Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:34 AM Nov 2012

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.


20 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I Agree
17 (85%)
I Disagree
2 (10%)
I Don't Care
0 (0%)
Other
1 (5%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
46 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Poll: The Petraeus Affair Should Be a Call for Executive Branch Housecleaning. (Original Post) MineralMan Nov 2012 OP
Old proverb... IphengeniaBlumgarten Nov 2012 #1
Could be, but I don't think so. MineralMan Nov 2012 #2
2nd election mandate should be the reasoning for this. nt seabeyond Nov 2012 #3
Yes. I mentioned that. The President MineralMan Nov 2012 #6
kick the Bushies and their cronies out for good! librechik Nov 2012 #4
I have completely different take on this crap. 99Forever Nov 2012 #5
The head of the CIA probably doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conduct of his Romulox Nov 2012 #8
If you are ok with living in an... 99Forever Nov 2012 #10
Why oh why can't the country's TOP SPY have his privacy? Romulox Nov 2012 #11
I am quite serious. 99Forever Nov 2012 #12
You are incoherent. Your argument is risible. Maybe some CAPS will help? Romulox Nov 2012 #13
Can we move on to "Secret Wars and Selected Killings Society" Coyotl Nov 2012 #40
From what I've read MynameisBlarney Nov 2012 #27
Blackwell's (or whatever her name is) communications were NOT... 99Forever Nov 2012 #28
The problem you seem to be having here is that you're simply making up your own facts. Romulox Nov 2012 #30
Apparently, Broadwell admitted to taking the classified documents and allowed the search/seizure. Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #14
She was "embedded" with the military. She obviously doesn't have a reasonable expectation of Romulox Nov 2012 #15
Did the FBI have... 99Forever Nov 2012 #19
I don't know but warrants aren't required if you admit guilt and voluntarily allow a search. Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #23
And again I say... 99Forever Nov 2012 #24
They weren't private when she turned over her computer. Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #25
I have answered this same meme.. 99Forever Nov 2012 #32
If you or I voluntarily gave a stack of standard Post Office delivered mail that we received to Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #33
You clearly... 99Forever Nov 2012 #34
Where was this "other peoples' Private communications" that you speak of? Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #35
Nope. 99Forever Nov 2012 #37
That leaves leaves me with two premises. Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #38
You can assume any... 99Forever Nov 2012 #43
CAPS are not a SUBSTITUTE for READING THE FACTS of the CASE. The ACTUAL FACTS. Not the ones Romulox Nov 2012 #31
she asked them to look at it libodem Nov 2012 #44
Yes... 99Forever Nov 2012 #46
You may want to reach for the shelf for a new book, military law. Coyotl Nov 2012 #41
Petraeus was appointed as CIA director by Barack Obama. He isn't a "Bush holdover", any more than Romulox Nov 2012 #7
He is a Bush Neo-Con nonetheless, and probably was the DNI's pick for the job, not Obama's. Coyotl Nov 2012 #42
No it shouldn't gravity Nov 2012 #9
"Other" tledford Nov 2012 #16
I believe there is much more than an affair to this story, however Uncle Joe Nov 2012 #17
With all the demands on him Obama could have overlooked the flamingdem Nov 2012 #18
I see no reason to shitcan people like Ray LaHood. Kaleva Nov 2012 #20
Um...I'd want a housecleaning even if this story never saw the light of day... Blue_Tires Nov 2012 #21
Yes, of course. MineralMan Nov 2012 #22
Yes, they need to clear the brush of Bushes libodem Nov 2012 #26
Late, but sure, why not. n/t Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #29
I want to discuss this a little more libodem Nov 2012 #36
While I agree, the Petraeus Scandal is more a timely gift and reminder than a call Coyotl Nov 2012 #39
Is it usual for a military person libodem Nov 2012 #45

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
2. Could be, but I don't think so.
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:55 AM
Nov 2012

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

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
6. Yes. I mentioned that. The President
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:10 AM
Nov 2012

should be unencumbered with worrying about anything but governing.

librechik

(30,659 posts)
4. kick the Bushies and their cronies out for good!
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:00 AM
Nov 2012

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!

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
5. I have completely different take on this crap.
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:08 AM
Nov 2012

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......

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
8. The head of the CIA probably doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conduct of his
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:13 AM
Nov 2012

duties.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
10. If you are ok with living in an...
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:27 AM
Nov 2012

... 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.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
11. Why oh why can't the country's TOP SPY have his privacy?
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:30 AM
Nov 2012

Are you serious?

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

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

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
12. I am quite serious.
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:44 AM
Nov 2012

Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:18 PM - 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.

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
40. Can we move on to "Secret Wars and Selected Killings Society"
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:34 PM
Nov 2012

We moved way past spying long ago!

MynameisBlarney

(2,979 posts)
27. From what I've read
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:15 PM
Nov 2012

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.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
28. Blackwell's (or whatever her name is) communications were NOT...
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:40 PM
Nov 2012

.. 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.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
30. The problem you seem to be having here is that you're simply making up your own facts.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:37 AM
Nov 2012

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.

Uncle Joe

(58,029 posts)
14. Apparently, Broadwell admitted to taking the classified documents and allowed the search/seizure.
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:58 PM
Nov 2012


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.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
15. She was "embedded" with the military. She obviously doesn't have a reasonable expectation of
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:03 PM
Nov 2012

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

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
19. Did the FBI have...
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:28 PM
Nov 2012

.. 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?

Uncle Joe

(58,029 posts)
23. I don't know but warrants aren't required if you admit guilt and voluntarily allow a search.
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:42 PM
Nov 2012


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.



99Forever

(14,524 posts)
24. And again I say...
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:46 PM
Nov 2012

... 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?

Uncle Joe

(58,029 posts)
25. They weren't private when she turned over her computer.
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:53 PM
Nov 2012


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.[25] The emails reportedly indicated that Broadwell suspected Kelley of starting an affair with General David Petraeus, who was a friend of Kelley's.[25] 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.[25] After Broadwell turned over her computer, classified documents were found, which led to further FBI scrutiny of her relationship with Petraeus.[26][25] 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.[27][3]

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
32. I have answered this same meme..
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:39 PM
Nov 2012

... 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.

Uncle Joe

(58,029 posts)
33. If you or I voluntarily gave a stack of standard Post Office delivered mail that we received to
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:54 PM
Nov 2012

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.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
34. You clearly...
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:30 PM
Nov 2012

... 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.

Uncle Joe

(58,029 posts)
35. Where was this "other peoples' Private communications" that you speak of?
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:36 PM
Nov 2012

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?

Uncle Joe

(58,029 posts)
38. That leaves leaves me with two premises.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:25 PM
Nov 2012

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.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
43. You can assume any...
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:06 PM
Nov 2012

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

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
31. CAPS are not a SUBSTITUTE for READING THE FACTS of the CASE. The ACTUAL FACTS. Not the ones
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:38 AM
Nov 2012

made up BY YOU.

libodem

(19,288 posts)
44. she asked them to look at it
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:10 PM
Nov 2012

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.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
46. Yes...
Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:00 AM
Nov 2012

... 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."

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
41. You may want to reach for the shelf for a new book, military law.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:38 PM
Nov 2012

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!

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
7. Petraeus was appointed as CIA director by Barack Obama. He isn't a "Bush holdover", any more than
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:12 AM
Nov 2012

Ben Bernanke is.

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
42. He is a Bush Neo-Con nonetheless, and probably was the DNI's pick for the job, not Obama's.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:50 PM
Nov 2012

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

gravity

(4,157 posts)
9. No it shouldn't
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:21 AM
Nov 2012

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.

Uncle Joe

(58,029 posts)
17. I believe there is much more than an affair to this story, however
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:14 PM
Nov 2012

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

flamingdem

(39,300 posts)
18. With all the demands on him Obama could have overlooked the
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:15 PM
Nov 2012

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

libodem

(19,288 posts)
26. Yes, they need to clear the brush of Bushes
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:12 PM
Nov 2012

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.

libodem

(19,288 posts)
36. I want to discuss this a little more
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:10 PM
Nov 2012

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.

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
39. While I agree, the Petraeus Scandal is more a timely gift and reminder than a call
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:30 PM
Nov 2012

and more one to examine the military than the Executive.

libodem

(19,288 posts)
45. Is it usual for a military person
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:20 PM
Nov 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Poll: The Petraeus Affair...