Naome, you seem to be overlooking a few things. First, the President was impeached. Are you suggesting we, as a Country, shouldn't investigate evidence of a crime? You seem to be saying that it isn't worth $14 M to investigate Presidential criminal wrongdoing. Would you say the same about the Bush torture investigations?

As for Patreaus, he held a security clearance. In fact, given his role, he held the highest of clearances with the greatest, most sensitive need to know. Anything that compromises the integrity of a person in that position represents a real threat to national security. This was the only outcome for his actions.

As to the OP, I certainly get the impression that the focus on the scandal is a deliberate smoke and mirrors distraction. A sequnce of bad decisions, policies and actions led to the death of and Ambassador and 3 others at a critical moment in the election cycle. Misreporting started with the suggestion followed by the direct, repeated statements that this was a protest gone wrong. Then, a hearing wasn't scheduled until after the election. Then Sec. Clinton was unavailable for questioning. Then Patraeus was cauht in an affair. Etc, etc, etc. It seems like the Administration is playing on the short attention spans of most Americans while distracting us with drama fit for a soap opera.

Obviously, you have total faith in the motives and objectives in those in power. I don't need Fox News to tell me that there are questionable things going on surrounding the Lybia incident. I know a good deal of what happened leading up to the end result. I won't bore you with the details but it was a mix of budgetary and political decisions which resulted in unintended consequences and unforseen results. That said, it is my opinion that everything that happened from the terrorist event on forward screams politically motivated distraction. Rice was given an edited press release. Obama referenced terrorism in the rose garden and then didn't mention it again for a while. The Petraeus investigation started back in May but wasn't revealed until after the election. Again, in my opinion, it was expert distraction which (in part) helped Obama secure a second term and will help him escape from any taint from the death of the Ambassador. At the same time, it destroyed a potential strong GOP candidate from ever being elected in the future. Honestly, I expect nothing different from politicians.

In this case, as I said previously, there is (was) a real, present risk of a threat to national security. You may not care, but secrets are meant to be kept. Anything that jeopardizes classified information must be taken with the utmost seriousness. That you don't seem to recognize this fact suggests your ethics are highly suspect.

"Petraeus gets hooked up with Broadwell..two fellow ring knockers.."
Same academy?

"...they get found out by Kelly and Khawam two boot knockers..."
This generation's Linda Tripp, opportunists that would sell out their friends for
profit and a book deal.

"...no doubt watching too much lifetime Army Wives..move over Kardashians..."
Mrs. Petraeus should kick Kelly's ass and preside over the IRS seizure of their
remaining assets. She deserves better than to have her nose rubbed in this.

The whole thing stinks of hubris, machinations behind the political screen and the
last remnants of The Dulles brothers treachery in the CIA.

correct same school West Point /different years and Mrs P should be kicking Broadwells not Kellys keister..albeit they've all jumped aboard that love train in a Family Circus "how Jeffy get's home" way

Ok, I am not going to get into this too deep, but would like to say just one this about Petraeus et al. He is a powerful man. He slept with someone that wasn't his wife. When did this type of thing ever shock anyone who knows anything about human nature. Powerful people attract others, it has been going on since the caveman days.

To joe s... All speculation on your part fella.

"While they stand in the bread lines they will wonder why they didn't listen to the tea party." Maybe if you idiots called yourselves "The Bread Party" or the "We have cookies party" or "KC and the Sunshine band".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

Don't these loons ever get the feeling that they've been had?

Yes we know we are being had . National debt $16 trillion and growing . Shrinking dollar and huge unfunded liabilities totaling $125 trillion. The question is when will you smarten up ?

Joe-Just in case you missed it, Romney lost, Doherty lost, Hinckley lost, the no name idiots that ran against Gordon Fox and Teresa Paiva-Weed lost, Lord Nelson and the TCC lost, and most importantly, YOU LOST.

When are you going to give it up Joe and admit defeat? The people have spoken, LOUD AND CLEAR.

Now go stuff your Thanksgiving turkey with your chourico!

Yeah, the World is coming to an end, so Jethro decided to run for Tiv's school committee and "showum how to edumakate fer less".

It's clearly been sufficient for his illustrious career.

G. Edward Griffin is Glenn Beck's "expert" on the Fed, amongst other topics.

The trouble is, Griffin has the credentials of a Nigerian prince with a proposal:

Griffin Peddles Quack Cancer Remedy He Claims Has Been Covered Up By "Medical Establishment"

Griffin: There's No Such Thing As HIV -- "The Immunodeficiencies Are Caused By The Treatment"

Griffin Film Claims Vapor Trails Left By Jets Are Actually A "Chemtrail/Geo-Engineering Coverup"

Griffin: Goal Of FEMA, DHS During Katrina Response Was "Not To Res[c]ue People, But To Control Them"

Griffin Is "Convinced" That "Oswald Was Not JFK's Assassin"

Griffin's Trutherism: Flight 93 Was Shot Down By U.S Military Fighter
Beck: Griffin Is The Author Of "Fascinating Book On The Fed"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/03/26/who-is-g-edward-griffin-becks-expert-on-the-fed/177986#6

Why are so many Tea Party adherents loud, gullible and so poorly informed?

I think they're deeply suspicious of anyone that has a credible education.
It's the classic "Know-Nothing" bias against education and intellectual pursuits.

It's pathetic.

to b kcaj..... Yeahhhh! for you. Couldn't have thunk up a better response.

Rags,

Most Americans seem to be fine with giving up our manufacturing base. As a country, we were told that the service economy would easily take the place of manufacturing (from the so called greatest president, Bill Clinton).

Short of the Ross Perot crowd, few understood the unintended consequences of allowing our manufacturing base to be sacrificed to other countries.

We all thought the scale would be limited to cheap Walmart products without understanding that once places like China established the foundation, an entire system of higher scale products would be the result.

China is now doing many US infrastructure projects, and floating the prefabricated pieces 6000+ miles to the US (e.g. the San Francisco to Oakland Bridge).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/business/global/26bridge.html?pagewanted=all

I thought the analyses above were accurate, where's the ignorance.

The Rice/Kerry/Brown supposition sounds plausible. A few favorable winds may be needed, but it's not fantastic. I, for one, doubt that Obama can stand to be in the same room as John Kerry.

Compared to some of the drivel that was recently promoted as "insight" this is downright cogent, even thoughtful.

Let's have more, thanks. (From Woonsocket, and all points of the compass.)

So let me get this straight, Naome. I pile a bunch of "coincidences" that I suggest represent an expert politically based distraction from the issues which led to the death of an ambassador. You say that it's pure conspiracy theory and equate it with Fox news. Someone suggests that the investigation is a ploy to get another Republican Senate seat and you call it plausible??? You have a very inconsistent standard of proof which just shows your entire world view is based on partisan politics and confirmation bias.

@Bill - here's the quote from above:

"Secondly, the hidden fuss over Susan Rice by the Republicans is to prevent her nomination so Sen Kerry gets it and Rep Senator Scott Brown runs and gets elected to bolster the Republican roster. The rest is show-biz."

That's a reasonable prognostication, and daring in that it doesn't claim to be
a peak behind the curtain to what "really happened" but the media won't say.

I think it far more likely that Brown will run for governor, and Obama will choose another age contemporary for Secretary of State.

Equating the above with your little gem:

"Again, in my opinion, it was expert distraction which (in part) helped Obama secure a second term and will help him escape from any taint from the death of the Ambassador."

Yours just sounds like handicapping a loss, more shoulda-woulda-coulda noise.

I don't find you credible in this instance, or many others.

So, again to clarify, a random supposition based entirely on baseless speculation is plausible. Meanwhile, I detail a bunch of facts which suggest to anyone with basic common sense that there are politics at work. That is conspiracy theory according to you. I'm sure that Republicans aren't going after Rice because, she gave a (now known) false statement to the world. I'm sure there is no validity to the claims that someone altered the CIA reports to sound like a terrorist assault was really just a protest gone wrong. In your world view, I sure all non-Republicans are honest and straightforward with no hidden agendas.

Let me make myself clear; this is a classic GOP ploy to obstruct the Nation's business in another pointless, partisan witch hunt - when there are serious matters before the Congress (fiscal cliff, guns in Damascus, recovery of NY/NJ).

The very idea that a couple senior, Republican senators could elevate this to dominate the upper and lower chambers, again as with Whitewater/Paula Jones/Lewinsky points to a character flaw in the Republican opposition; a willingness to bring the whole works to a halt to take down a President.

It's treasonous, and one party is liable for the shaky condition of our Republic.

You would NEVER have heard this sort of thing reach the public under Bush 43.
It only happens when Democrats hold the White House.

It happened with McCarthy, Nixon and Gingrich. It should be clear by now that if there's cloak and dagger maneuvering in the halls to make gains over the graves of Patriots - it's not Democrats skulking about.

Like I said in my first post - we can smell a diversion.

They're too busy lining their pockets.

So this only happens with a GOP in charge? How about the push to bring Bush up on war crimes? How about The floating chad idiocy? How about Watergate? Again, you show your willingness to overlook facts which disagree with your points. There are two reasons politicians engage in this sort of behavior. Pollitical gain and valid reasoning. Usually, it is a mix of both. You may want to consider this seeing as it seems to be the guiding motive behind your arguments. You're not always entirely wrong but you are always pushing your one- sided agenda.

How about The floating chad idiocy?

Considering that Gore won Florida, it's not idiocy to question the legitimacy of a recount conducted by partisan officials. The most important, stable democracy in the world deserves a professional, independent apparatus to tabulate results.

Had the "questionable" ballots been tossed, Gore would have carried the day.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-04-03-excluded.htm

http://www.tfd.org.tw/docs/dj0201/George%20C.%20Edwards%20III.pdf

"What really made the difference in this election -- as ``Johnny Rocco'' knew -- is that when outcomes are this close, what matters is who counts the votes and how."
http://web.archive.org/web/20011126032411/www.miami.com/herald/special/news/flacount/docs/078536.htm

"So this only happens with a GOP in charge?"
Name one instance where a Democratic charge to indict has made it out of committee.

Rep. Denis Kucinich read 35 articles of impeachment on the Senate floor the day of Shrub's last State of the Union address. While it was brilliant symbolism,
it was killed off by none other than Nancy ("We'll have to pass it first...") Pelosi.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=471238

"How about Watergate?"

Are you comparing an concerted effort by a sitting US President to infiltrate, undermine and spy on the opposition by clandestine means - USING THE CIA -
to the love lives of two powerful men? Really?

That's sort of the point - Watergate was an actual conspiracy.

The difference? Republican investigations keep turning over rocks until they find something slithering in a corner. Democratic investigations start with a rock thrown through a window. In the Watergate investigation, that rock has a GOP stamp.

Spare us the false equivocations, Bill.

"Again, you show your willingness to overlook facts which disagree with your points. There are two reasons politicians engage in this sort of behavior. Pollitical gain and valid reasoning."

I'm not sure what you're saying, there.

I'll gladly consider facts with citation and attribution.

Gore did not win Florida. I don't necessarily blame him for doing whatever it took to try to win it, but he didn't. Bush did condone torture. Bill Clinton did lie. Watergate happened. An Ambassador was killed in an act of terrorism. The sex lives of powerful men are just a side effect of power corrupting. That said, when you lie and chat and steal, eventually it catches up with you. In my opinion, the fact that it came up now is a result of Obama attempting to scapegoat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1360090/Did-Al-Gore-win-after-all-US-newspapers-would-rather-not-say.html

"Gore did not win Florida."
Perhaps you mean to say, Gore was not declared the winner in Florida.

"In my opinion, the fact that it came up now is a result of Obama attempting to scapegoat." Okay, so that's a supposition. No evidence to support it, to date.

Lots of theories, to be sure - plenty of Talk Radio lather - but no evidence.

"Again, in my opinion, it was expert distraction which (in part) helped Obama secure a second term and will help him escape from any taint from the death of the Ambassador."

I would claim that this has been flogged for political points from a purely partisan position, and forced to a headline much as with Carter and the Iranian hostages.

Compare this to the coverage given the Miami Herald story about vote manipulation
in the Florida recount. The difference is stark.

If a Democrat is in the crosshairs, pursuit is relentless.
If it's a Republican, we put it behind us for "The good of the country."

Which party launched this media offensive?
Which party undid Carter with the same tactics?

As I said before:

Call it what it was then for Clinton, and now for Petraeus - much ado about nothing.

"How about the float chad idiocy"..
even I thought that was for the National Enquirer..what about Hazel?? lest we forget
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellenjo/7213242510/

I meant exactly what I said. Gore did not win Florida. If he had, he would have been President. For better or worse, the election process is what it is. You may disagree with it when your guy loses, but that's how it is. As to my suposition, yes it is not based on any information you've seen. Just based on common knowledge though, the relationship was going on for a year.. The investigation into harassment started in May. The affair was made public the day after the election. The Lybia hearing was scheduled to start a few days later. You have bought into the distraction. Keep in mind that the investigation is into what led up to the death of an Ambassador. It was the Obama administration and the media who pushed that to the back and the affair to the front.

RI will be an interesting "canary in the coal mine" in the future America.

The question of our ability to generate good private jobs and wealth in comparison to our immediate neighbors will be a benchmark of how right or wrong we've been.

We can blog philosophy all we want, but without good private sector jobs, RI itself will become a handout state much like many of it's residents. We can't live on tourism forever.

"There is no shame anymore, no integrity."

You mean, few people consider your opinion relevant?
Two sides to every disagreement. Facts matter, if you don't have them...
you're spouting off, who listens to anyone else rant?

"We have legislators that want to legalize pot, give illegals the write to drive, which in the end will end up giving them the right to vote and disenfranchise the legals and natural born citizens of this state."

One way to save taxpayer money would be to decriminalize Marijuana possession.
http://marijuana-arrests.com/US-arrests.html

Where is your proof that Illegal aliens will receive RIDL?
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/oct/16/david-quiroa/david-quiroa-says-rhode-island-has-allowed-illegal/

The demographics of this state, and many others is shifting to a younger population whose first language isn't English. Get used to it, Gramps.

"This is the permissiveness that rots societies."
Spare us the Calvinist lecture.

Do try to stay on topic, won't you?

"We are going the way of Greece and it will be painful."
Not if we prosecute tax cheats the way you suggest we should prosecute the undocumented kitchen staff that has a dime bag in the trunk...

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/business/global/greece-renews-struggle-against-tax-evasion.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1353603549-9+pYyag6DLj0LX8oBnz/7A

Face it, you're going after the soft target - not the real criminals.
Irrelevant, again.

PS. A sad state of affairs and yet more proof of the double dealing destroying our Country.

"Anyone with half a brain could see this obvious plan in my opinion anyway."

Lemmings have that sort of neural capacity, I suppose.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

Time to get stuffed, Jack.

Gee NL, don't you ever have an opinion yourself, other than links to other opinions and name calling. Sad very sad. Well thats all the replies to you today, so as not to load of the thread with nonsensicle rhetoric and links lol. Know it won't work but hey to each thier own little world I guess.

"Gee NL, don't you ever have an opinion yourself, other than links to other opinions and name calling." I did state my opinion, as shown above.

I attempt to contain my remarks to the original topic.

You might try that, someday.

SSDD -

no regr allia b

1:36 pm on Monday, October 29, 2012

Fox News is not the same as its pundit arm of The 5, Oreilly, Hannity Susturn etc.

One thing not in dispute for me is the Adminstration is either lying on this issue or holding back for political reasons. That is an issult and disgusting to those brave Americans who died in this terrorist attack as well as the attack at Fort Hood which Obama still calls workplace violence. Disgusting also. Just my opinion anyway.

Must we rehash this? If your opinion isn't original, it doesn't deserve consideration.

Patriots died serving their country in a foreign land - they deserve better than to be made a political talking point by armchair warriors like us (LeaveRI, excluded).

Please, your making a mockery out of this site.

Really.
Responding to posts that have nothing to do with the Original Post, or taking blowhards to task is mockery? What's YOUR definition?

I would claim that the opposite holds true: regular posters like Govstench,
no regr allia b, Joe Sousa and others have a light grasp on reality which they regularly illustrate here. It's a public forum; they're free to express their opinions, I'm free to point out the falsehoods contained within.

It's a circle of life thing. This country ground to a halt when people espousing just this sort of half-baked conspiratorial fantasy got elected to the House.

Look what happens, when people sit on the sidelines and allow this sort of thing to dominate the airwaves - you get the mess in New Hampshire that will divide friends and families for decades.

I'll stop refutation when the submissions no longer insult my intelligence.
I'm not very sharp, so that bar is set pretty low.

mockery: 4. A false, derisive, or impudent imitation:

" You just continue to repeat what others say, demean them and add nothing that makes sense."

That's how citation works, Bob.
Perhaps I should include a reference defining some of the big words?

Lead, follow or get out of the way, Gramps.

Have you read it, or just the jacket?

Did you know that Harry Potter dies, in the end?
"History proves you wrong time and time again,"

About what? That you can't really make a battery out of potatoes?
That only those of us that reproduce actually make a difference?

What?

I say again - what's the best part of the book you most favor?

I'm all for education, why not demonstrate some of yours?
I'm guessing "Communism is bad" may be one of your conclusions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9WduykYpA&feature=relmfu

I can also claim that "Finnegan's wake" is a great book.
Not that I've read that, either.

One of the things that stick out in my mind is the Author seems to think Communism could work . The problem is in the people as Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolute. The people of Russia believed because things were so bad for them. It wasn't long before the new Government was shown to be as bad as the previous. Two classes evolved the haves, and the have knots . So much of this reminds me of what we see in America today. The Candy Man passing out the goods so people follow him. Running up debt with no way to pay it. The Russians invaded other countries in Europe and began to strip their wealth and resources. They left behind pouted cities broken and penniless. With no industry the USSR became insolvent. They had little to sell to foreign markets so their currency devalued. This also reminds me of America as our factories close leaving for foreign soils . History repeats itself when people don't have knowledge of it.
The 50% that appose this move toward a Socialistic Government are the Informed . They see the writing on the wall. God Bless America and our Constitution.

These outbursts are precisely why I got involved in the Patch, in the first place.

geeze = Geezer?

That's a catchy signoff, Jack.
Appropos, no less.

Not relevent to article, just part of the "gnivloving". Stalk someone else, last answer to you for a while also. Sorry to ruin your stalker enjoyment before the holidays. Not!!

lol

Jack-Pay no attention to bigmanny-evidently he did not get the memo telling the world that you were the King of the Patch.

"They come to a Tea Party rallies and find the most extreme person to show on the news. I have been to many rallies and the bulk of these people only want our country to succeed. Stop the spending of our children's future."

So says the childless, middle-aged man that ran for Tiverton School committee
on a platform of "ICFAT".

Let's call the Tea party what it is - well-off older people that don't see the benefit of public services that THEY don't use. You're about your property taxes, Joe.

You lot are the Moral Majority in a Tri-cornered hat.
Nothing more.

" What the Beltway media have failed to understand is that there are two Tea Parties: there's the "Astroturf Tea Party", the well-funded machine pushing a message of absolute rejection of all social spending; and then there's the grassroots Tea Party, the everyday conservatives who actually show up at rallies, who demand to see the president's birth certificate, and who oppose government spending while also demanding that no one touch their Medicare. Those folks are the voters, and Republicans know they must be fed. And those folks aren't opposed to the religious right, since they are, to a large extent, the same as the religious right."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/25/tea-party-movement-republicans

You drawing Medicare, Stench?
Who pays for that?

Working at Raytheon/US Naval base?
Who pays for that?

"The ignorant are easily fooled ."

I won't presume to lecture in your area of expertise, Jethro.

"You buy the hype and post your links ."
So, if a validated citation from an independent source disagrees with your
"You're on your own" worldview - it's hype?

Maybe, just maybe - the approach you advocate is bankrupt like the former CCCP.

"I didn't run for School Committee Just shows how uninformed you are "
Considering that the TCC lead town council focused on the largest line item -
there's no doubt what you're about - gutting the schools.

You know, for the "future of our children"?

You should have Joe you could have gottn rid of those 12 do nothing teachers. Who were they by way I forgot who you said there names were. Oh thats right you couldn't name them they didn't exist just another lie.

Will you play Shemp, Joe?

He's the Stooge that thought they were filming a documentary.
He died before he learned that he WAS the joke...

Joe why do you keep dodging the question it's been over a year name the 12 do nothing teachers.

Joe you are still dodging the question you said you knew of 12 do nothing teachers you raised the issue it is up to you to name the names. You have not answered because you can't because you made it up like most of your posts. Joe it's time to put up or shut up just admit it you lied.