HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Poll: The Petraeus Affair...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:34 AM

Poll: The Petraeus Affair Should Be a Call for Executive Branch Housecleaning.

It's time to clear away Bush appointees and hangers-on from all positions of authority. Since this is President Obama's second and last term, there is no earthly reason to keep those connected with the Bush administration in any way in cabinet or other executive positions. President Obama should demand the immediate resignation of each and every person over whom he has appointment authority who has or has had any connection to Bush or Republicans .

Then, new appointees to each position should be carefully selected to exclude anyone with ties to the Republican Party or the Bush Administration. It is simply time for all such people to be excluded from leadership of all organizations under the authority of the Executive Branch. New appointees should have, as their earliest responsibility, the immediate removal of all personnel in their organizations who have engaged in any obstructive behavior.


28 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I Agree
25 (89%)
I Disagree
2 (7%)
I Don't Care
0 (0%)
Other
1 (4%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

46 replies, 1950 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Poll: The Petraeus Affair Should Be a Call for Executive Branch Housecleaning. (Original post)
MineralMan Nov 2012 OP
IphengeniaBlumgarten Nov 2012 #1
MineralMan Nov 2012 #2
seabeyond Nov 2012 #3
MineralMan Nov 2012 #6
librechik Nov 2012 #4
99Forever Nov 2012 #5
Romulox Nov 2012 #8
99Forever Nov 2012 #10
Romulox Nov 2012 #11
99Forever Nov 2012 #12
Romulox Nov 2012 #13
Coyotl Nov 2012 #40
MynameisBlarney Nov 2012 #27
99Forever Nov 2012 #28
Romulox Nov 2012 #30
Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #14
Romulox Nov 2012 #15
99Forever Nov 2012 #19
Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #23
99Forever Nov 2012 #24
Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #25
99Forever Nov 2012 #32
Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #33
99Forever Nov 2012 #34
Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #35
99Forever Nov 2012 #37
Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #38
99Forever Nov 2012 #43
Romulox Nov 2012 #31
libodem Nov 2012 #44
99Forever Nov 2012 #46
Coyotl Nov 2012 #41
Romulox Nov 2012 #7
Coyotl Nov 2012 #42
gravity Nov 2012 #9
tledford Nov 2012 #16
Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #17
flamingdem Nov 2012 #18
Kaleva Nov 2012 #20
Blue_Tires Nov 2012 #21
MineralMan Nov 2012 #22
libodem Nov 2012 #26
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #29
libodem Nov 2012 #36
Coyotl Nov 2012 #39
libodem Nov 2012 #45

Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:53 AM

1. Old proverb...

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Maybe that was/is the strategy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IphengeniaBlumgarten (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:55 AM

2. Could be, but I don't think so.

Most of those appointments were made to keep the Republicans from blocking the appointments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:57 AM

3. 2nd election mandate should be the reasoning for this. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:10 AM

6. Yes. I mentioned that. The President

should be unencumbered with worrying about anything but governing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:00 AM

4. kick the Bushies and their cronies out for good!

they burrowed in everywhere (the head of the CIA fgs!) and job one for them is to invisibly fuck over the Obama admin.

Get them out and get your own liberal staff to do your programs, Mr. President--you've waited long enough!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:08 AM

5. I have completely different take on this crap.

I can't figure out why it doesn't seem to even raise a bit of concern about personal privacy and unwarranted searches, simply because it's "one of theirs" being the target. Not a single judge was even consulted in this witch hunt. NOT A SINGLE WARRANT WAS EVEN SOUGHT.

None. Zero. Ziltch.

I don't know about anyone else, but that troubles the fuck out of me. If it doesn't you... well......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:13 AM

8. The head of the CIA probably doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conduct of his

duties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:27 AM

10. If you are ok with living in an...

... authoritarian surveillance society, that is certainly your right to have that opinion. I don't think it bodes well for any of us. Big Brother IS watching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:30 AM

11. Why oh why can't the country's TOP SPY have his privacy?

Are you serious?

"If you are ok with living in an...authoritarian surveillance society"

Do you know what the "Central Intelligence Agency" ("CIA") is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:44 AM

12. I am quite serious.

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

To make what I am saying clear, I do not consider ANY member of our government, either above the law, or undeserving of the law's basic protections and rights. There was NO judicial oversight in this mess. People who were NOT government officials and those who were, had their PRIVATE communications HACKED, without warrants. That is wrong, very fucking wrong IMO. just because YOU have a hardon for "them," doesn't make doing the wrong thing right.



Tho you might think that insulting people for simply expressing an opinion you don't agree with, is a valid form of discussion, I don't. You've simply made yourself and your words, irrelevant.


Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:48 AM

13. You are incoherent. Your argument is risible. Maybe some CAPS will help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:34 PM

40. Can we move on to "Secret Wars and Selected Killings Society"

We moved way past spying long ago!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:15 PM

27. From what I've read

This was a prearranged deal, Broadwell admitted she had these documents, and gave the FBI permission to retrieve them.

While I am in agreement with your overall argument, in this case, I don't think any rights were violated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MynameisBlarney (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:40 PM

28. Blackwell's (or whatever her name is) communications were NOT...

.. the only PRIVATE communications hacked, WITHOUT a warrant, even after the fact. Nor has ANYONE been charged with a crime to justify invading other peoples PRIVATE conversations. This woman does NOT sit on a Federal judicial bench and as such, cannot grant permission to search and seize ANYONE'S PRIVATE conversations, except her own.

We screamed when it happened to Bill Clinton. We were OUTRAGED at the Nixon Enemies List and the actions taken against those on it. But now, simply because it's a "we gotcha" on "them," it's a-okay.

We go closer and closer to an authoritarian police state with each and every new violation of our rights (yes, even the rights of those who's politics we oppose) that we let slide by.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:37 AM

30. The problem you seem to be having here is that you're simply making up your own facts.

I suggest you continue to make hyperbolic comments that don't really engage in the specifics of the facts of this case. That way, you can maintain your outrage even when, as here, there is really no basis in reality for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:58 AM

14. Apparently, Broadwell admitted to taking the classified documents and allowed the search/seizure.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014304358

A source familiar with case told ABC News that Broadwell admitted to the FBI she took the documents from secure government buildings. The government demanded that they all be given back, and when federal agents descended on her North Carolina home on Monday night it was a pre-arranged meeting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:03 PM

15. She was "embedded" with the military. She obviously doesn't have a reasonable expectation of

privacy with regard to behavior that has to do with her enhanced security clearance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:28 PM

19. Did the FBI have...

.. a search warrant or did they not? This woman's PRIVATE communications were not the only ones hacked. Did they have warrants or written permission to do so? Did the FBI even seek warrants, even after the fact? What Federal law was violated to justify search and seizure? Is having an affair now a violation of Federal Law? Under what statute would that fall?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:42 PM

23. I don't know but warrants aren't required if you admit guilt and voluntarily allow a search.



A source familiar with case told ABC News that Broadwell admitted to the FBI she took the documents from secure government buildings. The government demanded that they all be given back, and when federal agents descended on her North Carolina home on Monday night it was a pre-arranged meeting.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:46 PM

24. And again I say...

... the woman's PRIVATE communications WERE NOT the only people's hacked. She cannot give permission to HACK anyone's email except her own, that is, unless she is a Federal Court Judge. Is she?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:53 PM

25. They weren't private when she turned over her computer.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Broadwell


Petraeus affairIn or about May 2012, Jill Kelley, a social liaison to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, began to receive emails that she considered to be threatening and harassing. She contacted the FBI, who traced the emails to Broadwell. The emails reportedly indicated that Broadwell suspected Kelley of starting an affair with General David Petraeus, who was a friend of Kelley's. Although the sending of the emails was deemed to be insufficient grounds for a criminal charge, the FBI called Broadwell in for questioning, at which time she admitted to the affair with Petraeus. After Broadwell turned over her computer, classified documents were found, which led to further FBI scrutiny of her relationship with Petraeus. Although Petraeus was not identified as the provider of the documents, the affair was revealed in early November 2012 and was cited by Petraeus as the reason for his resignation on November 9.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:39 PM

32. I have answered this same meme..

... more than once. You have chosen to ignore the facts I raised. Your circular argument is a waste of both of our time.


Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #32)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:54 PM

33. If you or I voluntarily gave a stack of standard Post Office delivered mail that we received to

to the FBI because we were under investigation, do you honestly believe the FBI or any police organization would require a warrant to view every letter depending on who we received it from?

It would be our mail not the senders as it was sent to us, was in our possession and we handed it over.

If you send me a letter it's not yours' anymore, it's mine and visa versa.

You have nice day as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #33)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:30 PM

34. You clearly...

... either honestly because of lack of comprehension, or deliberately for more nefarious reasons, are avoiding the very essence of what I said. The FBI went hunting in other people's PRIVATE communications that were NOT on the computer they had "permission" to go through. Frankly, if that doesn't get through your skull, I can't help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:36 PM

35. Where was this "other peoples' Private communications" that you speak of?

Was it in her house which apparently she allowed the FBI to search without a warrant or was it in her computer which she voluntarily handed over?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:14 PM

37. Nope.

Find someone else to play your games with, I'm done with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #37)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:25 PM

38. That leaves leaves me with two premises.

1. You don't know.

2. They either found it in her home which she apparently allowed to be searched without a warrant or on her computer which she voluntarily turned over.

I agree with you that warrants should be required to search someone's home or computer but if you voluntarily allow them possession of your computer or to search your home it makes no difference.

In short the FBI is not to blame for trying to find evidence about a potential national security breach either with or without a warrant, it's up to us to exercise our rights and when we give them up, we have no one else to blame but ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #38)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:06 PM

43. You can assume any...

.. fucking thing you please. I told I was finished with your crap. Off to ignored with your rude ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:38 AM

31. CAPS are not a SUBSTITUTE for READING THE FACTS of the CASE. The ACTUAL FACTS. Not the ones

made up BY YOU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:10 PM

44. she asked them to look at it

She went to them I'm pretty sure. No one in this day and age has any reasonable expectation of privacy. Right to privacy is long gone. Everything we say on a phone or write in a text or go online is preserved for all eternity. No reasonable guilt exists anymore. It's all recorded somewhere and its a snap to retrieve and translate into script. That getting a warrent went out with Bush. In the name of national security you can fuck probable cause.

We do need to fight to have our right to privacy restored.
It is all but lost in one generation.

Swear, history will look back on Bushco as the begining of a modern dark age. He shock doctrined this country so hard and took so many constitutional laws away with the patriot act.
If anything needs repealed it's that POS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #44)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:00 AM

46. Yes...

... and we have let the bastards get away with it. Clearly, from just the legalize horsepucky posted in just this thread, there are lots of fools that really don't understand what it is we have given away. As long as they have a screen to live in, and are "connected" 24/7, that's all that matters. It never dawns on them that a some point, when some bureaucrat decides to fuck with them, they will have provided the means to do it, because as the only hero I've ever had said...

"Everybody's got sumpthin' to hide, 'cept for me and my monkey."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:38 PM

41. You may want to reach for the shelf for a new book, military law.

You need to frame your questions in terms of the military laws as applied to these persons. They voluntarily place themselves under that set of rules of conduct and consequences, including a law against adultery! So, there was a crime!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:12 AM

7. Petraeus was appointed as CIA director by Barack Obama. He isn't a "Bush holdover", any more than

Ben Bernanke is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:50 PM

42. He is a Bush Neo-Con nonetheless, and probably was the DNI's pick for the job, not Obama's.

On edit, NOTE who got to send him on his way!!

Director of National Intelligence announces anti-leak measures
June 25, 2012 | By Ken Dilanian

In an effort to make it more difficult for the news media to divulge secret programs, America’s top intelligence official plans to seek more non-criminal leak investigations and to require intelligence agency employees to answer in polygraph examinations whether they have disclosed classified information to journalists, his office announced Monday.


Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:21 AM

9. No it shouldn't

The Democratic party is not going to be better than the Republicans if they start housecleaning based on political leanings.

If the person is competent in their job, it shouldn't matter who appointed them or what party they belong to.

And sex scandals are not exclusive to the Republican party. The same thing can happen to Democratic appointees too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:07 PM

16. "Other"

It's a good thing no one other than Bush appointees has affairs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tledford (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:14 PM

17. I believe there is much more than an affair to this story, however

all things being equal a Bush appointee would be more likely to undermine the Obama Administration under the threat of blackmail from adulterous behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:15 PM

18. With all the demands on him Obama could have overlooked the

column of undermining Republicans just chomping at the bit, they need to be put out to pasture

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:34 PM

20. I see no reason to shitcan people like Ray LaHood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:36 PM

21. Um...I'd want a housecleaning even if this story never saw the light of day...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:40 PM

22. Yes, of course.

However, there's a better chance for it following this Petraeus crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:12 PM

26. Yes, they need to clear the brush of Bushes

And if the Republicans continue to obstruct the functioning of the government by blocking every appointment just to MAKE our President and OUR county FAIL, the impeachment papers need to be generated.

The taxed enough ready thugs came to congress to represent the Kock brothers. Most of us 47% pay very little in taxes and get it back at the end of the year. The tea party came to disrupt the process of governing. Not to govern or to legislate.

I'm serious as a heart attack. A clear record of obstruction for pure political spite exists from our past four years. It should be public. They should have charges of partisan obstruction leveled at them.

If it continues the charges should be brought and impeachment pursued.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:53 PM

29. Late, but sure, why not. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:10 PM

36. I want to discuss this a little more

Good post M.M. The people Bush, put in many of those positions were purely politically motivated. Most of his candidates had no experience and no qualification other that attending, Bob Jones University.

Purely political ideological plants. They should be fired for the reasons they were hired. Bad people. Inferior limited educations and fierce party loyalty. They will always be traitors to this administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:30 PM

39. While I agree, the Petraeus Scandal is more a timely gift and reminder than a call

and more one to examine the military than the Executive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:20 PM

45. Is it usual for a military person

To take over a civilian post like that. We used to try and separate the military into its branches and the government provided civil service. Somebody has to be the watch dog if you don't want a military dictatorship.

No wonder fucking Afghanistan is such a narcostate nightmare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread