Or this will be the first nail in the O-Administration’s coffin.

profitsbeard on November 10, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Heh, there was enough nails in his 1st term to build a roof…nails do not penetrate teflon…

hillsoftx on November 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

…gee whiz…wonder how the MSM will handle this?

Or this will be the first nail in the O-Administration’s coffin.

profitsbeard on November 10, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Heh, there was enough nails in his 1st term to build a roof…nails do not penetrate teflon…

“The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.”

Just a reminder: It’s “duck and cover,” General. (Not that the maneuver is effective in either situation.)

It’s a shame he got mixed up with this gang of thugs who purport to run our country right now.

They actually are running our country…as deep into the ground as can .

he can’t discuss classified information in his day-to-day life. This isn’t about his day-to-day life. He can be required to testify before congress in a closed hearing about what he knows.

chemman on November 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

FIFM

When he walks out the door he loses his clearance and therefore access and/or abilty to discuss classified information.

NHElle on November 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

You are correct that he discuss classified information in his day-to-day life. This isn’t about his day-to-day life. He can be required to testify before congress in a closed hearing about what he knows.

There really is something fishy in Denmark. I have really been wondering why the Lord let Obama win … him and his regime falling apart … and I do mean falling apart and out of office right after the election would actually be sweeter. It would be hard for the MSM to explain why they ignored all this, hard for people to explain why they let them selves get fooled. All of this was knowable before the election.

I think Obama is arrogant enough to let his “I won” double down and get him into deep Nixonian trouble.

Because the admin said so that’s why, peeps, quit wondering why anymore, it’s patently obvious we are not playing by the same rules anymore, we look like fools when we ponder these anomalies..they are not weird or strange they are simply not playing by the same rules, they make them up.

Alinsky on November 10, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Yes – the one thing we know with certainty is King Putt doesn’t think rules apply to him. “good for thee, but not for me”

“The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.”

Well, isn’t that special. Did that little punk Petraeus say, “Have a Cigar” too?
“It’ll go far”, ya know … Just like BillyJeff from ArKINsaw …

Pink Floyd – Have a Cigar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n9FdoCUHBE

This Veterans’ Day weekend too.
A slimy little puke of a ticket-puncher who was never qualified to be CIA MFIC.
~(Ä)~

Or this will be the first nail in the O-Administration’s coffin.

Too funny. There’s been hundreds of nails in O’s admin coffin and the media just pulled them out and moved on.

O’s best protection – Joe Biden

That is probably true. Was he even in the office that day? It was Sept.11, he was probably out doing a 9/11 Muslim outreach in Virginia or something.

BL@KBIRD on November 9, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Ha! Seriously though – This wasn’t a one day event. This is about security requests, possible gun running to Syria, intelligence in advance of the attack in Bengazi (& Cairo) which any fool can tell has Zawahiri’s fingerprints all over it… and so much more.

The only explanation I can conceive is that Petraeus doesn’t really have any information to tell Congress that relates to his own personal actions relating to the Benghazi attack.

Seriously, Ed??

BTW, all along Petraeus’ silence has been deafening. Surely we’re not meant to believe the spin I heard on Fox that D.P. informed President Pink Slips night before last – that something under FBI investigation was unknown to BO. This has been known for awhile now, BO knew it, and it was held back because any other timing was complicated for BO’s election efforts.

FWIW, I vaguely recall reading a rumor of some blockbuster story coming of an intelligence officer having an affair weeks ago. Wish I could remember where I saw it.

NO cover ups can be allowed on this disaster.

Or this will be the first nail in the O-Administration’s coffin.

This does two things, actually:
1) Keeps him from testifying. ‘Why’ is a good question.
2) Destroys any chances of Patraeus running in future elections.

Two birds with one stone for Obama and the democrats. #WINNING

Timothy S. Carlson on November 9, 2012 at 6:50 PM

His resignation doesn’t prevent him from testifying. It just requires that a subpoena be issued.

My gut tells me Gen. Petraeus is an honorable man. It’s a shame he got mixed up with this gang of thugs who purport to run our country right now.

As far as the affair, I would think the regime has known about it. I believe the FBI investigation concluded sometime in 2011.

Don’t be surprised to see a subpoena heading Petraeus’ way from the House Oversight Committee to make sure that’s the case, though. – from the article.

I am sure he is going to be forced to testify. Republicans are going to make sure that he does. Democrat in the Senate don’t want him to tell what he knows.

The only explanation I can conceive is that Petraeus doesn’t really have any information to tell Congress that relates to his own personal actions relating to the Benghazi attack.

That is probably true. Was he even in the office that day? It was Sept.11, he was probably out doing a 9/11 Muslim outreach in Virginia or something.

Two birds with one stone for Obama and the democrats. #WINNING

Don’t be surprised to see a subpoena heading Petraeus’ way from the House Oversight Committee to make sure that’s the case, though.

and sing like a bird hopefully

Like anyone with a security clearance who resigns or retires from the Government, I’m sure Petraeus will have to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) which prohibits him from revealing classified or sensitive information which he learned on the job. If you violate an NDA, the Government can go after you civilly or criminally (as the former SEAL who wrote the Bin Laden tell-all is in the process of discovering). If Petraeus is subpoenaed as a private citizen, could he tell Congress that the NDA prohibits him from answering the questions they are asking without prior clearance from the Administration? I don’t know; I’m not a lawyer, but it seems plausible.

/Okay, tin foil hat off…

Hayabusa on November 9, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Any lawyers here with expertise in national security matters who could clarify the effect of signing an NDA on testifying before Congress?

HumpBot Salvation on November 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

this

..my bad. CIA is not Cabinet level but enjoys Cabinet level access.