Posted on 11/10/2012 12:19:37 PM PST by RoosterRedux
The plot thickens.
Well, that’s absolutely the truth. Both parties - or at least their leaders - are on the same side.
So therefore it would have been no problem for Romney to have picked Petraeus (who is as liberal as the day is long and was perfectly happy with Obama) as his running mate, and it was only the nagging feeling that he had to somehow pretend to be conservative that made him pick Ryan...who like Palin, was never allowed to say much of anything.
Ryan had actually wanted to go to some of our black ghetto areas and to a lot of Hispanic areas and make a pitch on economic and personal liberty, and he was shut down by Romney’s campaign.
I’m never voting for VP again.
He will sing like Maria Callas after Congress grants him immunity from prosecution for his testimony.
Which ever, she may have been a social climber at the academy and inbedded there too.
Men are not entirely rational...otherwise they would be merely robots.
As a man, it is easy to understand and forgive Petraeus' vulnerability. He is only human after all.
And men are dumb animals in the hands of an attractive women.
He made his big mistake when he gave her access to his private time. The only way a man can resist the wiles of a clever woman (and women are just people too) is to be forearmed.
And Petraeus wasn't forearmed.
He let the camel enter the tent.
So this Broadwell woman was claiming ownership rights to Petraeus? She’s married and he’s married. A little over aggressive.
I have heard others suggest the same thing. Petraeus wasn't an insider at the CIA...and by some accounts wasn't liked.
I wouldn't put it past some of the old and powerful forces within the CIA to set him up.
Why would she have sex with him? She got a “mid-six figure” advance for writing a book about him.
“The president wasn't joking,” the insider explains to the DRUDGE REPORT.
This kind of headline demonstrates how silly stories get traction in a media outlet like the Drudge Report, and why it's important to "read between the lines" in any story.
What happened there is that Barack Obama -- who we all know is not the brightest guy in the world and can barely even put together a coherent string of words without a teleprompter in front of him -- was overheard whispering something to someone else at a political fundraiser.
This immediately translates into a "rumor" that Romney wanted to select Petraeus as his running mate, when all evidence would seem to indicate that Petraeus wasn't even on his radar screen.
So the next time one of you writes something mean about me, I’m going to go to the FBI and have them investigate.......nope.....that does not compute. Now I really want to know why the FBI started looking into this.
And now her book (by some accounts of which is amateurish) will take a great leap forward in sales.
So now she was fighting for him? Oh, hubby, you married a bad, bad woman.
The only way that scenario makes sense is if the whole story is a fabrication, or the timeline of events reported in various places is way off.
The affair allegedly dates back to when he was in charge of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and he wasn't even in charge of the CIA at the time ... so the idea that we was not a CIA insider or not well-liked in the CIA would have had no bearing on anything.
Oh, BS. People is people, and affairs are affairs. And we have this sort of drama goes all the time, at least with politicians, IIRC. The problem is American hypocritical moralizing.
This story of Paula harassing another women is a red herring.
What I find interesting is that WaPo thinks it is real (or perhaps they know it is false and they are the originators of this red herring).
Yeah, I think the FBI would get involved in something like that pretty quickly.
The WaPo is spreading disinformation about this. This article makes it seem like this all developed in the last 2 weeks. This is false. Everyone needs to check out the NewsMax article on this from yesterday when the story broke.
I think 0zer0 set Petraeus up from day one and the FBI had to know about this affair in real time. According to the article, the FBI suspected the issue in the Spring 2011. Petraeus was commander in Afghanistan at that time. 0zer0 appointed Petraeus to CIA in April 2011, but he didn’t assume the office until Sep 2011.
The article says the FBI was investigating this for months because Petraeus was sending thousands of emails to her. That had to be in 2011. This means that the FBI had to know what was going on in real time, probably as Petraeus was being vetted for the CIA post, and certainly before he was confirmed, and that is why they couldn’t believe 0zer0 wouldn’t fire this guy, let alone hire the guy.
I don’t see any explanation other than 0zer0 knew about this (or someone high up in the admin did, and didn’t tell anyone... FBI director Mueller had to know, and that means Holder had to know, and probably National Security Director Donolon). That means 0zer0 had to know, and is lying about this when the WH says they first found out about it Wednesday after the election.
I bet 0zer0 knew Petraeus was compromised when he appointed him and counted on this trump card to be used against Petraeus when he needed it, and Benghazi is it. The timeline proves it.
Whether Petraeus has any smoking gun information and will spill it is completely unknown. But for me, I am convinced that 0zer0 knew about the affair and deliberately appointed and retained an obviously compromised CIA director to have something to blackmail him with later. This explains why a compromised CIA director was ok to appoint and retain for over a year, but now a year after the affair, is a liability only because Benghazi is hitting the fan. This confirms everything you need to know about 0zer0.
As you say, it seems illogical (I would have thought Petraeus at the very least might have suspected that she was KGB), but it did happen.
IIRC, Petraeus was on active duty until Aug 2011.
Obama might have been grooming him for some post...and what better way to groom someone for a post than to have leverage over him (like an affair). And remember, Leon Panetta was CIA Director before Petraeus. Do you doubt Panetta's loyalty to Obama in light of his recent behavior.
Set Petraeus up for any possibility. If we (Obama) use him in our adminstration...we have leverage over him.
If Romney wants to use him...we have the power to destroy him.
Steven....you have a long road ahead of you, especially when it comes to women.....
"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac"......so said the rather ugly Henry Kissinger when asked why all the young and beautiful women were chasing him all the time.
Petraeus isn't ugly, but he isn't exactly an Adonis, either. In fact, in his civvies he looks dorky, kinda like a 60 year-old Alfalfa.
Leni
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.