Breaking: CIA Director Petraeus Resigning

reply to post by texasgirl


The fact that you are using a fictional example is what makes no sense. If you are going to use an example of a cover up, use an example from real life, something that has actually happened.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
So now they are negotiating with terrorist?!

Sorry .. not following you ...

Originally posted by antar
Why did he really resign?

A guy with a major security clearance .. director of the CIA .. finds that he's blackmailable.
He resigns and confesses to an affair rather than get blackmailed by 'the enemy'.
It was the right thing to do.

He had an affair with clair danes..

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Homeland's Claire Danes hides her bump
Patraeus's baby>?

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I fail to see how cheating on your wife prevents you from doing your job, but ok..

~Tenth

Employees are held to a high standard code of conduct on and and off duty. If you engage in any conduct that would tarnish the image of the agency you're subject to internal investigation/ discipline and possible termination, depending on the severity of the offense. As a director, even higher standards I would imagine.
If he is weak and exercises poor judgement that is harmful to the image of the agency he does not represent a good role model for the public and not setting a good example as a leader for his colleagues.

IMO he just made short work of dragging his family through an embarrassing a drawn out investigation by resigning and being done with it.

I feel there are other extenuating circumstances floating around as well no doubt.
Benghazi ?

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I fail to see how cheating on your wife prevents you from doing your job, but ok..

~Tenth

It's quite simple, it makes you a security risk. It puts people into positions in which they can be blackmailed.

In addition, those that have one affair are more likely to have another than someone that has never had an affair.

Just heard,
Petraeus, will NOT be testifying again.

The End

reply to post by gmonundercover


I have a question. Does he now not have to testify? How does that work?

Also as head of the CIA, wouldn't he still get part of the blame?

AHA ... FOX News Alert ... Director Patraeus will not testify before the Senate Committee
Hmmmmm ..... and the plot thickens ....

Of course he had to resign as head of the CIA if he had an affair. Imagine if someone like a President of the USA had an affair, surely he would resign. Oh, wait... never mind.

Smells like a coverup to me (cough... Benghazi... cough...)

Originally posted by FlyersFan
AHA ... FOX News Alert ... Director Patraeus will not testify before the Senate Committee
Hmmmmm ..... and the plot thickens ....

YUUUUUP!

Sen Feinstein's take on this, with confirmation that the former CIA Director won't need to testify at the hearings next week:

usnews.nbcnews.com...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told NBC News that Petraeus’s personal mistake should not have led to his departure.
“I would have stood up for him,” Feinstein said in response to his indiscretion. “I wanted him to continue. He was good, he loved the work and he had a command of intelligence issues second to none.”
Feinstein said she respects Obama’s decision to accept the Petraeus resignation, but wishes he hadn’t.
She also said Petraeus will not need to testify at Benghazi hearings she is chairing next week.

Originally posted by gmonundercover
The affair was real btw .......But the timing on this is critical to a clearer understanding. The presidents men did not like him and they didn't trust him - they surely were very concerned about his upcoming Benghazi testimony because he was not on board with the administrations position on the cover-up.

This all comes down right after the election and right before he was to testify under oath before the Senate committee. The Chicago boys most likely knew of the affair all along. Petraeus was not going along with the Benghazi story so they decided to pull the plug now. Be sure on one thing though ---------Petraeus did not voluntarily sashay over to the WH (out of the blue) with the "confession" about an affair.

edit on 9-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)

If he's still testifying would that put him in any kind of danger? Would he 'suicide' all of a sudden and then have it all blamed on personal problems caused by affair?

I am just throwing it out there. This is a conspiracy site, after all..

reply to post by FlyersFan


Blackmailable perhaps but hes no weenie and having an affair is not a big deal in light of all the other possibilities.

Yep you heard me, NOT a big deal.

The affair is a red herring.

I wonder if this is true......

Senate Intelligence Committee says Petraeus will not testify at next week's closed hearing on the events in Benghazi - @markknoller

twitter.com...

Dang,ya'll beat me to it!

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by FlyersFan
AHA ... FOX News Alert ... Director Patraeus will not testify before the Senate Committee
Hmmmmm ..... and the plot thickens ....

YUUUUUP!

Really? I thought he would be forced to.

I just love the intellect of the American people - all over these threads all I see is comments and snide remarks about his wife's appearance. I freaking hate this place sometimes.

Shows what a patoot he is too - this can't be about THAT. You don't get married to a CIA agent and expect total truth about EVERYTHING. More like anything, lol - an extramarital affair would NOT bring a long term marriage like that down, no freaking way - nor would it make a wife demand her husband leave office.

It's Benghazi.

I hope it is NOT also that we are fixing to jump into a war he doesn't think we can win.

Well, I am very, very glad to see him GONE. G.O.N.E. Gone. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out, GONE.

The big Benghazi theatrics, and now this?

I wonder if perhaps Petraeus and his CIA buddies were making a play that was not government sanctioned. I mean, lets face it, "Ambassador" Stevens was NOT just some innocent little diplomat, he was up to his eyeballs in the murky world of "intelligence" and was one of those working on Libya both before and after the removal of it's leader, so more likely he was CIA rather than State Department, which is usually a convenient cover.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility as it's not like the POTUS has much oversight of what the CIA gets up to on a day to day basis, and who, or rather whose, agendas they are serving.

Maybe Petraeus was forced out, given the chance to step down, before a publicly embarrassing arse kicking out the door!

reply to post by caladonea


I'll be honest with you, I think a lot of agreements were made, and I think you're on the right track with this.

It's bad when a CIA director can't even cover up this kind of thing. Who the hell put him in charge. I wonder if all our spies are as good as him at getting caught.

The house of cards is falling, Rome is burning, call it what you will but the empire is crumbling and anyone left, or voted in is going to take the brunt, will be burnt like a witch in Salem.

Seriously, things are going to decline faster than anyone can imagine and this is the last bailout of the good ole boys.