plewis on November 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I call BS on the whole tipping-them-off story: isn’t that like asking someone to shut the barn door after the horse is already out? Crappy analogy, I know, but I think y’all know what I mean. Well, maybe not the lib trolls – the ones who can think critically…

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM

So, we’re supposed to be nice and polite and gracious when a high-level Dem passes (or face banishment), and this cretinous piece of filth gets to dance on the graves of four Americans and cheer as the idiot in the White House gets away with the cover-up?

Outstanding.

M2RB: Led Zepplin

Everybody is spewing b.s. so fast and furious it threatens to engulf the nation.

Obama, Rice, Hillary, Petraeus, Clapper, Morell, Holder, Paneta, ad nauseam.

Bovine fecal materialists.

The obvious suspicion is that the White House or some other political actor up the food chain expunged the Al Qaeda reference because it was inconvenient to the Foreign Policy President’s “I destroyed Al Qaeda” reelection narrative. But Petraeus is no longer beholden to the administration. If that’s what happened, or if it’s what he suspected might have happened, why didn’t he say so today?

Because he doesn’t now how it happened. He’s sticking to what he does know, so he can’t be accused of perjury. The rest is left up to the investigation to find out.

But we have it confirmed now that the “intelligence community” did not blame it all on the video. Someone else came up with that idea.

More and more, it’s pointing directly to Obama or one of his people.

I’d say we’re about 2 weeks from an assertion of executive privilege.

I do know, and this the point I was trying to make, that there are some very serious issues about national security that are being ignored as the focus is solely on the TMZ-worthy aspects of the story.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 7:28 PM

there’s no doubt about that.

But even if it [voter fraud] is proven to have happened, what next?

Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2012 at 4:59 PM

For your (and I recommend everyone’s) consideration: Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud.

ShainS on November 16, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Good website there, thanks for posting.

Do you know exactly what kind of ‘classified’ info she had on her computer, or that it is even true? FBI let her go, so they didn’t seem to have any issue with her having whatever ‘classified’ docs on her computer, which means they could have been simply docs that she was given access to for her book/PhD thesis, etc…

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 7:09 PM

But I bet the FBI kept the computer.

Look, I don’t pretend to know what kind of material she collected or how she got it. Other than the DoD definitions, I don’t even know what classified means (other agencies and departments have different systems). It is clear that this was a discreet affair with only Petraeus, his mistress, some social climber in Tampa, a shirtless FBI agent, and the FBI itself knowing about it (until the day after the elction).

I do know, and this the point I was trying to make, that there are some very serious issues about national security that are being ignored as the focus is solely on the TMZ-worthy aspects of the story.

Anyway on a more serious note, who cares about this non story? The only ones who care are they same people who voted for the loser last week Tuesday. Irrelevant people.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM

That really is sad. I like to think of my countrymen, regardless of party, as enjoying vigorous debate but still interested in the integrity of our system and its checks and balances, not to mention the dignity of position and justice for the dead.

But that’s not the case. This post is no different than some Penn State fans/coaches being silent as children were being raped:

Who cares? Just losers. Just irrelevant people who lose football games.

A non story indeed.

…limited ‘hang out’…

VorDaj on November 16, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Thank you! That is the exact name of the propaganda technique I have been trying to remember for ages.

A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details. It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or “mea culpa” type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be “coming clean” and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.

Access is one thing but possession is another. Few of us have SCIFs or GSA-approved containers in our homes.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I know that, my wife has TS and she is prohibited to take out any classified docs or accessing it anywhere other than workstations and/or on DoD encrypted laptops when they travel. But that’s something that Broadwell will have to answer for, if she indeed stored classified info inappropriately on personal computers, etc.It still doesn’t mean that Petraeus gave it to her. Do you know exactly what kind of ‘classified’ info she had on her computer, or that it is even true? FBI let her go, so they didn’t seem to have any issue with her having whatever ‘classified’ docs on her computer, which means they could have been simply docs that she was given access to for her book/PhD thesis, etc…

DoubleClutchin on November 16, 2012 at 6:58 PM

You are welcome and I hope things are looking up for you the remainder of 2012 and in 2013!

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Thank you for taking the time to write that. Due to some nasty personal stuff I haven’t been on the internet for over a month. (around the first debate) I only have limited cable so only alphabet networks for a quick news recap and Benghazi hasn’t exactly been front page news, so to speak with them. In just the past few days I have been trying to get a handle on this FUBAR so I do appreciate your synopsis :-)

Petraeus didn’t give classified docs to Broadwell, they established that already. She’s got a security clearance herself, she could have had access to that info in her own right.

jimver on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Access is one thing but possession is another. Few of us have SCIFs or GSA-approved containers in our homes.

Fair point, RWM.

The cavalierly dismissive attitude in my statement was meant to reflect a lack of confidence that Republicans would entertain — let alone pursue — any serious actions to counter the claim of EP once it was made, à la Fast & Furious.

ShainS on November 16, 2012 at 6:36 PM

The House GOP has taken 0dumba to court over his assertion of EP about Fast & Furious.

Is it your contention that that was not a serious action, or are you contending that it should be considered a serious action only if they win?

Thanks for your service. Clark did a heckuva job on Waco. I don’t remember him giving classified documents to his girlfriend.

crash72 on November 16, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Petraeus didn’t give classified docs to Broadwell, they established that already. She’s got a security clearance herself, she could have had access to that info in her own right.

… but the questions still remains.

Stevens repeatadly asked for more securitye, Hillary said she past those on to Obowma and he said no…

… Why?

The siege went on for 7 hours, there was a live video feed sent to all the inteligence, defense, and White House situation rooms, the annex called for and was denied help 3 times…

… Why?

Obowma said he gave orders to protect all of his people…

… Who did he tell, and what specifically were those orders, and where are they in writing?