Breaking: Petraeus submits resignation as CIA director

posted at 3:16 pm on November 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

A total bombshell, breaking right now on Fox. Catherine Herridge says the only explanation given so far is “personal reasons,” but notes that he met personally with Obama yesterday and wonders if it may have had to do with the CIA releasing that timeline on Benghazi last week. That was my gut instinct too — either this is fallout from Benghazi or there really is something personal going on.

Judging from this tidbit, it’s at least partly personal:

Why would an affair mean that he couldn’t run the CIA anymore? Was he being blackmailed? Or is there more to it than this? Stand by for updates.

Update: His statement:

“Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA,” Petraeus said in a statement to CIA staff. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.”

If you’d have asked me to list 100 possible reasons why David Petraeus would eventually quit public service, having an affair would have been number 100. If it made the list at all.

Update: NBC says deputy CIA director Mike Morrell is likely to be named interim director, and may well end up being elevated to permanent status.

Update: As for the timing, I assume Petraeus intended to do this for awhile but held off until after the election so that it wouldn’t end up influencing the vote. The media spotlight on the campaign would have only drawn more attention to his predicament and magnified the embarrassment.

Which makes me wonder: If he did fear being blackmailed, why didn’t some potential blackmailer use the campaign as leverage, threatening to push this out there before the big vote if he didn’t pay up?

Update: I’m seriously shocked. The last thing I’d expect from him is a breakdown in personal discipline.

Update: For what it’s worth, Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC are hearing that Petraeus’s resignation really doesn’t have anything to do with Benghazi.

Update: I’m already getting e-mails speculating that the administration wanted him out over Benghazi and that they were the ones who forced his hand by threatening to expose his affair if he didn’t quit. I don’t follow the logic there. If that were true, the ultimatum would have been that he could either resign and keep the affair secret to avoid disgrace or have the affair exposed and then inevitably be pressured to resign anyway. Makes no sense for him to resign before the affair’s been revealed and then admit to it in his resignation.

Besides, would the White House really dare try to strongarm David Petraeus, of all people, that way? He’s probably the most widely esteemed member of Obama’s administration. If they used sleazy tactics to try to force him out, they’d live in mortal terror of him revealing the blackmail attempt and using it to turn the public against O. Just makes no sense to me.

Update: Reader “Flip” makes a nice catch. Petraeus’s resignation letter says, “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair.” But Petraeus has actually been married for more than 38 years; the wedding was on July 6, 1974. In other words, if you read the resignation letter carefully, he’s telling you that this happened sometime between July 2011 and July 2012, not recently. Why didn’t he resign sooner? Or, on the flip side, why didn’t he try to hang on longer if he’d held on this long already?

Update: Hmmmmmmmm:

Again, though — if this was actually engineered by the administration to force him out, why wouldn’t Petraeus reveal that publicly? After all of his service, he deserves better than to be blackmailed, even if he’s guilty of a major lapse in judgment.

Update: Obama’s statement:

David Petraeus has provided extraordinary service to the United States for decades. By any measure, he was one of the outstanding General officers of his generation, helping our military adapt to new challenges, and leading our men and women in uniform through a remarkable period of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he helped our nation put those wars on a path to a responsible end. As Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, he has continued to serve with characteristic intellectual rigor, dedication, and patriotism. By any measure, through his lifetime of service David Petraeus has made our country safer and stronger.

Today, I accepted his resignation as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I am completely confident that the CIA will continue to thrive and carry out its essential mission, and I have the utmost confidence in Acting Director Michael Morell and the men and women of the CIA who work every day to keep our nation safe. Going forward, my thoughts and prayers are with Dave and Holly Petraeus, who has done so much to help military families through her own work. I wish them the very best at this difficult time.

Update: Some of Petraeus’s former aides tell Danger Room they’re just as shocked as the rest of us.

Update: Now might be a good time to read (or re-read) the Journal’s story from eight days ago about the massive miscommunication between the CIA and State over who was supposed to be protecting the consulate in Benghazi. Title: “CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya.”

Update: Note to Congress: Subpoena the general.

Update: Speaking of Benghazi-related political clusterfarks, word on the street is that John Kerry might be passed over as the next Secretary of State in favor of — ta da — Susan Rice, the face of the White House’s initial nonsense about the attack. (GOP senators are already warning O to think again.) Rice’s now infamous appearance on the Sunday shows was actually informed by early CIA “talking points,” so there’s another reason to think that the agency’s performance might have somehow influenced Petraeus’s departure today.

Update: Annnnd the hits just keep on coming. There’s no stopping this Friday-news-dump train!

Update: A parting thought, for now: If the affair didn’t happen recently, why didn’t he hold off on revealing it and resigning for another week, until after he was done testifying to Congress about Benghazi?

Update: Fred Kaplan, Slate’s plugged-in military reporter, says he knows who Petraeus had an affair with. The photo of the book cover at the top of Drudge right now has more meaning than you think.

Update: Oh boy. Starting to become clear why this affair required a resignation:

Update: Note the author and the date. And rule number five.

Update: Here’s a fun contest for readers. Try to reconcile these two statements. Statement one:

The biographer for resigning CIA Director David Petraeus is under FBI investigation for improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information, law enforcement officials told NBC News on Friday.

Statement two:

The law enforcement officials said they do not believe the FBI investigation will result in any criminal charges.

“Improperly” trying to read the DCIA’s e-mail isn’t a federal offense?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 11

aww, the HA voice of reason speaketh…

jimver on November 9, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Heh. He suddenly requires facts to reach conclusions. The world has turned upside down.

a capella on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Schadenfreude on November 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

rofl..Spot on..:)

Dire Straits on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

LOL. Now we know why Petreaus was so silent on Benghazi…

Was Barry blackmailing Petreaus to be quiet on Benghazi or he would out him?

albill on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Benghazi.

The affair was used as a cover-up for being forced to resign over Benghazi. I mean seriously, when has anyone in a Dem administration ever blinked twice about an affair?

INC on November 9, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Here’s another scenario.
What if the regime is blackmailing him.
They threatened to leak his affair if he talked about Benghazi.
So Petraeus resigns – and now he’s free to talk.

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Well, he should have a bright future in the liberal party.

ndanielson on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Why not just take Pet at his word? You DID say he was a stand up officer right? Would such an officer LIE about his resignation?

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 3:51 PM

If he was “stand up” we would know more about Benghazi. Instead he abetted the video meme.

We don’t know anything yet. Let us speculate in peace if it bothers you. It just seems incredibly odd.

kim roy on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Question is why would he admit to the affair when resigning?

clearbluesky on November 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Any number of valid reasons. Maybe his wife wants him to publicly acknowledge it. Maybe he feels the need to get it off his chest. Maybe the girl he slept with was about to post it on Facebook anyway.

Who cares? There’s LOTs of valid reasons besides some conspiracy theory involving Benghazi and Obama.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Surely the affair happened; whether or not he chose to out himself, or was told to resign before someone leaked it to the press is the question. No one would make up an affair as a reason to resign, especially since it’s common right after an election.

If he was forced out, and if the leverage was going to be the revelation of the affair, then he was smart to reveal the information himself and thereby remove the threat.

Sad that he betrayed his wife and country like that after serving his whole career.

TexasDan on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Petraeus resigns three days after the election.

Just like it was a coincidence that we found out about Iran firing on our drone… right after the election.

And those Boeing layoffs? Announced right after the election? Total coincidence.

Keep an eye on those BLS employment numbers when they are released in December. If they show a big jump in the unemployment rate for November (and big upward revisions for September and October), don’t worry; nothing to see here; just a coincidence.

See we’re learning all kinds of interesting things now. After the election. UNEXPECTEDLY.

Hayabusa on November 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM

hoosierma on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

All the truth all the time baby! ;)

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I meant the voice in your head, but that’s ok :-)

jimver on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Is this the first time Andrea Mitchell has mentioned Benghazi?

idesign on November 9, 2012 at 3:48 PM

THREAD WINNER.

ToddPA on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Ok, I meant to say that you would find this comment quite apprpriate, guess my brain and fingers aren’t in sink at this moment.

MarshFox on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Question is why would he admit to the affair when resigning? They could have kept it quiet and did the usual “spend time with the family” statement.

clearbluesky on November 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Now that’s the question of the day.

faraway on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM

relax man. just havin fun. when the real scandals start coming the stupid stuff we’re making up about this one will be penny-ante. the truth about this admin is way worse than our goffing. stay cool. theres way worse to come, that wont be speculation.

t8stlikchkn on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I am a senior and a woman, this man was set up, I had 2 cheating husbands, men are men and when put in the right situation they find it hard to say no.
He was very critical of Obama so why was he all of a suddden put in charge of the CIA.
After 37 years of fidelity( seems an honorable man why would he cheat).
I would bet almost anything the woman? is from Chicago and on the Obama payroll, sad end for a very long and honorable career, may God bless him.
This is Obamas Chicago way of revenge, God help us all.

concernedsenior on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

LOL. Now we know why Petreaus was so silent on Benghazi…

Was Barry blackmailing Petreaus to be quiet on Benghazi or he would out him?

albill on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Oops, you beat me to it.

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Update: For what it’s worth, Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC are hearing that Petraeus’s resignation really doesn’t have anything to do with Benghazi.

IT is worth nothing. nada zip

tom daschle concerned on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Maybe he had an affair with Hillary…LOL!!!!

William Eaton on November 9, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Don’t do that again . . . I just barfed on my shoes.

rplat on November 9, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Ok…He had an affair with Valerie Jarrett…

William Eaton on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Of course it didn’t silly — not if the MSM says so.

Just like 314,000 votes turning the entire election had nothing to do with voter fraud because those DailyKos/SEIU PPP polls & Nate Silver are much more reliable than Michael Barone (or Romney’s internal polling) and mean much more than those pathetic crowds Obama was getting v. the tens of thousands waiting in the cold & rain to see Romney meant. Plus, it was all about some tech fail in Romney’s GOTV & GOP’s need to outreach to Hispanics to win in the MidWest.

Dark Star on November 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Too much strange things happen. It all look “managed”.

the_nile on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Suppose Petraeus is setting himself up with the freedom to tell the truth about Benghazi.

Seems like an interesting theory to me.

J.E. Dyer on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Missing Briefs.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

aww, the HA voice of reason speaketh…

jimver on November 9, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Heh. He suddenly requires facts to reach conclusions. The world has turned upside down.

a capella on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

rofl..Again so spot on..:)

Dire Straits on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Question is why would he admit to the affair when resigning? They could have kept it quiet and did the usual “spend time with the family” statement.

clearbluesky on November 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Now that’s the question of the day.

faraway on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

honor? of course then theres the chicago blackmail theory…..remove the threat by outing himself.

t8stlikchkn on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Now that’s the question of the day.

faraway on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

He admitted the affair because he’s being blackmailed with it

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Let us speculate in peace if it bothers you. It just seems incredibly odd.

kim roy on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

You’re free to speculate in peace – since I’ve threatened no one here. Allow me the freedom to laugh at your conspiracy theories and challenge them.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Come’on an affair?! Bad judgement? Bad judgement was agreeing to work for Obama. Even if the affair is the real reason, couldn’t he have said the reason was Ben Gazzara.

steveracer on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Banana Republic + Soviet Hierarchy + Pravda = The New Normal

portlandon on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Suppose Petraeus is setting himself up with the freedom to tell the truth about Benghazi.

Seems like an interesting theory to me.

J.E. Dyer on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Hopefully that’s the story.

the_nile on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Suppose Petraeus is setting himself up with the freedom to tell the truth about Benghazi.

Seems like an interesting theory to me.

J.E. Dyer on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

That was my first thought also..:)

Dire Straits on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

There’s LOTs of valid reasons besides some conspiracy theory involving Benghazi and Obama.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

You are one moron. Wasn’t there an coverup over Benghazi? Didn’t people go on TV and tell lies about a video? Let me repeat, you are a moron.

/do I need to repeat it again?

faraway on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Everyone assumes the affair was with another woman.

Tripwhipper on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Resigning in disgrace over an affair was probably preferable to continuing on with the horror that is this administration.

fatigue on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

“The timing is to perfect” LtCol Ralph Peters on Foxnews.

BallisticBob on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Man does this country suck or what…???…

PatriotRider on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

He admitted the affair because he’s being blackmailed with it

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

What’s your source on that?

He very well may be blackmailed, or thinks he’s about to be. But there is no reason to believe that Obama is the one doing the blackmailing.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Maybe he was about to be outed by the National Enquirer or something. Or worse…maybe there’s a pregnancy involved…

sydneyjane on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

J.E. Dyer on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Yep, I hope you’re right.

d1carter on November 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

MarshFox on November 9, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Thank you :)

Schadenfreude on November 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Everyone assumes the affair was with another woman.

Tripwhipper on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

ph i get it – he had an affair with his wife!

t8stlikchkn on November 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

“The timing is to perfect” LtCol Ralph Peters on Foxnews.

BallisticBob on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

He said that with a tin foil beret on his head.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

would the White House really dare try to strongarm David Petraeus, of all people, that way

this is dear leader we are talking…of course they would to save themselves

ALL ABOUT THE O

cmsinaz on November 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Banana Republic + Soviet Hierarchy + Pravda = The New Normal

portlandon on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

It sure feels like it

CoffeeLover on November 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

You mf’ers need to listen to your sorry ass selves. You sound like Dkos now.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Ralph Peters is buying it. What?

JPeterman on November 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Besides, would the White House really dare try to strongarm David Petraeus, of all people, that way? He’s probably the most widely esteemed member of Obama’s administration. If they used sleazy tactics to try to force him out, they’d live in mortal terror of him revealing the blackmail attempt and using it to turn the public against O. Just makes no sense

You know AP, your funny in a naive kinda way. You don’t know how this game is played. Your thinking “the Mafia” but it’s much more subtle than that.

WisRich on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

A man who is capable of lying to his wife of 37 years, is capable of lying to the media.

just sayin’

Flora Duh on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Hey, Doesn’t this improve his status as a Democrat?

Gunlock Bill on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

How freakin’ convenient…

stacman on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

You’re free to speculate in peace – since I’ve threatened no one here. Allow me the freedom to laugh at your conspiracy theories and challenge them.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

You laugh at fast and furious too?

the_nile on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

But there is no reason to believe that Obama is the one doing the blackmailing.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Oh naive one, your boy set the table, we are just nibbling on the appetizer.

salem on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

When you are the head of a bunch of undercover spies there are no secrets about where you stick things.

Yoop on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Could be, he’s apparently testifying next week so i guess we’ll find out soon enough.

clearbluesky on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

tom daschle concerned on November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

exactamundo…carrying the WH water for them…

cmsinaz on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Maybe he was about to be outed by the National Enquirer or something. Or worse…maybe there’s a pregnancy involved…

sydneyjane on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Exactly.

I mean – Obama promoted this guy to run the war in Afghanistan – and then kept promoting him – and then made him director of the CIA.

It’s obvious that Obama doesn’t like this guy.

LFMAO!!

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Anybody heard from Leon Panetta..?

d1carter on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Everyone assumes the affair was with another woman.

Tripwhipper on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Wait, Petraeus is a woman!?!!?

#WarOnWomen

Fallon on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Makes no sense for him to resign before the affair’s been revealed and then admit to it in his resignation.

Actually it does. This is all speculation of course, but let’s assume that Obama did in fact threaten to expose Petraus if he didn’t continue the Benghazi coverup. In that scenario Petraus may decide the honorable thing to do is to come clean and resign. He can then speak openly about the Benghazi cluster-fark without anymore threats of exposure since he eliminated the threat by coming clean himself. Not that any of this is the case, but responding to the threats by coming clean certainly does make sense when viewed from this angle.

NotCoach on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

So, the “other woman”, married???

If so, “Hon were did you get these camo underwear in the dryer”?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Suppose Petraeus is setting himself up with the freedom to tell the truth about Benghazi.

Seems like an interesting theory to me.

J.E. Dyer on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Now this theory I like.

gophergirl on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Petraeus has released a statement: “It was a moment of weakness caused by a YouTube video.”

Mark1971 on November 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I nearly spit up iced mocha all over my keyboard after reading this. Careful with the humor. Obamanomics means funds for replacement machines are limited.

Update: For what it’s worth, Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC are hearing that Petraeus’s resignation really doesn’t have anything to do with Benghazi.

It ain’t worth much. She’s just getting the (D) talking points out in the media. It’s what she does best.

djm1992 on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Man I don’t know what happened to you, but you should know that silence breeds conspiracies theories and Obama has bees less than forthcoming on Benghazi. It is also very common for powerful people to resign for personal reasons like this, yet the real reason is something different entirely.

No, we have no evidence either way because such scarce information either way.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

A man who is capable of lying to his wife of 37 years, is capable of lying to the media.

just sayin’

Flora Duh on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

A man with his nuts in a vice over an affair would be compelled to lie to the media about Benghazi if the affair was being held over his head like an anvil by his boss’ henchmen.

ted c on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Good grief. It’s going to be a looooooonnnnngggggg four years. We’re not even a week out from The Chosen One’s re-election and already we’ve got a scandal. And we haven’t cleared up a single scandal from Term 1. I’m not going to make it four years.

jennifernaz on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Makes no sense for him to resign before the affair’s been revealed and then admit to it in his resignation.

It’s called getting out in front of it. Anyone being blackmailed has no reason to think the blackmailers can be trusted on anything.

WH says resign or we’ll expose you. Petraeus says I’m resigning and this is why. WH can not touch him now – the worst is over.

Missy on November 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Let us speculate in peace if it bothers you. It just seems incredibly odd.

kim roy on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

You’re free to speculate in peace – since I’ve threatened no one here. Allow me the freedom to laugh at your conspiracy theories and challenge them.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Is your life really that empty? I’m honestly sorry that you have to come here to get some enjoyment in life. It seems we are doing a public service here.

Carry on.

kim roy on November 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

You know AP, your funny in a naive kinda way. You don’t know how this game is played. Your thinking “the Mafia” but it’s much more subtle than that.

WisRich on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Yup.

the_nile on November 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Could be, he’s apparently testifying next week so i guess we’ll find out soon enough.

clearbluesky on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

He possibly could have resigned because he intends to tell some damning truths at that hearing and he doesn’t want any pressure from the White House not too.

Lots of reasons here – no reason to jump to conclusions.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

djm1992 on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

yup

cmsinaz on November 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Is your life really that empty? I’m honestly sorry that you have to come here to get some enjoyment in life. It seems we are doing a public service here.

Carry on.

kim roy on November 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Ad hominem attacks for the win. I post here – therefore I must be unhappy and not have a life.

Only problem with that logic …

YOU POST HERE TOO. :D

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

No, we have no evidence either way because we have such scarce information either way.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Everyone assumes the affair was with another woman.

Tripwhipper on November 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Ok…It was Arne Duncan?

William Eaton on November 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

he can still testify…hope he does

cmsinaz on November 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

You’re free to speculate in peace – since I’ve threatened no one here. Allow me the freedom to laugh at your conspiracy theories and challenge them.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

is calling someone an MFer like the new civility? peace bro.

t8stlikchkn on November 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

why would we assume it is a recent affair?

ctmom on November 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

How freakin’ convenient…

stacman on November 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

It’s all in the timing..:)

idesign on November 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

The questions about Benghazi sure still do linger…..

ted c on November 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Mark Knoller just tweeted this:

Senate Intelligence Committee says Petraeus will not testify at next week’s closed hearing on the events in Benghazi.

squeek71 on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

There’s only one logical conclusion an Obama voter can draw from this information: “I knew that Ben Ghazi was a gay guy”.

salem on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

why would we assume it is a recent affair?

ctmom on November 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

No one should assume anything.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Allah…what if the Obama folks wanted him removed, so they kindly pointed someone at a lefty organization such as HuffPo to the evidence of an affair for a blockbuster article and then word got to Patreaus, who then had no choice but the resign?

In my view, the only way Patreaus resigns is if he knew the affair was about to be revealed by someone.

OxyCon on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

No surprise whether true or not. He quietly loved the adoration from both the left and right – greatest general ever and all… – any way you cut it, he is a liar.

A liar who holds the keys to our nation’s most sensitive information. He either lied to the president, lied to us, and/or lied to his wife.

My #1 beef; Years ago, he stood on his high horse and yapped about how he hasn’t and doesn’t vote, since it is his duty as a military professional to not be political. What a fool. You would think that the best general ever would understand that he swears and oath to the Constitution, not a party or a man. That he orders young men and women to their death. And he doesn’t participate in the forming and future of the very government he takes orders from?

Schmuck of the highest order. Never liked him, and this is no surprise, affair or not. But, he “fixed” Afghanistan, so I gotta give him credit for that one…

Hueydriver on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Honda is a troll. Trollcot.

I sent $200 to Elizabeth Warren yesterday to beat this fool. [Scott Brown]

HondaV65 on October 7, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Talk to me – however – I actually did show up – and voted for Obama.

HondaV65 on November 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM

faraway on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

With available information, I don’t buy the argument he was set up.

DIR CIA works at the pleasure of the president. He didn’t have to frame him to get rid of him.

Men of power are always tempted. It goes with the territory. Some can can avoid giving into those temptations. Petraeus could not.

When men of honor get caught they do the right thing and resign. Petraeus only did what was necessary and appropriate.

I had high hopes for him in politics. Too bad.

STL_Vet on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Very strange, we had that cluck dumb as Democrat at the head of the CIA, and you know he is not clean, crickets, soon as a guy like Gen. Petraus gets the job, dirty laundry.

Got to know a guy with that much power and ability could have covered this up and made it go away if he so chose.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Suppose Petraeus is setting himself up with the freedom to tell the truth about Benghazi.

Seems like an interesting theory to me.

J.E. Dyer on November 9, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Yes, exactly. And why not? It’s as plausible as anything else.

Missy on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

It was Barbara Starr from CNN…LOL.

d1carter on November 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM

funny, the lsm can now say benghazi ….the name that would not be spoken before nov 6

cmsinaz on November 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Exactly.

I mean – Obama promoted this guy to run the war in Afghanistan – and then kept promoting him – and then made him director of the CIA.

It’s obvious that Obama doesn’t like this guy.

LFMAO!!

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Maybe he liked him as long as he could control him , and then he pushed him.

Duh!

the_nile on November 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM

The trolls are getting a little nervous and testy on this thread.

rplat on November 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM

squeek71 on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

VERY CONVEINENT

cmsinaz on November 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Senate Intelligence Committee says Petraeus will not testify at next week’s closed hearing on the events in Benghazi.

squeek71 on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

high stakes game of chess here…

was he scheduled to testify????

What did Petraeus know and when did he know it? What is the relationship between this affair and the smoldering ruins of Benghazi????

ted c on November 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM

ok we gotta start taking over/under here. what occurs first all within the next 4 years, its a race:
-impeachment
-dollar/financial collapse
-resignation
-iran blowing up isreal
-the caliphate reforming for real

t8stlikchkn on November 9, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Is this the first time Andrea Mitchell has mentioned Benghazi?

idesign on November 9, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Yep. But she only did it because she thought that was his girlfriend’s name.

BacaDog on November 9, 2012 at 4:09 PM

It’s called getting out in front of it. Anyone being blackmailed has no reason to think the blackmailers can be trusted on anything.

WH says resign or we’ll expose you. Petraeus says I’m resigning and this is why. WH can not touch him now – the worst is over.

Missy on November 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Except that I doubt the WH asked him to resign or be exposed. I think it is more likely, if the WH was actually using this information, that they demanded he continue to lie about Benghazi or be exposed.

NotCoach on November 9, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Allah…what if the Obama folks wanted him removed

OxyCon on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Explain to me how Obama would want him removed? He promoted the guy to four star general and then made him his CIA director – that’s not exactly evidence that Obama hates the guy.

In any case – removing him won’t stop the truth from coming out – it makes it EASIER for Pet to go to his congressional hearing now and tell the full truth without worrying about pressure from Obama.

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Got to know a guy with that much power and ability could have covered this up and made it go away if he so chose.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Even if he wants to have an affair , he knows he’s a constant target.

the_nile on November 9, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Senate Intelligence Committee says Petraeus will not testify at next week’s closed hearing on the events in Benghazi.

squeek71 on November 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

watch for the pop of a golden parachute…..

ted c on November 9, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Is your life really that empty? I’m honestly sorry that you have to come here to get some enjoyment in life. It seems we are doing a public service here.

Carry on.

kim roy on November 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Ad hominem attacks for the win. I post here – therefore I must be unhappy and not have a life.

Only problem with that logic …

YOU POST HERE TOO. :D

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Strawman. Wasn’t what I said. You come here and heckle, troll and attempt to demean. I come here to discuss. Two different animals.

But you know this and are trying to deflect that the issue is your behavior, not your existence.

Thanks for allowing me to clear that up.

kim roy on November 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Maybe he liked him as long as he could control him , and then he pushed him.

Duh!

the_nile on November 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Why would he push him? Why would he push him into the private sector where it’s easier for Pet to tell the truth to Congress?

HondaV65 on November 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Make you wonder doesn’t it.

bopbottle on November 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 11