Skip to comments.VANITY: It seems Petraeus may be a criminal who is turning on his country
Posted on 11/18/2012 6:23:08 AM PST by AAABEST
They had some lofty goal of not wanting to "tip off" the terrorists - but nobody can say whose idea it was or who changed the language?
Also, why is the discussion being framed around who "omitted" the terrorist language? Omitting language is not what's at issue. A blatant lie about some "video" was created out of whole cloth and promulgated repeatedly over an extended period of time by the highest levels of the executive branch.
We know that he's already perjured himself at least once on the matter. Nevermind the adultery - it now appears he's morphed into a criminal trying to save his own ass rather than doing what's right for his country.
“”However, the switch is still disturbing.””
I agree. What he apparently said in the Friday hearing was a new one to me. It was reported that he “thought” he’d made it clear on 9/14/12 that it was a terrorist attack. I’ve never heard anyone connected to the political machine in DC explain things in that manner. They stick to their guns and deny, deny, deny they ever said such and such.
Tokyo had Rose
Baghdad had Bob
How shall we brand the American version?
Osamas dead, GMs alive.
I would prefer that it tell the truth:
Osama is dead and so are four Americans......
This is all wag the dog stuff. The definition of “is” is stuff NO ONE is talking or asking who gave the order to stand down and just let these guys die.
On the other hand, I see a great deal of problems if a commander of troops is bringing court-martials against those troops for fraternizing or for frequenting prostitutes or for committing adultery. Even if the commander is having an affair while the wives of his subordinates are kept out of theater, you have a morale problem. It is all more complicated today because there are now women in the military in combat theaters and today the commander has to impose rules on subordinates concerning fraternization between male and female in the ranks.
General Petraeus, assuming he committed adultery while in uniform, knew how perilous for morale his lapse could be.
Having said all that, I am not unaware of the duplicity of the Obama regime and the potential for them to have set up Petraeus. If he committed adultery while in uniform and the fact was known to the administration when they elevated him to CIA, one is compelled to ask, did they do so knowing they had a knife pointed at his back? Did they shove it in ? Worse, did they threaten to use it and so corrupt his testimony (not under oath) before Congress?
We simply do not know.
Pointing out facts and law is not to advocate one position or the other. It is simply to have respect for intellectual honesty.
I would point out one difference. Thru WWII, the American people automatically respected our military, it was largely THEM. Then, along came Vietnam, and anyone seen wearing a uniform in public was in jeopardy.
Over the following decades, with an all volunteer military, respect was reestablished (from afar, since few families any longer had anyone in the military). Perhaps the increase of ‘salad’ over those years was part of the program to regain their stature in the public’s eye.
We all know that lies are involved and lies are generally designed to preserve one’s status/power/life/freedom. Most of us believe that the Truth should come out, no matter the personal consequences. Most of us neglect to state, with no hedging, that we would gladly sacrifice ourselves for the Truth in the way we want others to do. The sorry state of “Human-ness” always throws a wrench into the mix and most of us ignore it when making our statements/charges because most of us have never been in the same “moccasins” as others and when we were in some sort of similar situation, most of us have lied to save our skins.
IIRC Barry charged Romney FIRMLY saying: “On September 12, in the Rose Garden, I said it was a terror attack”, hmmm???
Then in weeks later they rolled out the stupid video trailer. Even spent $70,000 on a commercial in Pakistan on the same subject: “We have absolutely NOTHING to do with this despicable video”!!!
Your attack on Petraeus is a distraction from the real issues that we are trying to deal with, a planned distraction that is all part of the false narrative that was concocted by the Obama insiders.
And Wife Holly landed a $186,000 job!!!
Grant described what he wore at Appomattox as “the uniform of a private with the straps of a lieutenant general”.
Robert E. Lee was much better turned out. But he lost.
When I saw the photo that was the first thing running through my mind. Not to take anything away from David Petreus, but it seems he need to have an extended uniform coat to put all the glitter on. You don’t either see stars on Dwight!!!
He’s a “bad guy” if he went along with hussein/jarrett/huma’s wag the dog gone wrong and he’s an equally “bad guy” letting the admin get away with it if he isn’t screaming from the top of the tallest tower IF he’s being blackmailed. Forget his retirement and his wife’s make believe job. He swore to protect America and that should be at the top of his duty list.
You have adduced not a single syllable of evidence of two propositions:
1) that I have conducted an "attack" on Petraeus;
2) that there is a false narrative concocted by the Obama insiders -I assume you are talking about Petraeus' indiscretions and not the entire video flimflam.
If you are talking about the video flimflam, the general's indiscretions which could include A) the military crime of adultery and B) the civil crime of lying before Congress are hardly distractions when he as head of the CIA resigns in mid battle over Benghazi. They are part of the picture and any serious observer must a deal with them, as well as a conservative observer Charles Krauthammer observed, they raise the possibility of blackmail by the administration, moreover, they raise the possibility, as I have, that the administration elevated Petraeus to the head of the CIA knowing they can dispose of him with the adultery charge if they needed to control him.
I am not attacking Petraeus, nor will I white wash him, let us deal with the facts and see where they take us, evidently a novel idea to those who are somehow better informed about what actually happened than the rest of the world.
Yeah, I noticed that, too. It’s ridiculously over the top.
You have to have lots of other fruit to compensate for the lack of grapes.
He certainly utilizes every millimeter of space between his shoulder and breast pocket. Would think he'd want to consolidate the collection somewhat, if only to save time getting dressed.
After his damned foolish rules of engagement this ass clown deserves hanging.
As long he’s acting like Santa Clause they are NOT going to realize. The baby boomers’ children has been raised that way by the sixties hippies ruling the educational system!!!
Eisenhower’s reputation preceded him. Thus he wore minimal medals while Petreaus wore full fruit salad plus boy scout merit badges
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.