Discussion in 'Community' started by Juliet316, Nov 9, 2012.
It is so hard to have any confidence about bipartisanship on the fiscal cliff issue when I read stuff like this:
The amateur porn-level mock arousal that this guy is demonstrating about wanting to tie the resignation to Obama's "Benghazi cover-up" is almost embarrassing to read.
why, is that guy going to be in the room?
No, but it would be nice to hear some kind of formal declaration that the GOP and all its minions and cheerleaders are ready to formulate some policy platform other than Destroy Obama.
well, we'll see what happens. i think boehner's gonna cave, and hard, blubbering and sniffling. taxes will be raised and private sector growth stymied. good times ahead, folks!
"All In", lol.
I swear people who don't get why he has to resign over this have never read a Le Carre novel. It's not a morality issue, it's a "can we trust this man with secrets and is he compromised in a way that will leave him open to blackmail" issue.
but it seems like both of those questions follow from it being a morality issue.
a bit but mostly its just that he opens himself up to blackmail by making socially unacceptable decisions (and failing to keep them hidden). the CIA is not an organization known for its commitment to strong moral fiber
i guess i find socially acceptable and moral to be similar arbitrary distinctions.
It is convenient that because he decided to go public about some affair, he no longer will be testifying regarding Libya. IMO, this shouldn't excuse him from testifying about the security failure.
Its a matter of degrees. Arbitrary or not, they do exist. And while I do agree that many issues of moral and social should always be questioned and examined, this isn't exactly one of the murky grey areas. Petreus behaved dishonestly to his wife. He had an affair and he kept it a secret from her. That's a pretty big no-no for most people. The next issue is whether he resigned over the morality of the affair, or the consequences of the affair. In this context I don't see the government asking him to relinquish his position because of the morality of his actions, but because of the possible ramifications of actions. How is he to effectively lead the CIA if someone can hamper his decision making by threatening to reveal the affair? How can he be trusted with state secrets when he is having a secret relationship with someone who has a vested interest in getting information from him?
morality is a philosophical quality - "socially acceptable" is something that can be described by social science. i can tell you what a given culture finds acceptable in a given context. whether the same action is moral or not, is a matter of opinion
all this is beside the point, however, that the CIA doesn't give a **** about moral/socially unacceptable behaviour -- they're more likely concerned that by indulging in socially unacceptable behaviour -- behaviour that could be socially damaging to him personally -- petraeus is opening himself up to blackmail and making himself a security risk
yeah, i get what your saying and it boils down to a semantic argument maybe, one not worth pursuing certainly. my point though is that the only reason he opens himself up to blackmail or the notion that he can't be trusted is that his actions are considered immoral or "socially unacceptable" if you'd rather.
edit: rogue, so i suppose the word 'morality' has no business in any discussion of current events.
just dont expect me to share your opinion on what is or is not moral. and in this case, describing petraeus' actions and how they're looked upon, i simply find "socially acceptable" far more useful
honestly im uninterested in the personal morality of petraeus' affair, given that we're talking about an organization that regularly destabilizes governments and supports murderous dictators. seems extra silly in that light
NEVER FORGET JACOBO ARBENZ, right?
how about drone attacks on children and american citizens? does that strike you as sterling rectitude?
Spare a thought for the saps in the intellgence community, Rogue. It's dark and lonely work - like oral sex, but someone has to do it.
my condolences on what sounds like a very depressing oral sexual history
I just heard a snippet from the woman with whom Petraeus had the affair on NBC Nightly News:
"I was deeply embedded with the General while in Afghanistan"
Kind of gives the phrase a new meaning, doesn't it?
New info in Pretaeus case: Cantor knew before President?
Fox News/Beck/Limbaugh/The Right attempt at conspiracy is that Obama knew and timed it all until after the election.
i don't see cantor's name anywhere in that article.
Okay, could have sworn I saw a line or two in that one with regard to it when I read it the first time , but other reports are circulating that House Majority Leader Cantor knew about this in late October.
Here's a link from ABC News.
Yeah, it's been confirmed that Cantor knew before the President.
An FBI agent went rogue and told Republican members of Congress, because he wanted Obama defeated. Surprisingly, these Republicans kept quiet.
And this all started when Paula Broadwell sent some kind of threatening email to a family friend of Petraeus, who had her own friend who was in the FBI and investigated, which led them to uncovering the "thousands of emails" between Petraeus and Broadwell.
It also appears that Rielle Hunter, the mistress of John Edwards, is somehow involved. I think she's a neighbor or friend of somebody involved.
Paula Broadwell also told the University of Denver a few weeks ago that the CIA was keeping prisoners in the basement of the "consulate," and that the true objective of the attack was to free those prisoners... did she disclose something confidential?
The FBI taking down the head of the CIA probably won't help that interagency rivalry, either.
And I think this leaves no doubt that the intelligence community is a mess, and it's no wonder they messed up and gave mixed messages about the nature of the Benghazi attack (video protests VS terrorist attack).