Well, let’s check the timeline on this, shall we? DNI James Clapper knew about the affair for at least ten days now, as has the CIA. The FBI and the Department of Justice both knew about it — and didn’t think that the issue was notable enough to inform the White House about it until Election Day, or the Congressional intelligence committees at all. Senator Dianne Feinstein noted last Sunday on Fox News that Petraeus is hardly the first DCI to have extramarital affairs while running the agency. Did the IG open investigations into those affairs — particularlyafter a resignation, and at the same time that the former Directors offered to testify in an embarrassing scandal involving the White House?

Should there be an investigation as to how Broadwell got access to classified material? Absolutely, although the FBI and DoJ seemed oddly reluctant to make that an issue until the story leaked. This leak looks more like a message rather than due diligence, though.

I have to think, at some point, you’ve done enough investigations….

Isn’t the purging of Generals the thing Banana Republics do to fend off a perceived coup?

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Or to pave the way for one.

*cough* EGYPT and TURKEY *cough*

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM

…well there is no DOJ anymore…so

[Jabberwock on November 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM]

I think I agree with all of that. I particularly agree the CIA should not be the arm investigating it. Personally, I don’t think they should be investigating it at all. The “rightly” I used was a technical/principled use, but considering the resource abuse that is running amok at the Federal level, anything Patraeus did is small potatoes by comparison and an abuse or federal resources.

[AZCoyote on November 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM]

I think it’s both in the sense that one way or another they’ll use/not use the info to have Obama’s spin reign supreme in the public’s mind.

Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus testifies in a closed-door hearing that immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack ‘Al Qaeda involvement’ was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to Rep. Peter King.

Wait…what? Who removed that line and why.

Charlie H. Crist on a cross, the ‘rats are so invested in AQ being dead after Bark knifed Bin Laden that they are editing out everything have to do with terrorism.

Bishop on November 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I think they use a search engine that first identify all ‘AQ’ and ‘terrorism’ words from official reports, then they purge them so they don’t make it in their official communication and press releases to the public :)…

This is sure to confuse conservative slaves – who vacillate from “Petraeus Maximus” to “Petraeus the Betrayer” on a daily basis according to which side they think he’ll come down on.

Of course – the only way to save his reputation with conservative slaves is sh!t on Obama – and false testimony is acceptable to that end.

HondaV65 on November 16, 2012 at 9:48

Yet another ‘pearl’ of imbecility from the easily most intellectually challenged poster here….Hahaha, ‘conservative slaves’, this coming from the same cretinoid ape who voted for Obama, must be more lucrative to be an Obama slave, to get some pathetic freebies on the back of those who actually work, unlike you, no? …so,what did you get, free Depends for the rest of our sorry little life? :)…. Do yourself a favor, old fool, keep your pie hole shut, nobody cares what a vapid Obama voter fool like you has to say.

He’s now said that the attack was planned and not the result of a “spontaneous demonstration”, which means he lied the first time he testified.

He’s violated both his oath and his marriage vows.

Furthermore, Petraeus is an honorable military officer,…

Lawrence on November 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Ah, no. Nothing “honorable” about a deceiver and an adulterer.

“Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”

There you go General. Nothing’s really changed, has it?

If you want to dine with Satan, you better bring a long spoon.

He did not resign. He was fired.

Which is why what he first told Congress is the truth

plewis on November 16, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Which contradicts what Obama said.

Is your brain, if you have one, engaged?

May you all suffocate, you fools. It ain’t Beluga caviar.

This is sure to confuse conservative slaves – who vacillate from “Petraeus Maximus” to “Petraeus the Betrayer” on a daily basis according to which side they think he’ll come down on.

Of course – the only way to save his reputation with conservative slaves is sh!t on Obama – and false testimony is acceptable to that end.

HondaV65 on November 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Of course, as someone once said, “to believe this requires the willfuol suspension of disbelief”.

Isn’t the purging of Generals the thing Banana Republics do to fend off a perceived coup?

dirtseller on November 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Saddam Hussein also did the same thing.

In November 1969 Hussein became vice president and deputy chairman of the powerful Revolutionary Command Council. At first his internal security apparatuses destroyed the party’s real and perceived enemies: Communists, radical Islamists, Nasserists, pro-Western politicians, and pro-Syrian officers; and they even hanged in a public square helpless young Jews to demonstrate their Iraqi and Arab patriotism. The next step, however, was to gradually eliminate Hussein’s personal rivals within the party. On July 16, 1979, Hussein replaced Bakr as president. A few days later, he purged all those in the party and armed forces whom he considered a threat. Hundreds were shot by firing squads, and Hussein became an absolute dictator.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Petraeus&src=hash

You are confused. Owe, the lying witness, didn’t testify this morning, Petraeus did.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GENERALS_SCANDAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-16-10-34-22