addressed to "Handsome."
So I wouldn't rule out that there could be more going on that what you see on the surface.
The names have changed and the events are altered but all of what's occurring now is reminiscent of times past regarding the executive branch.
That's not to say that this time it could all be taken at face value but to completely disregard the possibility because it's your side is completely dishonest. Ask yourself if this was occurring during Bush Jr.'s term would you all be wanting to ignore it or would you want to find out if there was more to this story.
There are reports just coming out that Obama knew for months when the FBI back in the spring started investigating. It all makes sense why they sat on it...
Please provide links. Would like to read these reports.
I am enjoying all this because it is happening right after the election. Wouldn't that be something if Obama was found to be involved in this whole mess from the get go and impeachment would take place before he was sworn in before his second term?
That's not to say that this time it could all be taken at face value but to completely disregard the possibility because it's your side is completely dishonest. Ask yourself if this was occurring during Bush Jr.'s term would you all be wanting to ignore it or would you want to find out if there was more to this story.
Again, I am Democrat, but as a journalist am savvy enough to not be fooled by political shenanigans and cover-ups of fiascos. These go way, way back in history on both sides. To participate in a Democracy means to be an impartial watchdog of government, no matter who is in power.
Again, I am Democrat, but as a journalist am savvy enough to not be fooled by political shenanigans and cover-ups of fiascos. These go way, way back in history on both sides. To participate in a Democracy means to be an impartial watchdog of government, no matter who is in power.
I admit that I first thought it was a cover up.
Then I started reading some of the post on other threads and thought maybe this is just exactly what it looks like, a sex scandal.
I decided to stand back a bit and just take it all in as I know new evidence will come into play. Now I'm pretty much just doing that as the stories come out.
I believe in the end the truth always comes out even if it takes 5 decades to do so.
It's not Cantor's responsibility to inform the IC. His responsibility was to inform the F.B.I., which he did.
The F.B.I. should have informed the IC since they were the ones with legal authority to investigate.
By their staffers comment, it appears it was.
[LEFT]
Quote:
The first knowledge of the affair outside the FBI came from an agency whistle-blower who contacted a Capitol Hill Republican who told House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., got a tip from a friend who knew the whistle-blower, as reported by The New York Times.
Sources tell Fox News that Reichert talked to the whistle-blower, then referred him to Cantor. The whistle-blower talked to the majority leader’s office, then to Cantor directly. The whistle-blower -- who purportedly was concerned about a possible national security breach -- was then put in touch with FBI Director Robert Mueller.
"Our office stands by the accuracy of the New York Times article as it pertains to Rep. Reichert,” the congressman’s office said Sunday.” We have no further comment about our involvement." Cantor staffers said they didn't immediately tell the House Intelligence Committee or chamber leaders because they didn't know whether the tip was credible. So they turned it over to the FBI.
So again, as the investigation was going on and their appeared to have been something to the story, WHY didn't they notify the committee?
[/LEFT]
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.
