On 11/17/2012 09:55 AM, Michael Oke wrote:
Leland,
You really don't understand why the highest spook in the USA cannot have an 
affair?

Why would having an affair be more of a threat to a possible security leek, than having a friendly relationship with anyone else who shares your same interests?

Sex happens, and preferences can vary widely, LOL, so standardizing sex won't work. Sex is just part of human nature, and people can be so easily temped when there's a strong attraction.

There are probably countless affairs going on right now between people involved in every imaginable circumstance without regards to race, religion, sexual preference, political affiliation, gender or high positions in which the individual has access to sensitive intelligence. Former CIA directory, David Petraeus, resigned; because, he was outed by the FBI/CIA. As far as I know, he didn't leek any classified information to anyone unauthorized to receive it.

The standard for anyone with classified information should be they cannot disclose it to anyone not have the proper security clearance.

Regards,

LelandJ


Michael Oke, II 661-349-6221 Contents of this and all messages are intended for their designated recipient. On Nov 17, 2012, at 7:07 AM, lelandj <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/16/2012 06:07 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
At 05:59 AM 11/15/2012 -0600, lelandj wrote:
On 11/15/2012 03:12 AM, Michael Madigan wrote:
She was set up by the White House.
I don't think so.  It was the CIA that feed Susan Rice the faulty information, 
if it was in fact faulty.  I'm not sure who arranged to have her appear on Meet 
the Press shortly thereafter.  The investigation of the Benghazi attack 
continues,
...
Anyway, It also seems to me that David Petraeus was setup by the intelligence 
community.  After the FBI found evidence of an extra Martial affair, and 
confirmed it by confronting both CIA Director David Petraeus and Paula 
Broadwell ,
...
...If the CIA really wanted to protect Petraeus, his affair could have remained 
under wraps...
No, no a thousand times no. Absolutely every citizen of the United States needs 
to demand truth from its leaders. I don't care if it's a local County official, 
the head of the FBI, a popular Republican Senator, or the President. Every 
single governmental official is living off the blood and sweat of others. They 
should have no rights above ours, and in fact should be held to a much higher 
standard of conduct. The mistakes they make can have far-reaching impacts to 
the whole nation.
Charlie, this the USA; not Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan.  You need to be able to 
distinguish between moral issue and legal issues.  In some countries these two 
separate things become entangled.  You should also recognize the difference 
between civil law and criminal law.  You should also recognize that a person's 
personal life is separate from their life on the job, and each of us has the a 
right, under the USA Constitution, to keep our personal life private. Rights of 
every American should fall under the same standard. Nobody should be afforded 
special right and privileges, nor should anyone be subject to a higher standard 
that normal.  This requires equal treatment.

The scale of justice should be both blind and balanced.  ---- Leland Jackson


So, no, politicians, political appointees, judges, all of them need to be held 
to the highest standards. We've stopped doing that and we're in a decline 
because of it.
I'm not seeing it.  Could you give me some verifiable examples.

Petraeus may have done a lot of good things but his resignation is appropriate. 
And the revealing of it by the Intelligence Community is absolutely right and 
just. Let's hope that the thousands of other politicians take note and try to 
clean up their act. At least while they're in office. And let's hope the 
Intelligence Community continues to monitor all officials' correspondence and 
brings the truth to light.
Why should one group of Americans be held to a higher standard than the whole.  
Why should the government, including the intelligence community, be allow to 
meddle into the personal affairs of Americans?  LOL - pun intended.  The 
founding fathers of the USA, having experienced first hand persecution, 
torture, alienation, and other injustice from their governments, put strong 
privacy protections into the USA Constitution to protect Americans against an 
overreaching government.


But Leland's thoughts reflect the general sentiment of the country. Since Clinton got away with lying about 
his affair the nation has dropped it's expectations of elected officials dramatically (no it wasn't 
"all" Clinton's fault, we have been declining for probably 40 years - but the Clinton debacle was a 
leap downwards). People in the US need to wake up. But I'm sure they won't. We've been dumbed down to blindly 
accept what the boob-tube spouts out in 15-second sound-bites. We don't want to "question" and 
"think" - we want to be entertained. We want promises that we'll get something for nothing. We 
certainly don't want to hear about working hard and moral issues. And for some reason we believe the wealthy 
has cheated the rest of us and that they should be forced to give up their money/property to be fair. 
Adversaries of the US and democracy in general can rejoice. The Great Experiment is winding down, proving out 
once again that man's greed and jealousy outweigh his inte
  lligence
  .
Get a life, Charlie.  It really is OK.  We're not the Taliban here in the good 
old USA.  LOL

Regards,

LelandJ


-Charlie
[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to