A Complete Waste of Space

Pudfark wrote:Again, Nic, a good point.

This issue does have a certain smell to it.
Perhaps, Slick will add his two or more cents/sense to this?

Sorta seems to me?
Is it more about Libya or "Betrayous"?

I think there was some relation to the election, but not the way you think. I don't think the administration(specifically the Sec of Defense) wished to
ax him right before the vote. Relation to the Libyan thing is, at best, dubious, because there isn't a damn thing he could have testified to that a lesser
staff member still couldn't.

I'm going to take Patreaus as a conspiracy theory at this point. the facts might prove different. but not right now

callmeslick wrote:I think there was some relation to the election, but not the way you think. I don't think the administration(specifically the Sec of Defense) wished to
ax him right before the vote. Relation to the Libyan thing is, at best, dubious, because there isn't a damn thing he could have testified to that a lesser
staff member still couldn't.

God forbid you make any hypothesis about why your boy wanted to ax Petraeus so bad that such a "scandal" had to go out.

Instead just bicker about whether he wanted to do it before or after the election

Nic

ROCK ME AMAPETRAEUS !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMuDtfxAIKk

CUDA wrote:I'm going to take Patreaus as a conspiracy theory at this point. the facts might prove different. but not right now

CUDA wrote:"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."

I think I didnt state what I meant well

I meant. I'm taking the whole Patreaus conspiracy theory as just that. there is no evidence to support anything else. I believe there is such a growing fervor over Benghazi that the hardcore Right wingers will believe that he was forced out to shut him up.

nicolas10 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I think there was some relation to the election, but not the way you think. I don't think the administration(specifically the Sec of Defense) wished to
ax him right before the vote. Relation to the Libyan thing is, at best, dubious, because there isn't a damn thing he could have testified to that a lesser
staff member still couldn't.

God forbid you make any hypothesis about why your boy wanted to ax Petraeus so bad that such a "scandal" had to go out.

Instead just bicker about whether he wanted to do it before or after the election

Nic

the media was going to jump all over it, and thus, it becomes a liability for him as CIA chief. I don't think anyone, in any corner of the US government, either in Congress or the admin 'wanted to ax' him.

Not disagreeing with anybody....so far

Throw this in the pot?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 ... r-alleged/

It seems like "they" are not making stew...they're doing the laundry.

it's starting to look like this Kelly woman is the core of the problem. I don't think, I really don't, that anyone wished to 'clean house' as you suggest.
It's just getting to be a bizarre investigative process, between this woman, some FBI guy who starts sending shirtless photos to subjects of a probe, Generals who ought to be a bit more focused sending dirty e-mails and Petraeus(who admits doing so) betraying his wife and the trust of his coworkers in the CIA. Human fraility at its best.

Just my opinion....

I see a bit of what your saying Slick. I do.

What? Right now? Is good about discrediting the military?
No offense, but....look at the efforts made in covering up Libya
and Holder in FastnFurious?

Why? Now?

The hair is up on the back of my neck...........