Paula Broadwell burbled, a little too pleased with her access to power.
A few days later, Petraeus testified in a closed session to Congress that the attack was due in large part to an anti-Islam video and a spontaneous uprising....
November 12, 2012
"Now, I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner..."
"... and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted."
Paula Broadwell burbled, a little too pleased with her access to power.
Paula Broadwell burbled, a little too pleased with her access to power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
285 comments:
1 – 200 of 285 Newer› Newest»"too pleased with her access to power"
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No matter how many times you turn it around, what side you view it from, no matter what the year or even what Administration it always seems to be a case of stepping through the looking glass.
Petraeus' power was anything but absolute, but the little weasel supports the One who thinks he wields it.
So where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Eyepiece cleaner for Harry Reid's proctologist?
Well, that would do it. He would have to resign.
Still begs the question of why wait to after the election. Perhaps a promise of leniency for him and his if he did not hand the Romney camp a grenade like that in the closing days.
PS AS I said before the election, this Administration is coming apart at the seams.
The longer it hangs on, the more dirty laundry is going to come out and it would appear they have no other kind.
So they not only knew and attack was coming, but knew the reason?
Hello, room service? We'd like your impeachment assortment.
Yeah, impeachments for everybody.
"Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless."
Obama's off-shoring, outsourcing?
According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.
The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.
The CIA, though, categorically denied these allegations, saying: “The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”
The CIA denies.
Whatever happened to Dana Priest and her sources about black site prisons?
Gotta love that pillow talk.
Also note that the MSM did not have a thing about Broadwell's speech until now.
Stupidity as a motive force in human behavior should never be ruled out. Perhaps this is all part of a Byzantine plot woven by subtle, guileful masterminds, but my money is on stupidity and venality.
I'd like to hear more about Holly Petraeus $250k a year job blogging for CFPB. Hella pay for someone with a very short work history.
PPS It may turn out winning will be their worst nightmare.
They had a chance to get away clean, but didn't take it.
“The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued.
Is that the same Executive Order that closed Guantanamo Bay?
Althouse, please tell your #1 doting, trained seal my above quote was yours re: Broadbell, not Petraeus.
Also note that the MSM did not have a thing about Broadwell's speech until now.
There's no time to report on this sort of thing during an election campaign. Gotta focus on the daily poll results.
Banana republics have more discretion, better propaganda, and prettier femme fatales.
I hear Broadwell gave this speech using an accent like a southern black preacher.
"Where's yo dollah?" she said, to a press who didn't report it.
I'm sure it's a coincidence she got the job when she did and from who she got it from.
There was some reluctance on the part of the White House to call this a terrorist attack rather than a demonstration that got out of hand. I don’t think that the term terrorist attack is strong enough. This was a commando raid. Except that the attackers did not use helicopters, it resembled the operation that took out bin Laden. Their goal was not to incite terror, but to achieve a military objective using small unit tactics and a variety of weapons, including crew-served. The attackers’ military discipline is evident in their willingness to take a reported 60 casualties to achieve their objective.
This is no banana republic. No self respecting banana republic would screw this many things up. To try to understand this administration I'd suggest a visit to the monkey house at the local zoo. No, it's not racist.
shiloh said...
Althouse, please tell your #1 doting, trained seal my above quote was yours re: Broadbell, not Petraeus.
Where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Lighting candles at your shrine to Uncle Saul?
I really with a competent investigative journalist would tackle this issue. There's far too many issues being conflated in these armchair exposés.
Don't get me wrong, I'm mad as hell about Benghazi. I just think that all the sensational coverage is dampening the effect on the public.
In this case, I'm sure that I read multiple sources, weeks ago, that said the CIA had taken a couple of the attackers prisoner while trying to aid those inside the Mission. The implications then was that the Libyan's insisted on their release to the Libyan 'security force' as a quid pro quo for allowing the late-arriving support team to leave the airport.
I don't think there's anything here to suggest that the CIA took prisoners prior to (and leading to) the attack on the Mission, which is what the Professor seems to be implying with the, "A few days later..." bit.
What a maroon!
it's better for the bottom line to use taxpayer dollars as hush money.
Did the Obama administration ever provide a compelling reason why using US military force to effect regime change in Libya was in our best interests?
Particularly when we have CIA personnel on the ground trying to located all those shoulder fired missiles?
Obama claimed he was against dumb wars. Going to Libya is about as dumb as it gets.
Maybe Obama can send Patraeus to be the new Ambassador to Libya.
I hear there's an opening.
@MayBee: Whatever happened to Dana Priest and her sources about black site prisons?
---------------
Yeah, whatever happened to her? After looking at your question I had to google her to see if she was still alive and she seems to be.
I don't think there's anything here to suggest that the CIA took prisoners prior to (and leading to) the attack on the Mission, which is what the Professor seems to be implying with the, "A few days later..." bit.
There's not anything, other than a public claim by the CIA director's girlfriend. Which may turn out to be bullshit, but it's certainly not nothing.
One thing is for sure, the Benghazi consulate was anything but a run of the mill diplomatic outpost. There was definitley a lot of crazy shit going on there, most of which we'll probably never know about. It was exactly the type of covert, paramilitary operation that the MSM loves to dig into under other, non-lightworking presidents.
Petraeus, not to worry as hypocritical cons are quick to forgive their own ie
Sanford
Larry Craig
Ensign
Vitter
Deviant Mark Foley, who Speaker of the House Boehner tried unsuccessfully to cover-up for along w/former Speaker Hastert.
Indeed, forgiveness is an evangelical virtue. Praise the lord!
leslyn said...
Armchair questions:
moronic questions, really, since the answers are oblivious, but. since we live to swerve...
Will Petraeus still be a good guy, or a bad guy? Will the CIA still be the good guys, or the bad guys?
Since both were dedicated to killing enemies of the US, the Lefties will portray them as the bad guys in this one.
Will Benghazi turn out to be a CIA-inspired attack in order to cover up the CIA prisoners--and did Petraeus know, when did he know it, and did he resign to cover up the whole thing?
If anything, he seems to have wanted to do the right thing, but Axelrod wouldn't have it - politics is policy, after all.
Problem is, since this all happened on Choom's watch, the buck is supposed to stop with him. It isn't what Petraeus knew, it's what Choomie knew and did it have a part in Choom's decision to go back to bed and let those 4 guys die?
And was the affair made up to distract from Broadwell's comments?
On this one, our little troll may have something. We need a reason to destroy a good man and an affair that's mostly in the Broad's head would do nicely.
shiloh said...
Petraeus, not to worry as hypocritical cons are quick to forgive their own ie
Sanford
Larry Craig
Ensign
Vitter
Deviant Mark Foley, who Speaker of the House Boehner tried unsuccessfully to cover-up for along w/former Speaker Hastert.
Let's not forget all the Lefty stars who have been "forgiven"
Garry Studds - molesting pages
Barney Frank - accessory to felony prostitution
Teddy Kennedy - Mary Jo
Christopher Dodd - friend of Angelo
Choom Soetaro - friend of Tony
Hildabeast - cattle futures, unlawful possession of Federal documents
Willie Whitewater - rape, perjury
And where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Polishing the chamber pots in the Lincoln Bedroom?
I don't recall any outpouring of forgiveness for any on that list with the exception of Vitter and that was lukewarm at best.
Althouse's #1 doting, trained seal's tit for tat argument was quite convincing and totally expected ... pun intended!
Edutcher wrote: Hildabeast - cattle futures, unlawful possession of Federal documents
What about the dude caught redhanded stuffing docs in his pants at the Nat'l Archives--A Clinton man IRC. Forgot his name...Sandy maybe...like the hurricane.
All swept under the rug.
To reiterate, I'm surprised that liberals were largely indifferent to Obama taking us into another military conflict against a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us. And now Islamic terrorists apparently have free reign there and are frighteningly well armed.
Considering the mess we created there its no wonder they don't want to talk about Benghazi and chalk it up to a video.
The problem with the head of the CIA having a sex affair is that terrorists might kidnap the wench and waterboard her for information.
Or, another possibility, she gives a speech at her alma mater.
What the hell kind of bedroom talk is that, anyway?
"We've got a couple of terrorists that we're holding at our consulate annex in Libya."
"Oh, baby, you're making me so hot!"
What did the President know and when did he know it?
shiloh said...
Althouse's #1 doting, trained seal's tit for tat argument was quite convincing and totally expected ... pun intended!
We keep the record straight!
And speaking of straight, at least the friend of Angelo and the Chap of Quiddick made all their sandwiches with girls.
Apparently, in addition to Verna What'sherface, Choom likes older guys.
That'll come out, too.
While we're on the subject of assignations, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Giving the Libyan prisoners "physicals"?
shiloh said...
Althouse's #1 doting, trained seal's tit for tat argument was quite convincing and totally expected ... pun intended!
We keep the record straight!
And speaking of straight, at least the friend of Angelo and the Chap of Quiddick made all their sandwiches with girls.
Apparently, in addition to Verna What'sherface, Choom likes older guys.
That'll come out, too.
While we're on the subject of assignations, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Giving the Libyan prisoners "physicals"?
I think I remeember that during the "war of liberation" in Libya an intrepid reporter remarked on seeing USAF planes overhead and was told that, oh no, they were not our planes, Nato had borrowed or rented them for the occasion.
It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Huh?
Everything about Benghazi, like everything about this Administration, ends up being a lot worse from day to day.
Thing is, if Petraeus was forced to stay on until after the election (which seems to be CW), then this is going to lead into a discussion of what other "contingencies" were addressed for the election.
This could be all kinds of fun.
I mean, who was Stephanie Cutter boffing during all of this?
Axelrod (ewwww)?
Well, if she was going around talking about top secret stuff like that, she's lucky that all that happened was they fired her boyfriend. She obviously had too much access there, and not enough brains to be a real intellgience officer.
Both David Petraeus and his wife are Democrats. Republicans approached him for political office during McCain's run and he was totally supporting every one of Obama's positions and Obama the candidate. He wasn't nice about it, either. Mrs. Petreaeus is a Democrat fundraiser. While it's true that Republicans supported Petraeus over the years, especially with the Iraqi surge while the Left was pulling its typical shit, he is one of yours, Althouse Lefties.
Heard that last night on the radio in an interview with one of the Republicans sent to approach him.
"Banana republics have more discretion, better propaganda, and prettier femme fatales.'
Yeah well we're new at this banana republic business. Give it time.
I hear the new 50 Shades of Gray involves waterboarding the wench for information.
Apparently that's grounds for divorce in the UK. "Why won't you waterboard me? You prude!"
Doesn't take some of you very long to kick a war hero to the curb. I know, who needs to hear his side of the story?
Hey, he didn't rape her.
And she probably supplied her own contraceptives.
Old fashioned values plus rugged individualism.
Ah he's Demoncrat!
It all makes sense now.
And his wife has the archetypal Dem look too.
Vicious woman, Paula.
"Banana republics have more discretion, better propaganda, and prettier femme fatales.'
USA doesn't have the right weather for widespread banana cultivation.
USA doesn't have the right weather for widespread banana cultivation.
Well that does it. We're just fucked no matter what we do.
phx said...
Doesn't take some of you very long to kick a war hero to the curb. I know, who needs to hear his side of the story?
You mean you don't believe the Ministry of Propaganda, which gets its facts straight from the Ministry of Truth, headed by Truther General Eric Holder?
Traitor!
This whole thing is getting quite f-ed up.
USA doesn't have the right weather for widespread banana cultivation.
Well that does it. We're just fucked no matter what we do.
We can just grow coffee instead.
furious_a said...
USA doesn't have the right weather for widespread banana cultivation.
Yes, we have no bananas.
La la la.
I applied for an Obamaphone today. And food stamps.
La la la.
That explains the "Betraeus" moniker too. What worse betrayal for a Democrat than to win a war for America?
Now if you pretend to serve in Nam, scam some medals and cheat to get an early discharge, conspire with the enemy for America's defeat, testify against the American military in congress using talking points written by Yuri Andropov, throw your medals away (well, someone else's...never know when they might come in handy), you can get the democrat nomination for president!
I doubt she made up this story.
Darrell, this took me thirty seconds to find. He is a registered Republican.
link
I haven't found anything to indicate he is now a Democrat.
For some crimes innocence is no excuse, Inga.
There is "libi" tag that I thought was about Scooter Libby... from Valerie Plame fame.
But it appears to be a typo.
@phx, his side of the story doesn't matter very much. I once worked in the intelligence community, though not recently, and I remember all the paperwork I signed. Fundamentally, if Patraeus shared classified information with a person who is uncleared and has no need to know, then all he's entitled to is a one-way ticket to Leavenworth, Kansas. That's per the documents he signed or should have signed.
Since he's a war hero serving in a Democrat administration this will not happen, however.
(Thanks to Inga for her correction on Petraeus' party affiliation. But it doesn't change anything about the likelihood of the same punishment meted out to enlisted soldiers also happening to him.)
"You wouldn't unnerstand...rushing to judgment before the facts are in is a winger thang."
We can just grow coffee instead.
Only in Hawai'i. 'Corn Sweetener Republic' might be more apt, but doesn't have the same tropical cachet.
The reason it may not happen may be that he cooperated and held on until after the election and that he provided material for the MSM to make it all about individual sex.
rushing to judgment before the facts are in is a winger thang
Obama accepted his resignation, yes?
On the other hand, Obama knew about it for months, so he can hardly be accused of rushing to judgement.
He can be accused of covering up a major security breach for his personal benefit, of course, since that is what he did by allowing Petreaus to keep his job until after the election.
Sorry, Inga, TNR is a lie factory.
And the New Yorker is just another Democrat rag.
Need another source.
@rcomal,
The ex-SEAL "private scurity agents" will turn out to have been working for NATO - or possibly, the United Federation of Planets.
Inga,
He hasn't voted since 2002 according to your link at the New Republic. That means he's not a registered anything in most juristictions. I stand by what I heard. Most military people never want to associate themselves with any political party--one reason being that the other may be in power and that might affect your career.
He was approached (probably to get his name in the hat for McCain's VP options--and he declined in a a strange way--attesting his support for Obama and Obama policies. And venting about the Republicans'.
That makes Petraeus a Democrat in most people's books, hearsay and a Leftie citation notwithstanding.
Maybe he's a Joe Wilson kind of Republican--the kind that only voted Democrat. I'm sure the New Republic was pushing that one as well.
So he is a Democrat because....you say so?
In addition to sending steamy emails to his laydies, maybe Petraeus is one of those people who turn up now and then in internet comment threads to say, "I'm a lifelong Republican, but [candidate X] is just too extreme for me."
No, because what I heard on the radio last night. You have been proved wrong with the "hasn't voted since 2002" fact (from your article.) Ten years without voting gets you pulled off voting lists. And it was never stated who he voted for before that--only the hearsay from the quoted source about him being a Rockefeller Rep. Which is kind of a Jim Jeffords Rep. who might have voted for Gore.
I haven't found anything to indicate he is now a Democrat.
His wife was hired by Liz Warren
Doesn't take some of you very long to kick a war hero to the curb.
This is especially ironic when the left took out a full page ad in the NYT calling him General Betrayus.
You've got reserve Major Broadwell spilling pillow talk from the director of the CIA??
...and they sent Scooter Libby to jail??
Yeah, there was a video that went viral, but it had nothing to do with Islam.
This is especially ironic when the left took out a full page ad in the NYT calling him General Betrayus.
There's nothing ironic about it all, Colonel. I had nothing to do with that.
I will confess that I am surprised at Pretreaus, not that he succumbed to the tempatations of flesh, but that knowing such an affair would lead to his ultimate resignation because of national security issues. That knowledge should have been sufficient to override his urges.
He should have waited to become President.
What a mess. It was already a tangled story, now there's a tawdry scandal in the mix, complete with catty women. Craziness.
His wife was hired by Liz Warren
There is no doubt that Petraeus' wife is a Democrat--besides from that Elizabeth Warren job she is a Dem fundraiser and is feautured in Dem literature. I don't think that Inga Allie Oop is questioning that.
There's nothing ironic about it all, Colonel. I had nothing to do with that.
I didn't say you, I said the left. The side the overwhelmingly voted for Obama and suddenly suffered a case of historical amnesia when he took it upon himself to engage in some regime change of his own.
As for Pretreaus side of the story, he's on record admitting to the affair.
Tank said...
I applied for an Obamaphone today. And food stamps.
Hah :-)) I haven't applied yet, but I did receive a telephone solicitation this morning advising me I should apply for an EBT card and a cell phone...suggesting I'd never know if I qualified if I didn't apply. The call came in from a national 800 series source, not a local one.
Are "they" trying to adopt me, or co-opt me?
I'm very huggable.
Sorry, Hagar. We were cross-posting (see the time on our comments), and my "huh?" actually wasn't in response to your comment, the sequence in which they appears notwithstanding.
Darrell, guess what, she is a person in her own right, she gets to belong to a Party different than her husband's, he doesn't own her. If he did he treated her pretty poorly.
Are "they" trying to adopt me, or co-opt me?
They're trying to get you on the OfA mailing list.
If Petraeus tells me who he's voted for in the last twenty years, I'll tell you what he is.
When I helped that teacher win the election to become a delegate to the 1972 Democratic National Convention, I registered as a Democrat to vote for her.
Are "they" trying to adopt me, or co-opt me?
Careful, Aridog - they may be looking for menu items.
Darrell, guess what, she is a person in her own right, she gets to belong to a Party different than her husband's, he doesn't own her. If he did he treated her pretty poorly.
Put on your reading glasses--I never said any differently. In fact, I defended you--atating that you weren't questioning her party affiliation.
Didn't see that Darrell, well thanks for that anyway.
"Catty women"?
Good grief. Why the plural? Why are we assigning that judgement to Kelley, at least at this point? I can see that and far more not to mention worse to Broadwell. But why Kelley deserving of that, at least so far?I truly am not understanding this.
Re: Petraeus political party affiliation. He describes himself as a "Rockefeller Republican." Isn't that the same as a Democrat?
My apologies, rcommal. Catty woman.
Let's say it was Kelley's husband who was the one who personally knew an FBI agent and that he was the one went to the agent about the emails to his wife. Would you refer to him as catty, too? And so forth.
I mean, what on earth?
Kinda crazy woman, really.
Darrell, I don't think it was a vision issue.
I was assuming that Broadwell was reacting to Kelley making a pass at Petraeus. But you're right, we've so far no indication of that except from Broadwell, who is not credible.
My idea is:
First: As long as the lamestream media leaves this alone then we know it is an Obama mess-up. That is the fundamental starting point.
Second: when a shady manoeuvre like this plays out in real time before an obviously disbelieving country yet with no cry for reform, then that's fall-of-the-empire stuff.
Petraeus admitted the affair. It seems to me that he's the asshole (as well as Broadwell), and he's the one that betrayed his office, his position of trust (and our trust) and his honor.
Sheesh.
Inga said...
Darrell, guess what, she is a person in her own right, she gets to belong to a Party different than her husband's, he doesn't own her. If he did he treated her pretty poorly.
See, this here is the problem. Never should have given women the vote. Big mistake. She should be home baking cookies.
Hell, a mistake giving the vote to about half the men too.
Favorite current statement on voting:
Democracy is shit and your vote is worthless.
HT: Unamused.
what a remarkable coincidence that Holly Petraeus fundraised for Liz Warren and then turned out to be the best candidate that applied for a high paying job at the non partisan Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and was hired by Liz Warren in spite of her sparse work history.
See, this here is the problem. Never should have given women the vote. Big mistake. She should be home baking cookies.
Everytime you say something like this a Democratic angel gets its wings.
what a remarkable coincidence that Holly Petraeus fundraised for Liz Warren and then turned out to be the best candidate that applied for a high paying job at the non partisan Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and was hired by Liz Warren in spite of her sparse work history.
The whole town is a fucking whorehouse.
When Gloria Allred is not involved... the likelihood of a "republican" being involved decreases.
Its the Gloria Allred Rule of politics.
The whole town is a fucking whorehouse.
Yeah.
My apologies, rcommal. Catty woman.
Catty women are more prone to catfights, rolling around on the floor, tearing at each other's clothes, and then there's the chance, you know, that they might kiss ...
phx said...
Everytime you say something like this a Democratic angel gets its wings.
Q. What happens when the the Democratic candidate for President lies that the Republican President refused help to victims of a natural disaster because they're black?
A. Nothing. They already knew he was a race baiting liar, that's why they voted for him.
Let's see, if the trail leads to Obama, it would put Biden in the White House. However, Biden has allegedly been tied to Obama's hip on these things, so he would go down, too.
Okay question:
In hindsight ... 1812 ... do you let it burn?
Let's see, if the trail leads to Obama, it would put Biden in the White House. However, Biden has allegedly been tied to Obama's hip on these things, so he would go down, too.
The oceans will rise again with President Boehner's tears.
People in the higher levels of our government constantly disclose classified information. I'm sick of it.
Keep your fucking mouth shut. Quit talking to reporters and quit telling your boyfriends or girlfriends or wives or husbands our country's secrets.
If Petraeus tells me who he's voted for in the last twenty years, I'll tell you what he is.
Earl Warren was a Republican. Harry Blackmun was a Republican. It means nothing. There are asshole Republicans and nice Democrats. Petraeus was a great general and a horrible CIA chief. He has no talent for intrigue and he really sucks at secrecy. Making him CIA chief was a bad decision, but keeping him as CIA chief was asinine. Obama should have asked for his resignation long ago. And that could have happened without any stories about affairs in the media.
The timing of his resignation and the fact that Petraeus volunteered that he was committing adultery speaks volumes about what was going on. Petraeus recognized that he had been compromised and corrupted and he wants to come clean. And the fact that Obama wanted to keep a compromised and damaged head at CIA until after his campaign was over speaks volumes about Obama's character.
"Let me be absolutely clear about this. There were no U.S. military forces engaged in the Libyan war, and the CIA no longer operate any 'black prisons!'"
Saint Croix,
Why do you say Petraeus was a great general? I don't think a one-size fits all counter-insurgency strategy was wise. But that's what he believed.
What works in Iraq doesn't work in Afghanistan.
rcommal said...
Petraeus admitted the affair. It seems to me that he's the asshole (as well as Broadwell), and he's the one that betrayed his office, his position of trust (and our trust) and his honor.
Oh, I agree with you r,l. But I don't agree with you that the timing would have made no difference in the election. Not because of the affair but because of the Benghazi story. Now the General's testimony is compromised--or is it not?
Now that I have your ear, even Jake Tapper tweeted last month that [paraphrasing] "you wouldn't like a Washington Press Corp adverse to a prospective Romney administration in 2013." I took this as an admission that journalists were protecting POTUS somehow. The lack of interest that professional journalists display towards our President is jawdropping.
It will freude my Schade when fair turnabout occurs.
phx said...
See, this here is the problem. Never should have given women the vote. Big mistake. She should be home baking cookies.
Everytime you say something like this a Democratic angel gets its wings.
Ding Ding Ding.
Anyone who votes Democratic after their 25th birthday should be stricken from the voting roles.
Anyone who can't name both Senators, their Congressman and two Sup Ct Justices too; that would eliminate about 90% of voters.
Tank:
Thank God you have precisely zip power or whether women should be allowed to vote or not. And I suppose you'd like me to take back all my votes, ever, even for candidates who weren't Democrats (which would be all but one presidential candidate since I voted in the first presidential race for which I was eligible in 1980)? Folks like Freeman Hunt shouldn't be voting either? Or Synova? Or millions more?
Blah, blah, blah.
As President, according to journalist Noah Brooks, "Lincoln found time to read the newspapers, or, as he sometimes expressed it, 'to skirmish' with them. From their ephemeral pages he rescued many a choice bit of verse, which he carried with him until he was quite familiar with it."
I don't see this from the Washington Press Corpse, except from Inga's dreaded "Faux News." If you liberals want to erect Obama as a second Lincoln, at least have him run the same gauntlet. It will improve him. Like it apparently did Lincoln.
Trying To Love Two
Anyone who votes Democratic after their 25th birthday should be stricken from the voting roles.
Wow. Quite the vision you've got there for a Republic (Republican Democracy), which is our form of government as opposed to the kind you're advocating. Do you actually listen to yourself?
you wouldn't like a Washington Press Corp adverse to a prospective Romney administration in 2013."
But that's exactly what they would be, now wouldn't they?
I think Tank is having fun with some people.
The lack of interest that professional journalists display towards our President is jawdropping.
Or maybe the real journalists (not journolists) are doing their jobs but instead of publishing they're all whispering in Drudge's ear.
@rcommal
I'm looking at voting patterns overall and, if my prescriptions were followed, we'd be much better off.
Particular individuals, of course, including women and dummies, may in fact vote for the "right" candidate. I'm looking at the overall picture.
Peachy. Tell you what, let's disenfranchise women--but in exchange, they pay no taxes (no taxation without representation) and, believe it or not, there are plenty of women who do. Seems fair to me; how about you?
And, of course, there are plenty of people who justify the sort of system you're advocating by saying "we'd be better off." LOL! Silly person, you.
I think Althouse attracts the most unhinged set of republicans anywhere on the internets. Over on Redstate there are thoughtful discussions about Laffer curves and tax rates, the Corner manages to make a reasonable stab at the pluses and minuses of remaking immigration policy, but here on Althouse it is conspiracy theories 24/7.
After a historic loss that possibly presages a never ending series of presidential losses without major changes in republican party policy, we get ... conspiracy theories. Aim a little higher. I can understand humping this nonsense before the election as a form of agitprop. The election is now over, put away the tinfoil hats and start thinking about what the republican party is doing wrong. There is no shortage of topics to discuss.
Women shouldn't have the vote, and anyone over 25 who votes for a Democrat ought to be stricken from the voting rolls!
Sure sounds like advocacy for the American system to me! Hahahahahaha.
Sure.
The Republican Party is finsihed after losses in 2008 and 2012.
Just like the Democratic Party was finished after its losses in 2000 and 2004. Or from 1980-1994.
A Reasonable Agitprop-er calls it.
"Everytime you say something like this a Democratic angel gets its wings."
Ah another mythical creature like the unicorn, sphinx, etc.
rcommal
Which is more important [if you're a small gov't conservative}, whether any particular person or groups of people have the right to go through the motions of voting, or having an actual freedom loving, small gov't President?
Think before you answer.
AReasonableMan said...
I think Althouse attracts the most unhinged set of republicans anywhere on the internets.
What a coincidence, Althouse also attracts the most ignorant lefties on the internet.
Tank's an advocate of tyranny.
Why do Althouse Lefties assume that since they won the election they were right about anything discussed on this blog since its inception?
EMD said...
I think Tank is having fun with some people.
WTF, why not go for the fun? The people have voted. We have Mr. Zero for another four years. We're the brokest country that ever existed. We're spending 40% more than we bring in every year.
La la la.
Let's dance.
Or vote.
Same difference.
"Think before you answer."
You first.
We already have tyranny.
La la la.
Democratic angel
Fallen angels are called Demons.
Apt.
Hey, it's five o'clock somewhere.
I'm off for the cocktails.
You guys can hang around and vote.
rcommal said...
Women shouldn't have the vote, and anyone over 25 who votes for a Democrat ought to be stricken from the voting rolls!
Sure sounds like advocacy for the American system to me! Hahahahahaha.
The American system is the brokest system that's ever existed.
La la la.
You vote for it, you got it.
AReasonableMan said...
...yada yada...The election is now over, put away the tinfoil hats and start thinking about what the republican party is doing wrong. There is no shortage of topics to discuss.
Yes, but we don't like your version of the answer which is "become us." Become unicameral. Drop discussion. Drop opposition.
Here's a freebie for you, ARM: I mostly base my opposition to Obamacare based on what I surmise is it's intended effect on high deductible insurance, which is to disqualify it under rules coming into force and to require enrollees to pay a tax penalty.
Hook me up with some links discussing these points and maybe I'll start to listen.
"Peachy. Tell you what, let's disenfranchise women--but in exchange, they pay no taxes (no taxation without representation) and, believe it or not, there are plenty of women who do. Seems fair to me; how about you?"
Deal.
Win win with both a REAL Republican government and a much smaller one at that.
You vote right but way too many of your sisters vote with their ladyparts, feelings, and for Uncle Sugar.
Repeal the 19th amendment!!
(I know it will never happen. America is finished anyway).
Tank is a small government conservative who doesn't really believe in individual liberty. Seems to me we need a variation of Fen's Law here. There are dummies and potential tyrants of all stripes.
Why do Althouse Lefties assume that since they won the election they were right about anything discussed on this blog since its inception?
I agree. So drop the social conservatism and stick with conservative fiscal policies. And for God's sake, get a new suit.
What's your brand rcommal?
rcommal thinks that voting = liberty.
Ding.
We have a loser.
Ya gotta think passed the obvious here.
Tank - what is liberty? Freedom from the local Gestapo?
phx said...
So drop the social conservatism and stick with conservative fiscal policies.
That like me saying "so drop the European economic policies and stick with social liberal policies."
To which phx retorts: "Ah, but we won"
To which I say: "Yes, but did you really win on economics like Obama says you did?"
Well did you?
Access?? To a television maybe... but she wasn't burbling anything that wasn't from the news that day:"In the original October 26 Fox News report, sources at the Annex said that the CIA’s Global Response Staff had handed over three Libyan militia members to the Libyan authorities who came to rescue the 30 Americans in the early hours of September 12."
EMD said...
The whole town is a fucking whorehouse.
Hmmmm. That was my impression 40 years ago when stationed near Richmond, VA, and visiting DC regularly. I mean literally...never saw so many famous people kissing booty in public than in those years. My frequent "date" in those times was a CIA analyst who suggested what I observed was merely the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. I tried to pry more out of her, to no avail. She was proof that intimacy can be carried on without breech of security.
Today? Why does this Petraeus affair remind me of the Lisa Nowak (astronaut) kidnapping scandal?
Why do we continue to refer to Petraeus as a "war hero" ... when his first combat assignment was in 2003 as a Major General? That's not exactly another General Hal Moore (ex-Lt Col) in the Ia Drang Valley. Petraeus is a very educated man, a very capable soldier, and a strong advocate for "nation building" ... however, I'm not too sure what his nitty gritty experience in that endeavor is ... I think there are E-7's and O-04's with more bona fides.
How much time has he ever spent, side by side with an indigenous soldier or group of same, sharing a hovel, and working to influence the hearts and minds of local nationals? Doing so with not much more than a reinforced squad by his side? A radio can bring on support like that when "broken arrow" calls were made long ago....but the arrival of the cavalry may not save you if over run.
In short, when someone says "war hero" I think of men like Roger Donlon at Nam Dong or Nick Rowe in Tan Phu advising CDIG forces.
I believe it is unfortunate that Petraeus was tempted and submitted. It doesn't stain what good he accomplished, but it does ruin a future.
One of the things that made me "go native" in Asia was a short, but heartfelt conversation I had with an ROK Marine Corporal...vis a vis killing per se. His position was that the moral decision is whether to kill, no matter the means...while mine was presumption of the right to kill, with a debate of the means.
Over the years, with all I have seen, I think he was right.
Not sure that will make sense to anyone else.
chickelit said...
Yes, but we don't like your version of the answer which is "become us." Become unicameral. Drop discussion. Drop opposition.
No. I think the republicans have multiple winning issues. Most notably they are largely right on immigration. A country that can't control its borders is in some ways not a functional country. I oppose unregulated immigration because it suppresses wages for exactly the people who can most ill afford having their wages suppressed. This is exactly why one class of republicans support it so strenuously, most notably Murdoch and his mouthpieces like Hannity. This issue is a winner with working class blacks, whites and I suspect many Hispanics already here.
On taxes, the Repubs are largely off base because they refuse to acknowledge the catastrophic effects of a growing wealth disparity. This undermines the family, the consumer economy and ultimately the legitimacy of the state. It would be much better if we had some way to deal with this other than taxation policy. Thoughtful ways to deal with issue and return to the kinds of disparity levels found in the 1950s would also be winners, but first the problem has to be acknowledged.
As far as social issues go, where exactly is all this opposition you're whining about? Congress mainly needs to focus on the budget and doing what little they can to help the economy which mainly to get the hell out of the way, and get regulations out of the way.
What do some of you expect them to do: pass laws saying: "States: thou shalt not pass a personhood bill" or "States: thou shalt not suffer a gay marriage referendum to stand or fall"?
?
Query to Ms. Althouse - Do you read all the comments or is there ever a point (other than my poor excuses at commentary) where your eyes glaze over and you just scroll to the bottom?
leslyn said...
"Will Petraeus still be a good guy, or a bad guy?"
Interesting comment.
Good guy and bad guy. Great general but shame on him for participating in Obama Benghazi coverup.
"Will the CIA still be the good guys, or the bad guys?"
Been good guys and bad guys for quite a while. The huge worry about the CIA is that they are getting politicized and interfering in domestic politics.
"Will Benghazi turn out to be a CIA-inspired attack in order to cover up the CIA prisoners--and did Petraeus know, when did he know it, and did he resign to cover up the whole thing? And was the affair made up to distract from Broadwell's comments?"
It is unlikely that the CIA wanted the attack to happen but it is probable that their activities were the causus belli for the Islamist freedom fighters to attack. For sure Petraeus was covering up the Benghazi debacle when he testified to Congress and said that the consulate was attacked by a "flash mob" angered by a video. Shame on Petraeus.
Reportedly the CIA in Benghazi was rounding up weapons that they had distributed in Libya to depose of Gadaffy. There is speculation that those weapons were to be recycled for the Syrian chapter of Islamist spring.
There may be drone footage (currently classified) of a couple of CIA warehouses being looted of those weapons. Maybe Broadwell was correct that the CIA had captured a couple of terrorists and were interrogating them and that provoked the attack.
The affair between Petraeus and Broadwell had been going on for years so it was not created to be a smokescreen but it was used to distract those who are easily distracted (i.e. the vast majority of commentors on this thread).
Althouse teed it up for you folks with the Drudgian juxtaposition technique (using text rather than pictures) but nearly everybody whiffed. Pretty good job by Leslyn, politically biased but at least interesting and not stupid.
chickelit said...
To which I say: "Yes, but did you really win on economics like Obama says you did?"
Yes Obama definitely won the economic argument. Romney's main argument for election was his economic expertise. He lost. Obama repeatedly made a central issue that he wanted to increase the highest tax rates. He won. There is no question that on economic issues Obama was more in tune with the electorate.
You are confusing an issue. You clearly believe that in the long term republican polices are better for the economy than democratic policies. Historically there is not much support for this belief. Bush/Cheney/Greenspan was an epic disaster.
I agree with about half of the republican party's policies, most notably on the importance of entrepreneurs for economic growth. I think there is a confusion about who really counts as an entrepreneur. I don't think most financial institutions count as entrepreneurs nor do doctors. Finance and health care are sucking the life out of the economy. A reflexive defense of all private enterprise, rather than a more nuanced analysis of who is really driving economic innovation would greatly help the Republican party's arguments.
It would be much better if we had some way to deal with this other than taxation policy.
The problem is raising taxes on the wealthiest, who have resources to avoid paying higher taxes, only hurts those down the ladder.
Secondly, with government in bed with the GEs and GMs and Goldman Sachs of the world, you could alter the tax policy significantly, and still have widening disparities between bottom and top, especially in an information economy like ours.
ARM- so, in your opinion, who does drive the economy? Community activists? Central planners when they re-distribute income?
The Petraeus story is becoming stranger and stranger, but not clearer.
I'm still not getting why Petraeus, adultery or no adultery, resignation or no resignation, is not testifying on Benghazi this week.
Likewise Hillary Clinton.
If these people don't have important information to give the committee, who does?
This feels like Watergate except the press is protecting the President and so far there is no Eliot Richardson or William Ruckelshaus to take principled stands.
On taxes, the Repubs are largely off base because they refuse to acknowledge the catastrophic effects of a growing wealth disparity.
Wealth disparity has always been with us, is with us, and will always be with us, just as intelligence disparities and pulchritude disparities. We can differ in what is too much disparity. But the rhetoric I hear is that disparity itself is inherently somehow wrong or that we should strive for absolute equality along economic lines.
Obama has essentially set a trap for us: he says we need to tax the very top end without the follow through that in order to actually balance the budget we'll have to tax the middle class as well. There just isn't enough wealth in all the over $250k ers to slake the demand for goods and services, even if he guillotined them and confiscated everything they owned. The middle class will have to taxed more to sustain entitlement they way they are constructed. I understand that the middle class will insist that the rich pay more and that many at the bottom would just as soon see them punished because many of them are white. That dosen't help things.
And we're still bickering about gay rights and abortion? WTH?
EMD said...
especially in an information economy like ours.
I think this is largely a bullshit argument (not necessarily yours) for the increasing inequality in wealth. The internets and related enterprises still make up a relatively small fraction of the economy and other countries work in the same global economy without such dramatic changes in wealth inequality.
Finance and health care are sucking the life out of the economy.
I hear this as you think doctors are overly paid. Perhaps overeducated as well. Perhaps they should be like doctors in Europe. Is that where you're going?
AJ Lynch said...
ARM- so, in your opinion, who does drive the economy? Community activists? Central planners when they re-distribute income?
If you had bothered to read the post you would have seen I favored entrepreneurs.
@ARM: It certainly doesn't help your side that you have decided a priori, that energy must cost more.
What a mess.
ARM:
I read your entire post and you qualified entrepreneurs by writing:
"I don't think most financial institutions count as entrepreneurs nor do doctors. Finance and health care are sucking the life out of the economy."
So what is left after you eliminate finance, banking, healthcare from your entrepreneurs?
chickelit said...
Finance and health care are sucking the life out of the economy.
I hear this as you think doctors are overly paid. Perhaps overeducated as well. Perhaps they should be like doctors in Europe. Is that where you're going?
I think health care takes up far too big a fraction of the country's economic activity. Either lower wages or increased productivity are required or some combination of both. But it is strangling the economy. I think there is pretty broad bipartisan agreement on this. Doctor's salaries are only part of the equation. They do seem too high in the sense that medical school is siphoning off intellectual talent that could be better utilized in other fields. Much the same argument applies to the financial industry. Both industries are, at base, service industries that are, to some extent, parasitic on other economic activity.
I hear this as you think doctors are overly paid.
Maybe it's time for them to take a haircut, like public employees?
So what is left after you eliminate finance, banking, healthcare from your entrepreneurs?
Sounds like our little homegrown Robespierre forgot to eliminate the lawyers! You're spared AJ!
AJ Lynch said...
So what is left after you eliminate finance, banking, healthcare from your entrepreneurs?
Most of the actual entrepreneurs.
chickelit said...
Sounds like our little homegrown Robespierre forgot to eliminate the lawyers! You're spared AJ!
Lawyers seem to be much more subject to market forces than I previously believed.
Are you seriously arguing that government policies haven't distorted both the health care and financial fields? The solution for one is much less private enterprise the solution for the other is much more.
So what is left after you eliminate finance, banking, healthcare from your entrepreneurs?
Obviously, solar panel manufacturers and other handpicked favorites that require endless government subsidies just to meet payroll represent the true entrepreneurial spirit.
ARM: Yes Obama definitely won the economic argument.
We'll just have to disagreed there now and perhaps forever. I think Romney lost for a variety of reasons but it wasn't because his economics were wrong.
So no deal.
Interesting that nobody can give me an answer about HD health insurance.
I'm still not clear why Petraeus had to resign. Is adultery that big a deal in the CIA?
It seems there are pieces to the puzzle that haven't come out yet.
I wish people would have their macroeconomic discussion elsewhere.
miss j,
The Oct. 26 Fox News report said that the annex staff had captured three of the 9/11/2012 attackers.
Brodwell said they were holding militants captured earlier. I don't know which is correct, but here's the quote from Fox on Oct. 26:
"According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans."
Chickelit:
You know how to hurt a guy - I am not a lawyer.
Only a doctrinaire, librul dunce like Garbage would lump in doctors with public employees when the talk turns to who is overpaid.
ARM writes: Are you seriously arguing that government policies haven't distorted both the health care and financial fields? The solution for one is much less private enterprise the solution for the other is much more.
I believe in more privitization of finances and healthcare.
You know how to hurt a guy - I am not a lawyer.
My mistake, AJ! I thought you were!
chickelit said...
@ARM: It certainly doesn't help your side that you have decided a priori, that energy must cost more.
All the associated costs with any energy source should be factored into the consumer price. Otherwise there is a free-rider problem. The government ends up subsidizing the costs of one energy source at the expense of others.
CL:
I have at least a $5,000 deductible but I assume the cocksucking Obamacare regs will force me to give that up which will increase our annual premiums.
I swear Obama and his minions are the stupidest and most overpaid MOFOs ever.
@ReasonableGuy - I would say that entertainment takes up far too big a fraction of the nation's economic activity. We should nationalize Hollywood and let Pitt, Clooney and Lady Gaga serve the country as honored civil servants. Make them all, say, GS-12s. What say you?
garage mahal said...
I hear this as you think doctors are overly paid.
Maybe it's time for them to take a haircut, like public employees?
I think doctors should pay more for their own healthcare, yes. Just like State employee bureaucrats should pay more for the bureaucracy they impose on others.
Free rider? I thought that was a healthcare term. Did you perhaps get your DEM talking points mixed up?
Maguro said...
@ReasonableGuy - I would say that entertainment takes up far too big a fraction of the nation's economic activity.
It is very successful export industry. We need all we can get in order to compete long term. You may not like the politics but the economics is pretty pure.
I have at least a $5,000 deductible but I assume the cocksucking Obamacare regs will force me to give that up which will increase our annual premiums.
Yep. And those premiums won't be able to go into an HSA for your own benefit--you will be forced to share it with others. Might as well go back to the copay system. Only single pater knows best.
I am with Maguro but would go further. Movie tickets should be free as well as NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB games! Hell, let's not stop there- give me free opera tix, free Rock concerts and librul actors like Alec Baldwin should work for free!
Single payer, not single pater. WE're not Latin here. yet
EMD said...
My apologies, rcommal. Catty woman.
Catty women are more prone to catfights, rolling around on the floor, tearing at each other's clothes, and then there's the chance, you know, that they might kiss ...
Ever the optimist...
Anybody want to speculate on an Althouse-Oop cage match?
My money's on the blonde.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
I think Althouse attracts the most unhinged set of republicans anywhere on the internets. Over on Redstate there are thoughtful discussions about Laffer curves and tax rates, the Corner manages to make a reasonable stab at the pluses and minuses of remaking immigration policy, but here on Althouse it is conspiracy theories 24/7
RedState is as much dedicated to knocking Republicans as it is to Libertarianism (no surprise Troll likes it) and NRO strains for respectability.
Troll is afraid here because republicans think.
I agree that we spend too much on healthcare. In many parts of the country, healthcare institutions are the biggest employers. It's true here in Northeast Ohio.The Cleveland Clinic employs more people than any other company. More than the auto industry. Other top employers in the region are - wait for it - government agencies. This isn't just true of NE Ohio. The same phenomenon is occuring all over the country.
There is something wrong with a nation that spends all of its time and money on healthcare and government rather than actually making and selling things. (And by the way, doctors' salaries are a very small piece of that healthcare pie.)
ARM wants to divorce us from our reliance on fossil fuels so that other nations can enjoy those bountiful blessings and produce things more cheaply.
He also wouldn't mind seeing a hefty carbon tax implemented and the proceeds sent to Africa. I think I've sparred with him over this before IRC.
I think doctors should pay more for their own healthcare, yes
I think I should pay less for my healthcare, and one major reason why I can't is because doctors are ridiculously overpaid.
IDEA: Let doctors from other countries come here and do the same work for a fraction of the cost. Free markets.
sydney said...
I agree that we spend too much on healthcare. In many parts of the country, healthcare institutions are the biggest employers. It's true here in Northeast Ohio.The Cleveland Clinic employs more people than any other company.
Yes. I was also aware of that factlet and it is not an encouraging sign for the economic health of the country.
Post a Comment