ChezGiven 0 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/bernstein-murdoch-ailes-petreaus-presidency Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30369 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Unbelievable. Sadly it isn't at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Thank you Mrs Petraeus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 http://www.guardian....eaus-presidency Unbelievable. There's layer upon layer of anger here. Upon reading the story I was not surprised but saddened by the element of buying an election and the cynical approach to it of Murdoch & Ailes. I was more annoyed by the problem Bernstein laments though, of this being a section 3 news story for supposed journalists, a story that doesn't surprise or enrage anybody enough to warrant front page coverage. Particularly galling to look at what warranted front page coverage on that day.... http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/print/WSJ_-A001-20121204.pdf But...then again, Murdoch owns the WSJ, so he wasn't going to have that story prominent, even on a day Wills and Kate didn't announce their pregnancy. Unlike the BBC who are duty bound to run negative stories about themselves and make sure it doesn't happen again, none of Murdoch's companies have that duty. But that adds the next layer of annoyance that no other news organisations pick up the baton and hammer them for it until we hear anbout it in the Guardian 2 weeks later. I still wasn't particularly peeved though. All par for the course, until I listened to the tape. I've stopped it 42 seconds in to write this post because I'm so blazing another 13 minutes to go, but the first thing Fox News says to Patreus, commander of an invading army, is.... "Is there anything Fox is doing right or wrong that you want to tell us to do differently" I know US TV propagandise their citizens, but to ask outright, so brazenly, basically "how can we as journalists best serve you to mislead the public into unfailing support?" rather than holding them to account. Staggering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Sorry....course it was the Washington Post so half of that is shite. Other half still stands though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 As much as I've only read how this reflects bad on Murdoch and the media there is incredible stuff about how the dems were running scared of Patreus and needed to silence him, considering what's happened to Patreus since. People are asked to leave the room, so this is a recording only Patreus and McFarland were in on...and it's got out. Is it a tactical leak from the right as the first bit of blow-back against the dems ousting Patreus via a sex scandal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Paranoia abounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30369 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Recommend listening to the tape like. Turned my jaded cynicism to incredulous rage. Like the Wikileaks footage of that photographer and folks being wiped out, you know it goes on, but actually witnessing it gives a whole other dimension. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fox-news-chiefs-failed-attempt-to-enlist-petraeus-as-presidential-candidate/2012/12/03/15fdcea8-3d77-11e2-a2d9-822f58ac9fd5_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Paranoia abounds Q: Okay. But I’m going to tell you that Roger Ailes — and I told him I was coming . . . Petraeus: I love Roger. Q: I know. And he loves you, and everybody at Fox loves you. So what I’m supposed to say directly from him to you, through me, is first of all, is there anything Fox is doing, right or wrong, that you want to tell us to do differently? Petraeus: You know, actually, ask Bret Baier about this, because I actually did say that I thought that. . . . I actually thought, in a sense, sort of the editorial policy of Fox had shifted. Now, that . . . Q: On the online, or on the news channel? Petraeus: Well, I only watch the — you know, the. . . . But I mean, it’s your stories that are online here. But it just struck me that it was almost as if, because they’re going after Obama, they had to go after Obama’s war as well, actually. And I told that to Bret when he was out here. That — again, some of it was headlines, but they . . . Q: Well, headlines is easy to fix, because the lady who does that is the desk next to mine Q: The White House, They feel that Obama had this mandate. And the mandate — in his own mind. Obama wanted to do Obamacare. . . . He wanted to do environment, which is basically controlling all aspects of the economy. And education, which is the future. So he pushed for Obamacare. He got that done. They didn’t anticipate 2010 results. But he now is going to lie low and be very centrist so that they win in ’12 and they get the other two. Now, what they need — and this is not from the chiefs, this is from political people — and what they need to cement it so that it doesn’t get reversed is a third term. And that means 2016, they need to win, the Democrats need to win, and they need to win with their guy. Their kind of guy. So that then you’d have the stuff as locked in place for a generation. Nobody can come in like Reagan came in and reverse. Petraeus: Yeah. Yeah. Q: And that’s their plan. You’re their problem. Petraeus: [Laughs] I’m not. Q: “I’m not” — okay. You can laugh all you want. Here’s the rationale. Petraeus: They can never believe . . . Q: Okay. But they think if you’re chairman, they can’t overrule you. They can’t go against whatever your advice is going to be, militarily. Plus, they have a Colin Powell problem. Where Colin Powell, very successful chairman, is everybody’s sort of rallying point to run for an office where there’s nobody that they think is — that the group can . . . Petraeus: But of course he didn’t run. Q: But he could have. Petraeus: And he wouldn’t have. No. Q: He could have. Politically, he could have. So they look at you and they think, how can we keep him quiet? We don’t want him out on the loose to potentially run in ’12, and we sure don’t want him in ’16. We’ll put him at the CIA, where he can speak publicly twice a year before an open session of Congress. No backgrounders to the press, no Sunday talk shows, no speeches, no nothing. Now, I’m throwing that out as gossip. Whether it’s true or not, whether it’s a bunch of Zardaris wandering around Washington. . . . But I’ve heard that from more than one person. I mean, I’ve heard that from some pretty significant and senior people. Petraeus: Well, look, I mean, I can do math and reason, as well. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-03/lifestyle/35624246_1_petraeus-roger-ailes-fox-news Is it Paranoia when he was warned a year and a half ago the dems wanted to keep him quiet...and all of a sudden there's a sex scandal originating from within the CIA that screws any chance he had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 And of course, Parky is mad and conspiracy nuts are just that etc etc. Its like something out of film, it beggars belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Aye, cheers for posting it. Still not mentioned in owt I usually read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Was the CIA adultery story from the dems to fuck his reputation or from GOP to get rid of the wife in time for 2016? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Was the CIA adultery story from the dems to fuck his reputation or from GOP to get rid of the wife in time for 2016? You can see why he was scared.... Not first lady material anyway. Think Cher is her mam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Politics aside, i can see how he might have been tempted by this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted December 21, 2012 Author Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) There were a numnber of things with Patreus, but I feel the abiding concern was that he was 'off reservation'. The problem the military career guys have when they brush up against the real cut throat wallahs ie politicians is that they aren't good at reading the tea leaves. They've spent their entire lives in rigid chains of command and surrounded by 'stand up guys' and round table desicision making - none of which prepares them for the lions mouth that is Washington and its skirt of lobbies, focus groups and think tanks. Think the admin was aware of the scandal but waited till after the votes were in. Drop into the mix the Benghazi investigations, the proposed presidential run and the ongoing intercene war between the cia and the fbi (blowback from 9/11 and funding drives against Homeland security) the mix was too potent and the outcomes unfathomable. These kinds of scenarios make the nightstalkers nervous. Edited December 21, 2012 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Petraeus: Well . . . Well, Rupert’s after me, as well. Look, I . . . what I have told people is, I truly want to continue to serve my country if it is in a — you know, a quite significantly meaningful position. And there’s all of about two of those in the world. You all have really got to shut your mouths — or shut your . . . Yeah, shut your mouths, too. Petraeus: Yeah. Yeah. But on the other hand, the other folks — on the other hand — I think are going to be in a growth industry. Q: You mean Obamacare . . . Petraeus: No, intelligence. Q: Oh, the bad guys? Petraeus: Yeah, the intelligence community, I think, is going to be . . . Q: The bad guys, or our — you mean our intelligence community? Petraeus: Our intelligence community. Going to have to be. I mean, there’s so much going on. Remarkable hearing him refer to the war machine as a "growth industry". We all know people in this bubble see it that way, war is their work and the more war there is, the better. But that view in a president would be the exact opposite of what it should be. As much as he tries to shroud it in talk of serving his country, the sheer careerist approach to the military is oozing out of every word. She couldn't even comprehend what "industry" he was talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 My criticism of Obama is that on Liberal issues he starts from a right wing position and moves further to the right during negotiation. There ae many examples. He took a public option off the table before starting negotiations on healthcare for example. He has stated he will cut social security and medicare, raising the age of qualification, before the debate has even started. He didn't want to close Gitmo, just move it. Boehner has handed the progressives of the house a boost on this one....it's looking like it's not the republicans Obama needs to convince over the fiscal cliff deal, it's those to the left of himself... These days, political events occur, as it were, twice — the first time as near-tragedy, the second time as farce*. In 2011, President Obama very nearly did immense damage to both the social safety net and the future of his party by offering a disastrous budget deal — a deal that would have raised the Medicare age, cut deeply into other programs, all in return for not much revenue and no rise at all in tax rates. Fortunately, he was saved from himself by what Gail Collins calls the rabid ferrets — the Republican back-benchers who wouldn’t accept any rise in taxes on the rich whatsoever, and effectively scuttled the deal. This time around, Obama holds a much stronger position, yet for a couple of days there he seemed once again to be negotiating with himself. The offer he made earlier this week wasn’t nearly as bad as in 2011, and some reasonable progressives believe that the benefits — extended unemployment benefits, infrastructure, and extension of some other tax breaks that benefit the poor and middle class — are worth giving up a full return to pre-Bush taxes on the wealthy and the cuts in Social Security that would result from changing the price index. But it was an offer, not a deal — and there was good reason to fear that Obama, having arguably already given away too much, was getting ready to give away substantially more. Rabid ferrets to the rescue! It’s still not clear what Boehner thought he was doing In floating his “Plan B” — a ludicrous measure that would largely let the affluent, and even the wealthy, off the hook. Was it an attempt to somehow strengthen his bargaining position? Was he just covering his, um, assets with the GOP base? I don’t know. But he’s definitely disabused the Obama people of any notion that they’re finally having a serious, good-faith negotiation. Furthermore, it’s now clear that he’s having trouble getting his party unified even for a tiny tax rise on the wealthy — which means that he would suffer massive defections in any deal that even a wimpy Obama (if that’s what we have again, which I hope we don’t) might agree to. And that in turn means that any deal would have to have overwhelming Democratic support — which gives progressives in the House, who already feel that Obama has given away too much, a lot of veto power despite their minority status. Some alleged experts still think we’ll have a deal before we go over the cliff. Maybe they know their business, but I don’t see it. And the capitulation we all feared seems a lot less likely than it did two days ago. Thanks, ferrets! http://krugman.blogs...f-barack-obama/ Shocking what catering to the Tea Party has done to the republicans. You would have thought they'd get more 'serious' after a second defeat. Seems they're doubling down on the stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now