from Mastadon Army:
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Well placed!
KEEP FIRING!!!
– So many government employees to fire, so little time.
Say, “Freedom? Freedom?”, the way Jim Mora says, “Playoffs? Playoffs?.
clown car dept.
Obama tells Colo. audience he wants more wind turbines ‘manufactured here in China’
Nice job you’ve got there Mr. Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. It’d be a shame you should loose it for jacking your jaw spilling truths. Maybe you should take a few days off and stay out of sight for awhile.
Hussein gets Obamacare passed and he’s failing. That’s harsh.
That first sentence should end with a question mark.
GM: The Deadbeat of America
Where the hell is David Petraeus? Unwilling to lie, so he’s tied up in the closet? Not the man we thought he was?
“Not the man we thought he was?”
Definitely not the man we thought he was. Amazing how quickly trust can be lost, ain’t it?
Good grief, Sandoval just hit his third homerun of the game.
Umm, I haven’t lost trust in Petraeus yet. Telling the public shit ain’t in his job description. Let’s see how it plays out…
“Telling the public shit ain’t in his job description.”
But standing by silently while the President in whose Administration he serves propounds lies about as serious an event as the murder of an American ambassador and three other America public servants for weeks on end is in his job description. Good to know.
I don’t know anything about what the CIA Director is doing or why, but my ignorance doesn’t equal his guilt. Interesting concept that discretion in an intelligence officer is a sign of guilt though.
Personally, until you show me otherwise, I’m going that trust that a man with a lifetime history of patriotic valor is doing what he thinks is right for the country over the politics. Call me kooky.
You’re kooky.
I suspect he’s figuratively locked in the closet. He is a military guy and thus respects the chain of command. Which tells him to STFU.
Yes. Don’t trust him just because he has 4 stars.
So does Colin Powell. The turncoat. My husband served with Powell when they were both Captains and Powell is a Company Man, not a soldier’s soldier.
He’s no Patton.
I suspect he can’t comment substantially without compromising critical operations and/or personnel. And commenting un-substantially is counter productive also.
It’s secret agent stuff. It’s the nature of the beast we don’t know anything about what’s really going on.
There are other options for people in the chain who don’t agree with either policy or the manner chosen to carry policy out than disappearing into a closet, options particularly well suited to those who most consider their honor. But the truth about Petraeus happens to be that he was involved in the first accounts of demonstrations over the anti-Muhammed video and spontaneous spin-off attacks in Benghazi: he delivered this account to a Congressional committee.
Most likely he is given an executive summary ofthe reports and spiels off those.
His hands are dirty.
Don’t convict him with our ignorance either. It isn’t rational.
And hasn’t Petraeus retired from the Army? I think he has, which makes him just another political appointee in a stunningly anti-American administration so far as I can see. One willing to keep silent while the leader of that anti-American administration attempts to lie and gasp his way into reelection in the next two weeks. Good on ya Dave, saving the leftist’s bacon like that.
I’m saying to err on the side of caution.
If it looks like a duck, &c. . . .
Yes. He is retired.
GHW Bush was also a CIA director. The building is named for him and he was never a spook.
On the political side now, we know Obama lied about what happened, and he should answer for it. Pointing the finger at the CIA doesn’t make sense to me.
Except that Obama is blaming Intelligence for the deaths.
Wait, what? I missed this.
Yeah…and? We KNOW Obama is lying. The deaths are because pleas for more security went unheeded.
There may very well be more going on and Petraeus is up to his ass in cover-up for the coming Marxist coup, but you’ll need more than his silence to convince me.
Was it improper to notice the way in which CIA did everything it could to undermine GW Bush in 2003-2004? Seemed appropriate to me. All of a sudden insider written books highly critical of Bush met with instant approval from the clearance officers and wham, hit the bookstores by the ton during electioneering season. Bush’s choice for Director to replace George Tenet was sabotaged from within his own building in collusion with the press and quickly run from office. Funny the way that non-political agency tends always to lean in the same political direction ain’t it?
Oops, I was responding to leigh @9:43
Sdferr, I think it proper to let the CIA do it’s job, and leave politics to the voters. I have a hunch that’s what they are doing under this directer.
“Wait, what? I missed this.”
Quoting from a comment at DiploMad (just the most recent place I’d seen this, but I saw it also back when it occurred — I’m just too lazy to go doing searches):
That was Sept. 13th, I should have noted.
Yeah…and?
Follow the timeline, Lee. Burning Consolate. Angry spontaneous mob. Dead ambassador and 2 SEALs and another employee. Lies about an internet video. Lies about intelligence. Dismissal of MB involvement by all players except the Libyans. etc
If Petraeus isn’t involved he took an oath to defend the USC. Doesn’t that mean anything anymore? Man up and call a press conference. Resign. Do something!
I’m not inclined to simply accept Dianne Feinstein’s representations as definitive. Still, Petraeus’ silence is troubling.
Petraeus himself said (to the press) at the time that he had conveyed the “spontaneous mob story” Pablo, so I’m not leaning on Feinstein in particular. He was on the record.
Whoa. Looking for Petraeus cites, I stepped in a pile of looney: Romney campaign, CIA Mormon Mafia both responsible for Benghazi attack
Having been exposed to the CIA Mormon Mafia, I’m not sure if I should take a shower or apply for a job.
I don’t know, Pablo. You thought Skull and Bones and the Trilateral Commission and the Masons were bad ju-ju? I don’t want to meet up with the Mormon Mafia in a dark alley, that’s for sure.
I got a hilarious dose of Mara Liasson tonight (in the aftershowshow of Special Report), insisting the reason the press isn’t covering the White House cover-up story on Benghazi is because Mitt Romney won’t talk about it! Hackfuckingtastic spin.
Krauthammer gave her a kick in the journalistic nuts earlier. She was whining that she had so much to write about what Romney would answer about Libya, and he wouldn’t talk about it!
Charles told her it was journalistic malpractice to complain that the candidate didn’t say what you wanted him to say.
Heh.
And by the way, I too am on the record here as to my belief that Petraeus was — from the jump — pushing a hastily and stupidly chosen tactical cover-story for an ongoing operation (the which we still don’t know, and may or may not be about the search for and re-purchase of MANPADS — i.e., it could very easily involve much more sensitive things like placing infiltrators into Al Qaeda from Libya or the like. We just don’t know.), but only initially in my view. I think maybe the CIA people may have thought the press wouldn’t do their jobs and look too closely (and given the way the press has behaved, not far wrong). Petraeus was not intending a political cover-up for a bumbling administration’s mistaken strategic policy choices.
But if after awhile the cover-story doesn’t hold the water it was supposed it would hold and the political cover-up grows in depth and complexity, one would think an upright DCI would work to extricate himself from the political hacks’ deceptions, from lies standing in a primarily political-electoral scheme, rather than stick to a hastily chosen cover-story for an operation, which cover story is now near fully exposed to public view for the mere and absurd cover-story it was.
Bush should have dismantled the CIA after his reelection. If the Agency and the Campaign start feasting on each other, maybe Romney will get the chance.
That’s why he was appointed to head the CIA, to keep him quiet.
Prior to his entering the Obama administration it did not seem possible to fix on Petraeus’ electoral or political tendencies at all did it? People may have fancied they saw in him a serious conservative, but I couldn’t see where he would come down on party allegiance in any sense, whether because he simply guarded his opinions so carefully they wouldn’t be known to another than say, his wife, or whether he genuinely didn’t or doesn’t have any party allegiance at all. Whichever it might be, it did not seem possible to say, based on Petraeus’ own actions. I believe people may have misled themselves as to their certainties. So in this sense, he was already in a closet, at least on the question of his partisan views and with regard to the voting public (again, allowing that as to what he revealed to intimates and friends we can’t know — don’t know).