It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking: CIA Director Petraeus Resigning

page: 12
86
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


It seems obvious how.

If it was a C.I.A. operation and it went horribly wrong...and Petraeus is head of C.I.A., then there you go.

Regardless, there was an intelligence failure somewhere, by someone. Whether State Dept, White House or C.I.A. And, well, since C.I.A. briefs the White House and we now have Petraeus's resignation, it's not out of bounds to wonder.

If, as you say, Obama had it in for Petraeus from the beginning, why would he bother messing around and make him C.I.A. Director?
That's not a position you give to someone you don't trust.

Hopefully the investigations will shed more light on what's what.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I smell something fishy with regard to how quickly this info came out from the FBI about the mistress.

Somebody gave the word to release it.

How many times have we heard the phrase, "I can't comment, there is an ongoing investigation."????

We don't hear that now, do we?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
From what I have read online in the news. Hillary Clinton and Gen. Petraeus didn't see eye to eye. It looks like they may not of seen eye to eye on what happened in Benghazi either. I don't even think Gen. Petraeus is resigning over an affair. I think it goes much deeper than that, like not having to testify at the hearing now. With the rumors of Hillary resigning also lurking around the web, it looks like a coverup to me. Two key people who will not have to testify at the hearing. Yeah, I smell a coverup!! And so it begins!!!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
I smell something fishy with regard to how quickly this info came out from the FBI about the mistress.


Well F.B.I. was also investigating Benghazi. Whose to say that the investigation didn't reveal that Petraeus was distracted by the affair or the cover up of the affair and wasn't focused the job, missed briefings, whatever?

Everyone is so quick to scream cover up, but, as has been mentioned a few pages back...sex is the number one thing that will compromise and agent, even more so a Director I would think.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I think in some odd way, he is trying to protect his legacy.
An affair does not mar his luminous military career, but gets him out of politics BEFORE the upcoming and potentially historic Benghazi investigation.
By mutual agreement between his wife and his biographer, he takes this particular exit from the political stage at a pivotal time. Win/Win...Petraeus gets an escape hatch which doesn't sully his military reputation...and enormous amounts of books get sold.

I don't think he wants the historic record to include footage of him testifying before congress in what will become an enormous scandal on the scale of Watergate.

Think back to those images of Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell & Dean burned into film for all time and part of the historic record. Who would ever wish to have history remember them through those types of images?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 

You don't find it odd that the word comes out almost immediately that the FBI investigation was focused on the mistress?

This from the administration that can't comment because 'we don't have all the info'. These are the same people that classified the videos that the drones recorded..... The videos that didn't have enough info to act upon during the attack.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
You think they will make Colon Bowel director of the CIA now, I see he and Obama and Farrakhan are pretty close buddies as of late.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
The lies ,the denial and the deceptions in full swing.


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was alerted about 50 minutes after the start of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and dispatched troops from Europe within hours, according to the Pentagon.



A timeline released today by the Defense Department counters statements by some Republicans before the Nov. 6 election that President Barack Obama’s administration failed to respond to requests for military aid or for rescue efforts during the Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. More congressional hearings and briefings on the attack are scheduled next week. While Obama ordered “all available” Pentagon assets to respond to the attack, no armed planes were near Benghazi at the time, Panetta said today in a letter to members of Congress. “The U.S. armed forces did everything they were in position to do to respond to the attack in Benghazi,” Panetta said. An unarmed surveillance drone was directed to the Benghazi compound 17 minutes after the attack began and arrived over the site about 70 minutes later, according to the timeline. The attack began at 3:42 p.m. Washington time. At a meeting that evening that began at 6 p.m., Panetta authorized the deployment of Marine Corps anti-terrorism teams to Benghazi and Tripoli from Rota, Spain, as well preparation of a Europe-based special operations team. He also ordered a U.S.-based special operations force to prepare to deploy to a staging base in southern Europe.


www.businessweek.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
More Paula Broadwell pics. Hmmmmm.
Paula Broadwell



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I dunno.

I get what everyone is saying...

But sometimes things are as they appear.

The fact is the Benghazi incident - no matter who is responsible for the jack up - is something the Administration wants to go away. And, for sure, now that the election is over, they have less to lose.

So...why risk MORE attention and wild conspiracy theories which this drama is sure to do?

It just doesn't make any sense.

It would have been better for publicity (or lack of it) and easier to just force him to testify and blackmail him into saying what they wanted him to say than to orchestrate a scenario that only begs more attention, questions and potential drama. Hell, it would have been easier and less obvious to heart-attack him.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


I misunderstood what you had meant. I thought you meant that the CIA was behind what happened in Benghazi. In today political climate where the intel community is a convenient fall guy, why wouldn't it be a way of getting rid of a possible future political opponent.

reply to post by GideonFaith
 


Hillary is very calculating. From what I can gather she backed Petraeus over his requests for troop numbers in Afghanistan. She would have been glad to throw him under the base rather than accept any responsibility for what happened in Benghazi.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
You don't find it odd that three days after the election Gen. Petraeus has resigned and now on the web there is talk about Hillary Clinton also resigning? I hope Gen. Petraeus will come clean with what he knows about Benghazi as a private citizen. I believe Hillary will take everything to her death bed before she would ever admit to any wrong doing. I truly hope for the families of the men killed that they are able to get some detailed answers as to what went wrong and why we as Americans did not come to their aid.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 

Even Obama must understand that the one person one should NEVER attempt to 'blackmail', would be the head of the CIA.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Lawmakers considered calling for his resignation in late October.
www.weeklystandard.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


Who knows...maybe they tried and he called their bluff by just confessing. LOL!

The speculation will never end.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Well, perhaps. Remember, he also initially supported Obama's youtube trailer false-narrative...and, apparently, agreed not to give his resignation until AFTER the election...because, as we do know, the affair has been taking place for sometime...and the FBI certainly was aware of it long before the Nov. 6 elections.

It appears Petraeus has been most accommodating to the Obama re-election campaign. Perhaps he WAS being subtly threatened initially with exposure.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Apparently, according to some guy on CNN with F.B.I. sources, the scandal here is not related to Benghazi but that it was known by the F.B.I. and the Administration for a while - he sent 1000's of emails after SHE broke up with HIM - and the Admin did not want to act on it until after the election.

So either the C.I.A. Director was under investigation and the the President didn't know...

OR

The President knew and opted to do nothing until after the election...

1000 of emails is a guy with an obsession and could most certainly be compromised. To have that be the C.I.A. Director...


It's like a Tom Clancy novel.
edit on 11/9/2012 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Remember,
...misleading” testimony he gave to the House Intelligence Committee on September 14. In that session, Petraeus pointed to a protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video as a primary reason for the attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, despite an abundance intelligence pointing to a preplanned terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex there. Other members of Congress were particularly interested in questioning Petraeus about why crucial details about those attacks were left out of “talking points” the CIA prepared for lawmakers and executive branch officials. Among those details: the existence of a communications intercept between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks. The level of frustration with the CIA and Petraeus had led several top Republican lawmakers to consider calling for his resignation in late October.

www.weeklystandard.com...

He is heavily involved in the misleading story the Administration cooked up about Benghazi. No doubt the affair probably happened, the Administration used the FBI to wallop him with it, so why now??



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 



Apparently, according to some guy on CNN with F.B.I. sources, the scandal here is not related to Benghazi but that it was known by the F.B.I. and the Administration for a while - he sent 1000's of emails after SHE broke up with HIM - and the Admin did not want to act on it until after the election.

Wish we knew what to believe.

This certainly adds a different story line.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   





Enough said.
edit on 9-11-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
86
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join