Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Petraeus resigns as CIA director

Avatar

Posted: 11/9/2012 3:49 PM

Petraeus resigns as CIA director 


"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/9/2012 3:53 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



DuffyDyer wrote: over an extramarital affaireek

I think it was better before we knew about that kind of stuff.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 4:22 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 


a sad end to the career of one of our nation's best public servants and soldiers

Last edited 11/9/2012 4:23 PM by hobson54

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 5:25 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 


i say this as someone who has the utmost respect for gen petraeus.  but i think this resignation may be a way of saving him a public beating over libya.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/9/2012 5:25 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



hobson54 wrote: i say this as someone who has the utmost respect for gen petraeus.  but i think this resignation may be a way of saving him a public beating over libya.
wow, you are cynical.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 5:27 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



DuffyDyer wrote:
hobson54 wrote: i say this as someone who has the utmost respect for gen petraeus.  but i think this resignation may be a way of saving him a public beating over libya.
wow, you are cynical.


actually, there are reports that petraeus wasn't gonna look good over libya.  honestly, i think obama would have done the honorable thing by allowing petraeus to resign rather than see him grilled by congress.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 5:59 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



i had seen a mention of a cia presence at benghazi.  but i didn't realize the degree.  interesting how this information is only becoming known after the election.  benghazi was basically a cia operation, with the embassy as a front, which was attacked by an al qaeda-inspired local group.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakis...benghazi-attack



Nearly two months ago, on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, a group of militants attacked the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, killing the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

The Romney campaign has accused the Obama administration with a cover-up of the details of the attack, and various pundits have sown great confusion over a tragic event that points to a failure of intelligence analysis and operational tradecraft at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.


CIA Director Daivd Petraeus has stayed in the background regarding the Sept 11, 2012 security failure at the CIA-dominated Benghazi consulate, in contrast to his high-profile role as a US general in Iraq and Afghanistan.


The unwillingness of the White House’s senior adviser on counter-terrorism, John Brennan, to play a public role in the aftermath of this tragedy left the Obama administration without an authoritative voice on the event.


It’s now apparent that the US consulate in Benghazi was no ordinary consulate; in fact, it probably was no consulate at all. The consulate’s primary mission was to provide an intelligence platform that would allow the CIA to maintain an operational and analytical role in eastern Libya. The region is home to myriad militant and terrorist organisations that threaten Western interests in North Africa and, more importantly, the creation of a stable state in Libya. In other words, the consulate was the diplomatic cover for an intelligence platform and whatever diplomatic functions took place in Benghazi also served as cover for an important CIA base. Both the State Department and the CIA share responsibility for seriously underestimating the security threat in Libya, particularly in Benghazi.


Any CIA component in the Middle East or North Africa is a likely target of the wrath of militant and terrorist organisations because of the Agency’s key role in the global war on terror waged by the Bush administration and the increasingly widespread covert campaign of drone aircraft of the Obama administration....




The security situation in Libya, particularly Benghazi, was obviously deteriorating; the consulate was a target of a bomb in June and the British consulate closed its doors in the summer, leaving the US consulate as the last official foreign presence in the city.


Overall security for the consulate had been in the hands of a small British security firm that placed unarmed Libyans on the perimeter of the building complex. The CIA contributed to the problem with its reliance on Libyan militias and a new Libyan intelligence organisation to maintain security for its personnel in Benghazi.


On the night of the attack, the CIA security team was slow to respond to the consulate’s call for help, spending more than 20 minutes trying to garner additional support from militias and the Libyan intelligence service that never responded...

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/9/2012 6:04 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



DuffyDyer wrote:
hobson54 wrote: i say this as someone who has the utmost respect for gen petraeus.  but i think this resignation may be a way of saving him a public beating over libya.
wow, you are cynical.
I think that we'll now see GOP conspiracy theories about this..."Our Kenyan president threw Petraeus under the bus!!"
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/9/2012 6:07 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



hobson54 wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote:
hobson54 wrote: i say this as someone who has the utmost respect for gen petraeus.  but i think this resignation may be a way of saving him a public beating over libya.
wow, you are cynical.


actually, there are reports that petraeus wasn't gonna look good over libya.  honestly, i think obama would have done the honorable thing by allowing petraeus to resign rather than see him grilled by congress.
That's horrible if true. You can't just throw away very accomplished people for any single mistake, unless you think that they are now grossly incompetent from that mistake. Congress needs to get more reasonable.

Also, Congress can bring Petraeus in even if he has resigned.

Last edited 11/9/2012 6:10 PM by RSVandy

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 6:11 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 


wow...it all makes sense.

benghazi was a CIA operation.  it wasn't an embassy.  amazing that this was never revealed before the election, except for a couple of brief mention like below.

petraeus very well may have been having an affair, which would make it difficult to continue in his role.  and if so, he should resign.

but if it is true that benghazi was really a CIA operation, this means that an al qaeda-affiliated group launched an attack on our local CIA operation and it was called a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video.


http://online.wsj.com/article/...3621061838.html


When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.


The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.



Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/10/2012 7:23 AM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



hobson54 wrote:
DuffyDyer wrote:
hobson54 wrote: i say this as someone who has the utmost respect for gen petraeus.  but i think this resignation may be a way of saving him a public beating over libya.
wow, you are cynical.


actually, there are reports that petraeus wasn't gonna look good over libya.  honestly, i think obama would have done the honorable thing by allowing petraeus to resign rather than see him grilled by congress.
his resigning isn't going to stop any hearings from proceeding or him from being subpoenaed.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/10/2012 4:46 PM

RE: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 


I remember seeing Paula Broadwell on the Daily Show getting interviewed by Jon Stewart. My thought during that segment: yea, Patraeus definitely tapped that.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/11/2012 5:43 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 


Americans don't like stories about spies and sex.

And in a related story, the new James Bond movie just opened.

Later
"You spend a good part of your life gripping the baseball, and in the end it turns out it was the other way around all the time." Jim Bouton
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/11/2012 9:53 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



DuffyDyer wrote:
hobson54 wrote: i say this as someone who has the utmost respect for gen petraeus.  but i think this resignation may be a way of saving him a public beating over libya.
wow, you are cynical.
If it's true though, we should find a way to bury this.  Congress has no real interest in dragging this man down.  We've had enough of these kinds of scandals.  If the press wants to, fine.  But Republicans shouldn't hold the first hearing.  We handled the Clinton stuff poorly (he should have been nailed in a civil case, privately), and we obviously have a few people who can't speak about rape in any sort of reasonable way.  Just best to shut up here.  Political points won this year will not help us 4 years from now, and they may do damage.
Mets trade away reigning CY Young award winner.
Still have the best pitcher in Baseball.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/13/2012 11:28 AM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 


This is nothing new.
Generals get l**d.
Enlisted men get f***ed.

And I'd still like to know why none of the members of this forum, on either side of the aisle, posted anything about thanking all who have served their country this past Veterans Day.

Later
"You spend a good part of your life gripping the baseball, and in the end it turns out it was the other way around all the time." Jim Bouton

Last edited 11/13/2012 11:30 AM by NewMFS62

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/13/2012 1:03 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



hobson54 wrote: wow...it all makes sense.

benghazi was a CIA operation.  it wasn't an embassy.  amazing that this was never revealed before the election, except for a couple of brief mention like below.

petraeus very well may have been having an affair, which would make it difficult to continue in his role.  and if so, he should resign.

but if it is true that benghazi was really a CIA operation, this means that an al qaeda-affiliated group launched an attack on our local CIA operation and it was called a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video.


http://online.wsj.com/article/...3621061838.html


When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.


The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.






wow...is right!!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/13/2012 1:14 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



skopko wrote:
hobson54 wrote: wow...it all makes sense.

benghazi was a CIA operation.  it wasn't an embassy.  amazing that this was never revealed before the election, except for a couple of brief mention like below.

petraeus very well may have been having an affair, which would make it difficult to continue in his role.  and if so, he should resign.

but if it is true that benghazi was really a CIA operation, this means that an al qaeda-affiliated group launched an attack on our local CIA operation and it was called a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video.


http://online.wsj.com/article/...3621061838.html


When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.


The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.






wow...is right!!

 

why should we reveal immediately that this was a cia operation? So Romney could score some points for the Republican side?

Im not sure what you guys are trying to suggest.  If anything, this validates what we have been talking about all along.  Murders of ambassadors in the middle east are complicated matters that dont deserve public floggings for the sake of winning an election.  These details have been forced to light this way because nutjobs are trying to make a conspiracy out of it.  As if Obama wanted to tell America,"well, it could have been Al Queda that attacked and murdered our ambassador, but I think it will look better if we say it was just some scrubs who showed up one day and killed us." eek1

No doubt this involves scrutiny, but are you suggesting that the public should know immediately about CIA operations?  You realize that CIA operations are intentionally kept secret, right?  That is pretty much the whole point of the CIA.

Last edited 11/13/2012 1:15 PM by dcmets

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/13/2012 1:21 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



dcmets wrote:

why should we reveal immediately that this was a cia operation? So Romney could score some points for the Republican side?

Im not sure what you guys are trying to suggest.  If anything, this validates what we have been talking about all along.  Murders of ambassadors in the middle east are complicated matters that dont deserve public floggings for the sake of winning an election.  These details have been forced to light this way because nutjobs are trying to make a conspiracy out of it.  As if Obama wanted to tell America,"well, it could have been Al Queda that attacked and murdered our ambassador, but I think it will look better if we say it was just some scrubs who showed up one day and killed us." eek1

No doubt this involves scrutiny, but are you suggesting that the public should know immediately about CIA operations? 



it is a tricky question, because you don't necessarily want to reveal a CIA operation.  however, IF the attack was planned BECAUSE the local al qaeda inspired terrorist group knew it was a CIA operation, then keeping this secret from the american public really does no good and it looks more like a cover-up.  there are reports that the CIA had prisoners there and the attack may have been directed towards getting those prisoners out (said claims have been denied by some in the intelligence community).

but if it is true that this was really a front for a CIA operation, then i think it makes the admin's claims that they thought this was some spontaneous uprising seem less credible.  do you think the people who launched the attacks (now called a terrorist attack) just got lucky when the consulate they thought they were attacking turned out to be the CIA operations for northern africa?

do you not think the public perception of (a) spontaneous uprising caused by the youtube video or (b) terrorist attack at our main CIA operation in northern africa would be notably different?

Last edited 11/13/2012 1:23 PM by hobson54

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/13/2012 1:23 PM

RE: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 


That assumes that there is some point to the cover up. What is to be gained by saying that this wasnt a pre-planned, terrorist attack, but rather a spontaneous attack?

Ive admitted that I dont think it was handled well in the aftermath, but I dont believe there is any conspiracy or cover up for political purposes.  If there was lying or cover up, it was in the interest of protecting our interests.

Last edited 11/13/2012 1:26 PM by dcmets

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/13/2012 1:26 PM

Re: Petraeus resigns as CIA director 



hobson54 wrote:
dcmets wrote:

why should we reveal immediately that this was a cia operation? So Romney could score some points for the Republican side?

Im not sure what you guys are trying to suggest.  If anything, this validates what we have been talking about all along.  Murders of ambassadors in the middle east are complicated matters that dont deserve public floggings for the sake of winning an election.  These details have been forced to light this way because nutjobs are trying to make a conspiracy out of it.  As if Obama wanted to tell America,"well, it could have been Al Queda that attacked and murdered our ambassador, but I think it will look better if we say it was just some scrubs who showed up one day and killed us." eek1

No doubt this involves scrutiny, but are you suggesting that the public should know immediately about CIA operations? 



it is a tricky question, because you don't necessarily want to reveal a CIA operation.  however, IF the attack was planned BECAUSE the local al qaeda inspired terrorist group knew it was a CIA operation, then keeping this secret from the american public really does no good and it looks more like a cover-up.  there are reports that the CIA had prisoners there and the attack may have been directed towards getting those prisoners out (said claims have been denied by some in the intelligence community).

but if it is true that this was really a front for a CIA operation, then i think it makes the admin's claims that they thought this was some spontaneous uprising seem less credible.  do you think the people who launched the attacks (now called a terrorist attack) just got lucky when the consulate they thought they were attacking turned out to be the CIA operations for northern africa?

do you not think the public perception of (a) spontaneous uprising caused by the youtube video or (b) terrorist attack at our main CIA operation in northern africa would be notably different?
I think public perception is largely irrelevant and is trumped by the need to maintain whatever covert status the CIA operation has going there in Benghazi.  And certainly it makes whatever was said publicly in the attack's aftermath to divert attention away from the Op there make total sense when put into this perspective.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >