CIA Director David Petraeus stepping down...

[KChiefer]

...supposedly due to extramarital affair.

Carrie Mathison is such a minx!

-------------------------
3:02PM EST November 9. 2012 - NBC reported Friday that CIA director David Petraeus has resigned from the CIA, citing an extramarital affair.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell said the resignation was submitted in a letter dated Friday and was accepted by the White House.

In a letter, Petraeus noted that he had been married for 37 years and had exercised "extremely poor judgment' in conducting an extramarital affair.

Petraues took over as head of the CIA in September of 2011 following his tour as head of allied forces in Afghanistan.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...n-nbc/1695271/

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Ironic, given the rumors we're hearing about Benghazi and Syria.

This is not apples to apples. It's public information that we provided arms to the Libyan rebels to overthrow Ghaddafi. It's not a stretch to think that maybe some of those arms ended up in the hands of people that hate us. But, what would you have done differently? Not give them any help because some arms may end up in our enemies? It's a damn murky business over there.

This is a different era. If we don't give aid to those that are actively fighting our enemies, we will not have any influence in the area. We either deal with possibly bad people or we just sit on our hands and hope for the best.

I know Reagan is an idol to R's. No need to defend every single act of his presidency. He was still human and humans make mistakes. It was a big mistake made of arrogance. He has said that himself.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

This is not apples to apples. It's public information that we provided arms to the Libyan rebels to overthrow Ghaddafi. It's not a stretch to think that maybe some of those arms ended up in the hands of people that hate us. But, what would you have done differently? Not give them any help because some arms may end up in our enemies? It's a damn murky business over there.

This is a different era. If we don't give aid to those that are actively fighting our enemies, we will not have any influence in the area. We either deal with possibly bad people or we just sit on our hands and hope for the best.

I know Reagan is an idol to R's. No need to defend every single act of his presidency. He was still human and humans make mistakes. It was a big mistake made of arrogance. He has said that himself.

It was a murky business when Reagan was doing it too. It's not really any different in that respect.

[VAChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Here's one problem comparing this with the Beirut attack on the marine barracks, imo:

We armed AQ-linked jihadis and some of those arms and jihadis went into Syria. The ambassador who was killed was reportedly CIA and coordinated arming them. I also heard they were really in a CIA compound too. Something is very strange about us even working with these kind of people. It makes me wonder if AQ, originally created by the CIA, may be on the payroll. Ya' know the way MEK is in Iran. I know we have to work with undesirables at time, but we're supposed to be in a WoT right now. Some of these things do not add up.

The other thing is Reagan took full responsibility for what happened in Beirut admitting it was a big mistake to put our troops in the middle of that conflict. He didn't cover it up. If you read his autobio he says he feels it was the biggest mistake of his presidency. Really though, that was a peacekeeping mission, not workin' with the enemy.

Plus the Democrats went after RR for Iran-Contra.

Good points, but I think you are confusing whether I think there should have been extensive criticism or assumptions of treachery and deception when Reagan was CINC. Yes, they eventually went after him for Iran-Contra, but long after those attacks occurred. I don't remember any outcry or even any mention of criticism regarding security during that time. Do you really think if our embassy was struck twice (and a military barracks in between that time) over a period of less that two years now that the response from Republicans would be similar?

I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate, something happened that shouldn't have happened. This shouldn't be a political witch hunt at this point.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by VAChief

Good points, but I think you are confusing whether I think there should have been extensive criticism or assumptions of treachery and deception when Reagan was CINC. Yes, they eventually went after him for Iran-Contra, but long after those attacks occurred. I don't remember any outcry or even any mention of criticism regarding security during that time. Do you really think if our embassy was struck twice (and a military barracks in between that time) over a period of less that two years now that the response from Republicans would be similar?

I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate, something happened that shouldn't have happened. This shouldn't be a political witch hunt at this point.

Well, I don't expect it not to be a witch-hunt with someone like Lindsey Graham at the helm.
There's always one of these scandals that the opposition exploits. I think there's a lot of bad eggs in govt, particularly at the top that don't get caught. There's a lot of corruption up there — no matter who is in power.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Congratulations for discussing Reagan's autobiography without distorting it.

Nope. You're the one who distorted it. Still projecting.