Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post a reply

In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you enter both of the words displayed into the text field underneath.
:pray: :sleep: :D :alien51: :) :mrgreen: :wink: :love: :obsessed: :| :( :twisted: :evil: :scary: :o :dunno: :? 8-) :hmmm: :shock: :flop: :top: :x :P :oops: :cry: :?: :idea: :arrow: :!: :nails: :look: :rtft: :roll: :ohno: :hell: :vomit: :lol: :think: :headscratch: :clapper: :bang; :censored: :badair: :help: :owned: :nope: :nwo: :geek: :ugeek: :robot: :alien: :mrcool: :ghost: :sunny: :peep: :yell: :banana: :dancing: :hugging: :bullshit: :cheers: :shooting: :hiho:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review

Expand view Topic review: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Re: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post by The57ironman » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:56 pm


....Petraeus 'Knew Almost Immediately' Al Qaeda-Linked Group Responsible for Benghazi

David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he "knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks," CNN reports.

In his closed door meeting on the Hill, "[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points," Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn't accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.

"When he looks at what Susan Rice said," CNN reports, "here is what Petraeus's take is, according to my source. Petraeus developed some talking points laying it all out. those talking points as always were approved by the intelligence community. But then he sees Susan Rice make her statements and he sees input from other areas of the administration. Petraeus -- it is believed -- will tell the committee he is not certain where Susan Rice got all of her information." ... 63458.html

Re: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post by Rydher » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:35 pm

My bad, apparently Jill Kelly has a twin sister - Natalie. Both of which are rumored to be into the swinger scene and may have been involved with Petraeus.

Re: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post by Middleman » Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:26 am

The Real Scandal Surrounding the Petraeus Resignation

The National Security Agency routinely collects 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and communications every single day. Any kind of digital communication can be recorded and stored. Where you were when you wrote an email, where the recipient was when it was read, the text of the message can all be stored in enormous facilities like the $2 billion dollar Utah Data Center which contains four 25,000 foot facilities containing rows of data servers. They have to pump 1.7 million gallons of fluid through the facility every day just to keep it from overheating.

The NSA doesn't need a warrant to record your most private conversations. They have managed to circumvent our privacy laws because they define an "intercept" as a piece of information read by an agent. That means they don't need authorization to record and save your information until someone decides they'd like to read it.

Just how big is this domestic spying operation? It recently ensnared the nation's top spy, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Here is how it worked: A woman in Tampa received some emails. The emails read "Who do you think you are?... You parade around... You need to take it down a notch."

Because the woman in Tampa told a friend who worked at the FBI about the emails, a sprawling investigation began. According to the New York Times, the FBI found the computer from which the emails were coming. The account was anonymous, so they used "forensic techniques" to find out what other accounts were accessed from the same computer. The FBI identified a subject and obtained access to her private emails. The FBI then found more emails and then tracked down where those emails had come from.

Turns out salacious messages were coming from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. And while the FBI was looking around the Tampa woman's computer, they printed off twenty to thirty thousand pages of emails and sent them over to the Department of Defense.

Ignore for a moment that we are talking about the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. At the beginning, his involvement was unknown. "You need to take it down a notch" was justification for the FBI to access private emails in at least three accounts.

Why should this concern you? You are reading this on a computer or a mobile device. The FBI and the NSA can track you and find out your location. They can then look at your IP address and determine what websites you go to and what accounts you have accessed. They need a warrant to read any email that is less than 180 days old, but they can read any older email with only a court order that does not require probable cause. Just yesterday, Google disclosed that they have received 7,969 requests for information and access from the United States government in the first half of 2012.

The FBI, if they thought they had a reason, could find out where you are and read your email, with relatively little oversight. Don't think they can? This is what happened to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, an active four star general and two women. Even after this incredible invasion of privacy, the FBI has determined that no crime was likely committed and charges are unlikely to be filed.

Want to know what a national security state looks like? Look around.
Dennis Kucinich via Huffpo

Re: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post by Evildweeb » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:10 am


The thing is, why is this such a story?

My problem with this is there really is no such thing as a sex scandal.

I mean, are they trying to tell us NO ONE in Washington DC is getting laid?

All I have to say is this:

GO GENERAL.......GET SOME................

Next time, get some for the American People......there's no sex better than keeping it real sex.......




Re: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post by Truthdefender » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:41 am

By Douglas J. Hagmann

13 November 2012: Sex, trysts and indiscretions. Nothing more effectively diverts the public’s attention away from emerging critical truths better than the time-tested template of salacious headlines. It hijacks people’s attention away from far more critical matters that threaten the positions and agendas of the most powerful people engaged in even more immoral acts. It must be recognized for what it is: a tactic of diversion.

The alleged trysts of power brokers are a component to the story of Benghazi, but they are not the story. They provide convenient cover for emerging revelations. Like arrows in a quiver of those in positions of power, they exist as leverage to be used to neutralize existing or potential threats at the precise moment they are needed, without the untidiness and inconvenient inquiries that tend to accompany dead bodies. They are also powerful weapons that control the perception of a voyeuristic public, which is dutifully fed the salacious details by a complicit media.

Longing for the days of Watergate

America has never been in greater need of a “Woodward and Bernstein” effort than today. We are witnessing a cover-up of monumental proportions, with all roads leading directly to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We’ve already seen the modern day equivalent of the infamous Saturday night massacre in the form of resignations of senior officers and officials, with more to certainly follow. It’s all about the cover-up, and always about the cover-up. Yet, such an effort will not be made by a media compromised by years of infiltration, having evolved into its present incarnation as a ministry of propaganda.

When one begins pulling on the thread of Benghazi, the entire fabric covering Barack Hussein Obama, from his earliest political activities to the current operations in play begin to unravel. By pulling on this one thread, his associates and associations, compatriots and coconspirators, alliances, plans and agendas become exposed for all to see in the proper context.

Benghazi, by a thread

The reason full disclosure about Benghazi is needed is that it will expose an agenda much larger, much deeper, and much more nefarious than any extra-judicial operation we have seen in recent history. It will reveal Obama’s contempt for the United States Congress and the rule of law. It will also reveal Obama’s ugly contempt for human life, as there are not only four Americans dead from his operational objectives, but forty thousand dead in Syria – and counting.

Consistent with his modus operandi, Barack Hussein Obama has made congress and the oversight it provides irrelevant, and committed America to a proxy war without the approval of its citizens. If this were a play, North Africa, the Middle East and that entire region would be Obama’s theater. If allowed to continue on this path, the proxy war being directed by Obama will turn into another military engagement in Syria, with American troops and equipment, in costumes supplied by NATO at the forefront of a war to which Americans never agreed.

Pulling the thread of Benghazi will reveal that yes, the CIA under the direction of Barack Hussein Obama, was engaged in an arms running operation from Libya to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. It was and continues to be the Obama plan to overthrow Syrian President Assad and install a regime backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Why? For humanitarian reasons? The families of forty thousand dead in Syria would likely disagree, as most were killed at the hands of U.S. backed, trained and armed “rebels.”

The western headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the location of the casting couch for this Shakespearian tragedy, has a prominent address of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The visitor logs show an interesting flow of representatives into the house once owned by the people, as do the various appointments made by Obama over the years. No one should be surprised at this casting call, as Obama’s past reveals an association that far preceded the plans we see being implemented. That is, as much of his past as we have been permitted to know, or have fought to see.

Pulling on the Benghazi thread will expose the money trail from Saudi Arabia. It will show that the Royal family has their own personal army and intelligence agency. It’s the U.S. military and Obama’s CIA. We’re doing the heavy lifting and dirty work for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by a captured operative we know as Barack Hussein Obama.

We are in a proxy war with Iran and by extension, with Russia, with Saudi Arabia picking up much of the tab for the venue and props. Syria is just the theater, and Libya was the opening act. The attack at Benghazi was an unscheduled act in the play, but one that provided us with the program.

When the frenzy of headlines about sex and lies gradually abates, will we refocus on the events obscured by our thirst for salaciousness, or will it be too late? Perhaps we can do so now by understanding that the headlines are being written by the operatives themselves. Let’s not be derailed. Let’s look at the program, and understand the plot of the play before the final curtain call.

In Pursuit of the Truth... ... #more-7116

Re: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post by Chronicnerd » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:40 am

WillEase666 wrote:Jill Kelley Has Secrets Besides Petraeus Ties

Published on Nov 13, 2012 by NewsyPolitics

In the midst of the David Petraeus scandal, General John Allen is now being investigated for his ties with Jill Kelley, who reported Petraeus' affair.

Upload to

I know of someone who wouldn't have been easy to "setup" for a fall like this...
Let's see... there were two generals who held the same position during the 1st O-term:

Which of the two do you think would be easier to setup( ~if~ this was a setup)?

McChrystal was fired for joking around with his soldiers, who were upset about some of the administrations policies at the time, in the same mess hall/break area that the rolling stone reporter was in...but was not at the same table nor was he making any form of public statement...and was fired for making a joke about Joe Biden...

Patraeus was Obama's self appointed General... to replace McChrystal...


So yeah yeah... I know what most might think... "You just picked two pictures that happen to make one look less 'hardened' than the other"...


Well look for yourself if you are in doubt:
General Stanley McChrystal:

General David Petraeus:

Decide for yourself... but I had made mention of this awhile back ago...

General McChrystal is relieved of his Afghan post because a reporter over heard soldiers during their time off in a bar making jokes about Obama due to his lack of making a decision towards the end of 2009. General McChrystal was not part of that discussion but happened to be in the same bar/area, and as such he was "somehow" linked to being responsible for the soldiers conduct and was "punished" by being brought back to the U.S. where he resumed his military rank, but was assigned to more "domestic" related issues.

General McChrystal was Obama's hand pick to replace the Bush administration's previous pick for the Afghan front...setting aside the Rolling Stone article... why would Obama remove the Bush administration's pick, then a heavily Liberal Biased/Influenced magazine (The Rolling Stone) is given "top clearance" to follow McChrystal around in the Afghan war which resulted in a very odd article that somehow linked McChrystal to being "unfit", and then remove McChrystal to only have him resume his military duties...but in the U.S.?

Read more: korean-crisis-summary-t36961.html#ixzz2CF7LmSan

and how it didn't quite make much sense that a *liberal* reporter was given *top* security clearance to follow McChrystal around...they called it a "report"...but in the my personal was a plant to hang around and try to find "anything possible" that could force McChrystal out...I mean...the clearance for the Rolling Stone magazine article *came from the white house*...

Now we have this... with the guy that Obama himself...hand picked...of course back then I was thinking it was more to have someone with large scale urban street warfare experience here in America...but really makes a lot of sense...

Let's see... Patreaus replaced McChrystal back around 2010:

Hmmm... and let's look at the time line for Patreaus in his "affair":

Oh... so Paula Broadwell met Patreaus back in 2006!!!

Hmm... wonder if they were doing the naughty naughty prior to Patreaus being replaced by Obama?
Hmm... wonder if *anyone* that Obama knew or had access to was aware of the "affair" prior to this time?

My bet, as this all unfolds, is that there *will* be ~someone~ who testifies that knew about the affair prior to the Rolling Stone article and the whole "White House requesting that a Rolling Stone reporter do an article on McChrystal" thing...because at that point...if you know a General has dirt you can use...well...then that General just became easier to get to agree with you...if that was your thing...

As a matter of fact... I would bet that if you look at all of the people who have had "scandals" this past four years and resigned, and were in a high political/government position, I would bet that they all were tied to other "Obama oriented" agendas...and once the agenda was completed...they resign...

I would be willing to bet with a little bit of search engine typing and patience...and a bit of willingness to do the leg work to make sure it is would find a very interesting pattern...

Either way...the Mad Hatters are in control... duck and cover!

Re: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post by Chronicnerd » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:11 am

WillEase666 wrote:
Chronicnerd wrote:Well, I would think that if my guess about what went down was right then he would have done exactly this:

As of 2:23 pm EDT, only Fox is reporting this... :headscratch:


Welcome...yes Fox News, while the majority of their talk show hosts are not *liberal* but more libertarian and/or conservative, Fox News is the only news source that I know of who's reports are more geared towards "concern for America" than "concerns for the progressive liberal (i.e. socialist) agenda".

Yeah... I am sure you will find articles in the bowels of the inter-tubes... but more often than not Fox reports things that are relavent to the cause.

Heck, I know many of the more conservative members of Fox News were jabbing at Romney for not being aggressive enough and/or not bringing up specific issues during the I have seen them hit both sides of the table.

It is a sad day when there is one last standing news media outlet that provides pertinent, and important, information...

Thus...the rest of the liberal medias' viewers have been constantly hit with false information or have not been informed of "all things pertinent" for their viewers to get the whole picture...and this is why we had the election results that we had...

The moo-cow sheeple are just moving whichever way the liberal media wind blows...

Re: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post by Willease » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:18 pm

Petraeus' emails weren't safe: are yours?

Published on Nov 14, 2012 by RTAmerica

If you've turned on your television to catch up on the latest news, it's no doubt that the mainstream media is all over General David Petraeus sex scandal. Even though Petraeus' sex life has gotten the most attention, there are other matters that are more alarming. In the first six months of 2012, Google has received over 20,000 user data requests from the US government in which Google complied with nearly 90 percent of them. So does the government have the right to snoop through personal emails if no crime committed like General Petraeus? RT's Andrew Blake and Adriana Usero give us theie take on user data requests.

Upload to

Re: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post by Willease » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:25 pm

Chronicnerd wrote:Well, I would think that if my guess about what went down was right then he would have done exactly this:

As of 2:23 pm EDT, only Fox is reporting this... :headscratch:

Re: Petraeus Resigns as Questions Remains About Benghazi

Post by Chronicnerd » Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:55 pm

Chronicnerd wrote:A few more things to think about whilst contemplating what goodies the socialist liberal nut jobs have in store for you:
Did anyone know that Holly Petraeus was appointed as part of Obama's new "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau"?

As well, and this is *very very important*, let us *NOT* forget who originally *FIRED* Stanley McChrystal and put...oh wow... General Petraeus in charge...

Someone mentioned the left bashing him... nope... not General Petraeus...they all *LOVED* Petraeus and for some unknown reason hated Stanley McChrystal...

Obama has his little grubby hands all over this mess...
My bet is that General Petraeus was being blackmailed by either Obama or members of Obama's team. Some of the calls made in Libya and surrounding hot spots in the middle east since Petraeus's "promotion" were questionable to say the least...

What I believed happend in Benghazi was that Obama "forced the final decision", regarding whether or not to help the Ambassador, and General Petraeus was either setup or was just being dumb with the affair...the way it went down it could very well have all been a setup...either case....I believe Petraeus decided to wait until the new President was elected (hoping for Romney) but when he found out is was Obama again... he went directly to Obama after making a press statement about his resignation and basically said: "I am secret is no longer a secret...find someone else to do your dirty work."

With his final words being something to the effect of: "Let the cards fall were they may fall..."

It is kind of obvious and makes sense...if Romney was elected Petraeus could potentially use information he knew about Obama to counter any *dirt* he had on him...while Obama finished his term....if Obama was re-elected...then he knew he would have to come clean and resign in order to stop the madness.

This whole thing, to me, is the actions of someone who is honorable in many ways...but also was placed in some very sticky situations that all pointed back to him...the best way out? Disclose the dirt himself and resign...and then wait until the supreme court issues a summons which would supercede any previous legal gagging restrictions he would have as an ex-CIA official...and then at that point...he would "have" to tell all...which would clear his record (to a point) and expose the Obama administration for what it truly is.

Tough times ahead folks...make sure you tighten your budgets...the economy will most certainly tank several thousand points within the next 6 months...if not more.


p.s. Now is a good time to look over your 401k and/or IRA and move at least 1/3rd to 1/2 of your investments into precious metals and stones...stocks will get rocked...but precious metals will always maintain their relative global value.

Well, I would think that if my guess about what went down was right then he would have done exactly this: