Petraeus' Roman Hands - Page 9 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #**121** 11-13-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The link I posted earlier with the video of your speech in Denver where she claimed the CIA had a prison in Benghazi and was holding a couple of men there which the attackers were seeking to release, suggests insider knowledge of some kind to me.

Not unlike the White House talking about Bin Laden's killing. But that's okay because ... I dunno. It's just okay.

MS Fowler · #**122** 11-13-2012, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Oh Christ, not again. It's not the sex, it's the trustworthiness. When you get a high level security clearance you are supposed to tell your security officer about any liaisons that could be used as blackmail. They can't fire you for having an affair but you can be fired for not telling your S.O. Petreus violated his terms of security clearance.

As so many people failed to realize in a previous scandal, it's not the sex, it's the cover-up.

Absolutely. Trustworthiness!!

cullennewsom · #**123** 11-13-2012, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

So you're saying that you have no trouble with top military personnel violating the UCMJ?

CIA is part of the military now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Oh Christ, not again. It's not the sex, it's the trustworthiness. When you get a high level security clearance you are supposed to tell your security officer about any liaisons that could be used as blackmail. They can't fire you for having an affair but you can be fired for not telling your S.O. Petreus violated his terms of security clearance.

As so many people failed to realize in a previous scandal, it's not the sex, it's the cover-up.

^This.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will_w202

ABC Affiliate Ran Phony Cover of Broadwell Book | The Weekly Standard

I can't stop laughing. Every time I look at this, it gets funnier

lulz, lulz everywhere.

Air&Road · #**124** 11-14-2012, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennewsom

CIA is part of the military now?

^This.

lulz, lulz everywhere.

No, but Petreus was still in the Army when he was messing around and Allen is still in the Marines. Pretty high levels, too wouldn't you say?

Air&Road · #**125** 11-14-2012, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Oh Christ, not again. It's not the sex, it's the trustworthiness. When you get a high level security clearance you are supposed to tell your security officer about any liaisons that could be used as blackmail. They can't fire you for having an affair but you can be fired for not telling your S.O. Petreus violated his terms of security clearance.

As so many people failed to realize in a previous scandal, it's not the sex, it's the cover-up.

Not exactly correct Bot. Adultery is INDEED a violation of the UCMJ.

Air&Road · #**126** 11-14-2012, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

... and Broadwell had a thing for them out of uniform.

aklim · #**127** 11-14-2012, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Oh Christ, not again. It's not the sex, it's the trustworthiness. When you get a high level security clearance you are supposed to tell your security officer about any liaisons that could be used as blackmail. They can't fire you for having an affair but you can be fired for not telling your S.O. Petreus violated his terms of security clearance.

As so many people failed to realize in a previous scandal, it's not the sex, it's the cover-up.

I'm always amazed at why they do it. After all, who would believe that this can end well? If P divorces his wife and marries this girl, what makes him think that a woman who would fool around on her husband would be faithful? What makes her think P could be faithful? So if not for marriage material, what exactly is the reason someone would toss their career and reputation down the toilet? For a jump in the hay? Surely a hooker would suffice.

MTI · #**128** 11-14-2012, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

No, but Petraeus was still in the Army when he was messing around and Allen is still in the Marines. Pretty high levels, too wouldn't you say?

Calm down there bedroom cop . . . there is presently no evidence that adultery was committed prior to Petraeus retiring August 31, 2011.

No indication that Gen. Allen was sexually involved with Jill Kelly.

BTW: Petraeus Will Testify Before Congressional Panel

aklim · #**129** 11-14-2012, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

No, but Petreus was still in the Army when he was messing around and Allen is still in the Marines. Pretty high levels, too wouldn't you say?

Timeline of the Petraeus affair - CNN.com

Doesn't that say it took place 2 months AFTER he started working for the CIA?

spdrun · #**130** 11-14-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I'm always amazed at why they do it. After all, who would believe that this can end well? If P divorces his wife and marries this girl, what makes him think that a woman who would fool around on her husband would be faithful? What makes her think P could be faithful? So if not for marriage material, what exactly is the reason someone would toss their career and reputation down the toilet? For a jump in the hay? Surely a hooker would suffice.

His primary mistake was getting caught. Not sure what Broadwell was thinking when she sent out the harassing e-mails that prompted the whole investigation, unless the whole thing was a setup and there weren't really any such e-mails.

If you really think that the company of some streetwalking kurva is equivalent to that of an intelligent, interesting woman, then I pity you. And just because a first marriage doesn't work out or ends up as a sham, doesn't mean that a second one will also fail in the same way.

Air&Road · #**131** 11-14-2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Calm down there bedroom cop . . . there is presently no evidence that adultery was committed prior to Petraeus retiring August 31, 2011.

No indication that Gen. Allen was sexually involved with Jill Kelly.

BTW: Petraeus Will Testify Before Congressional Panel

I don't need to calm down because I'm not excited and I'm not a bedroom cop. I was simply stating fact. IF either one of them committed adultery while on active duty, they are in violation of the UCMJ. That's ALL that I am saying.

Air&Road · #**132** 11-14-2012, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Timeline of the Petraeus affair - CNN.com

Doesn't that say it took place 2 months AFTER he started working for the CIA?

I've been on vacation, I haven't seen much of anything on it. I am simply stating facts about the UCMJ.

Air&Road · #**133** 11-14-2012, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

His primary mistake was getting caught. Not sure what Broadwell was thinking when she sent out the harassing e-mails that prompted the whole investigation, unless the whole thing was a setup and there weren't really any such e-mails.

If you really think that the company of some streetwalking kurva is equivalent to that of an intelligent, interesting woman, then I pity you. And just because a first marriage doesn't work out or ends up as a sham, doesn't mean that a second one will also fail in the same way.

Aklim is not AT ALL saying that a second marriage can't work out. He is SIMPLY and ACCURATELY pointing out that if someone has PROVEN that they will screw around, it wouldn't be wise to marry them. One of them screwed around with another womans husband and the other one screwed around on his own wife. By these actions they BOTH proved that they are not trustworthy as Aklim pointed out.

spdrun · #**134** 11-14-2012, 12:05 PM

Depending on whether the other partner knows about the screwing around. Plenty of marriages that are of convenience or have turned into shams, but officially stay together for a while for various reasons.

Guess you'd never marry a divorcee either?

MTI · #**135** 11-14-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I don't need to calm down because I'm not excited and I'm not a bedroom cop. I was simply stating fact. IF either one of them committed adultery while on active duty, they are in violation of the UCMJ. That's ALL that I am saying.

You said Petraeus was messing around while still in the Army, your choice of words to make it part of the UCMJ. Or did I misread your statement?

Could you please put me back on ignore? Have a great day.