In response to:

Petraeus: We Knew Benghazi Was Terrorism "Almost Immediately"

Ohio_Conservative457 Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 2:19 PM
OK Roosonhead... good points. But here's the rub... Eric Holder held a press conference and stated that his department didn't advise Obozo's people of the investigation because there was 0% evidence of any National Security risk after their investigation..... Wanna Bet That's The Real Truth???? I believe Absolutely NOTHING that comes from Holder's mouth! He's already ran to daddy to protect him from Congress on F&F and daddy complied.... in his own interest, of course! They are liars and not to be taken at their word... PERIOD! TCG-L
roosonhead Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 4:02 PM
Now let's look at it politically.

By not telling the President during an election cycle, Holder provides his boss with deniability and insulation from uncomfortable truths. This is a major function of a Cabinet member. Cabinet members are just politically appointed figureheads of agencies. They do exercise some control but the agencies are run by their deputy directors and senior career employees. But they also act as a fall guy for the administration.

In this way, Holder did exactly what he was asked to do, insulate the President politically and provide deniability. Jumping under the bus is part of the job. This isn't partisan every admin has done it. e.g. Leavitt with HHS/FEMA for Katrina.
roosonhead Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 3:44 PM
Then it's a matter of answering questions like: Is this a Security Risk that we can monitor, exploit, and control? Are we sufficiently on top of the situation to that the Risk although present is no longer an threat?

We have to remember that an affair, is unbecoming but not illegal. It's unprofessional for a General and dangerous for security but not criminal. We also have to accept that hundreds of similar security risks like this exist at any given time and that some are actually threatening and some are not.

It is the job of the FBI and the AG to decide which are threatening and which aren't. I don't trust Holder, but I do trust the professional career FBI counter-espionage agents who are advising him on this.
roosonhead Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 3:18 PM
Thanks for your reply OC.Let's step back a little and look at the situation globally.

I agree Holder has unimpeded access to the President, but so what? What would telling the President accomplish in this situation? What is Obama going to do other than tell Holder to carry on?

I'm sure that the number people in sensitive positions that have exploitable personal issues (high debt, affairs, addictions, etc.) is staggering. The FBI monitors all of them with not just a few agents but a very large group of agents who do this for a living and have been for decades. Whether the President knows or doesn't know of the affair, likely would not affect the way the FBI handled its investigation or performed its duties.
Ohio_Conservative457 Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 2:53 PM
Sorry for the misspelling of your name Roos.... but here's more food for thought!

Like I said... Holder, in his press conference stated that 'Yes... we did have an investigation ongoing... but we really didn't need to advise the president since we couldn't find any National Security Risk'....
Really... The Director of the CIA has been Compromised... may have made a little pillow talk... and this doesn't rise to the level of at least advising the POTUS some RISK to National Security may be in play??? Do You Really Think Holder did the right thing... or just glad he kept it to himself!

Bah Humbug! There is once again is.... 'Something Seriously Rotten In Denmark' (sic)!

Ohio_Conservative457 Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 2:46 PM
Your're living in La La Land, there Roon.....!

Holder can walk directly into Obozo's office at any time and whisper in his big fat ear anytime he wants! He is an Obozo Appointee and has no one to answer to than Obozo himself! Get Real!

Your argument have no foundation of support!

roosonhead Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 2:30 PM
Holder has to walk a fine line with who he shares information with. If he tell the Chief of Staff something, Lew being a politician may choose to use that information politically which may compromise any ongoing investigations into the situation. Why does the anyone but the president need to know about the investigation?

Stating that their was no security risk is intended to ease the fears of the American public and to let foreign nations know that the FBI is aware of our vulnerabilities so not to try anything. We'd be foolish to think that foreign intelligence services did not know of the affair and its potential use.

I think Holder actually did the right thing here.

CNN landed the scoop regarding what former CIA Director and four star general David Petraeus is telling members of Congress behind closed doors today:

CNN reports that former Central Intelligence Agency director David H. Petraeus wants to tell Congress that he knew “almost immediately” that the attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was perpetrated by terrorists. According to the source, reports attributing the attack to protests surrounding an anti-Islam video and protests in Cairo were not disproven until after Petraeus made his initial report to Congress. Despite that, according to CNN, Petraeus had separate talking points from Rice’s...