CIA Director Gen. Petraeus Resigns over reported affair...

[Mike.357]

don't military officers live by a code of conduct?

If so isn't adultery a violation of that code?

And assuming it is, is it uncommon for a resignation to be the result?

All honest questions.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1352516845' post='842873']
My guess is the same. A shame, really. The timing is what makes it so suspect.
[/quote]

Yeah, that and the little factoid that Petraeus threw this little ditty right in BHO's face not long ago.

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

Also, how he was "found out":

"The FBI had been investigating an unrelated and much broader case before stumbling on the affair. Fox News has learned that during the course of this investigation, the name of biographer Paula Broadwell came up. The FBI followed that lead and in doing so, uncovered his affair with her."

Now, just [i]when[/i] did this little revelation come about? How long has it been kept up BHO's sleeve, just in case?

And he resigns right before he would have been grilled in Senate inquiry, under oath.

Yep, all just total coincidence and he resigned only because his penis finally felt guilty and did the honorable thing. Does he have bridges to sell too?

- OS

[color=#000000][left][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]
[/background][/left][/color]

[Spook]

Something certainly smells here. Its easy to surmise what happened without knowing more. That said, I put my money on Gen. Petreaus but admit I sure could be wrong. Granted, he may have indeed had the affair but if so, I think it would have been more well known than most believe and wouldn't cause him to resign. The substance and timing are simply too ironic to not question the whole affair. The entire Libya story has yet to be told. Time will tell.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='Mike.357' timestamp='1352517562' post='842881']
don't military officers live by a code of conduct?

If so isn't adultery a violation of that code?

And assuming it is, is it uncommon for a resignation to be the result?

All honest questions.
[/quote]

Eisenhower had affairs while a general, Patton did too. Somehow their sense of honor allowed them to carry on.
A number of Presidents had affairs. Hell, JFK got more than Ron Jeremy.

- OS

[Mike.357]

I know plenty of wick dipping has gone on..

Certainly he was pressured to quit.

Would be nice if he did it because it was honorable.

would be even nicer if he could get some media, both print and TV to tell his story.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='Mike.357' timestamp='1352518608' post='842897']
...would be even nicer if he could get some media, both print and TV to tell his story.[/quote]

Oh, he'll get all of that he wants, [i]if[/i] he wants it.

He may feel that his most honorable act may be to clam up. I sense that it might be more honorable to spill the beans, just like Watergate.

- OS

[Guest Taurus4Me]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352498530' post='842705']
News Flash: he will NOT be testifying in the closed Senate hearings next week, CIA will send current employees.

So BHO has dodged the first bullet on this. I swear, evil just wins all the time.

Of course, they could subpoena him. Hmmm, plot thickens.

- OS
[/quote]
They could Subpoena him, but if its classified, he is unauthorized to discuss. And due to his resignation, he has a civilian responsiblitiy for any wrongdoing, not an official responsiblity, so its the catch22, its an official's crime, but a civilian's punishment (if any). The former director of the C.I.A. will not be going to jail, fined, or anything of the sort. If you look to last week's media, they were covering the Benghazi stuff constantly and how it affected Obama's re-election. They got a lot of negative press over that. I think he was respectfully fired. But they can't put it out that way, it looks bad on Obama. This would strike fear into the nation just after a re-election, and would kill his approval ratings. Hell, this guy has been eating Army scrambled eggs for the past 40 years, he probably cannot get it up like the rest of the vets over 60.

[Mike.357]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352520701' post='842916']
Oh, he'll get all of that he wants, [i]if[/i] he wants it.

He may feel that his most honorable act may be to clam up. I sense that it might be more honorable to spill the beans, just like Watergate.

- OS
[/quote]


The country deserves the truth, getting will be an entirely different deal.

An unfortunate accident would not surprise me.

[Sam1]

edit Edited November 10, 2012 by Sam1

[TMF]

[quote name='Mike.357' timestamp='1352518608' post='842897']

would be even nicer if he could get some media, both print and TV to tell his story.[/quote]

Ain't gonna happen. At least not until Obama is irrelevant. I wish it were different.

[DaveTN]

[quote]If anyone in Washington could have weathered a sex scandal, Gen. David Petraeus would seem like that person.

Yet the retired general who inspired admiration bordering on reverence from so many in the capital was abruptly out Friday as Central Intelligence Agency director, just one day after President Barack Obama learned of Petraeus's extramarital relationship.

Intelligence community insiders say Petraeus was [b]felled by an increasing sensitivity in the Obama administration to extramarital dalliances[/b], stemming from recent cases in which officials at various levels have seen their careers scuttled for similar personal misconduct.

[/quote]

Now they are trying to spin it that Obama fired him. Obama is such a scumbag; I can’t believe we have to deal with his crap for four more years.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He could have spoken with his biographer and said, "We had an affair, okay?", as a trump card to get out of all
the muck that will be found out. Can't the committee give him immunity for his testimony? Just a thought.

[DaveTN]

What does anyone think this is getting him out of? He will still testify. And he’s testifying in front of a bunch of people that have done much worse than have an affair.
Clinton had an affair and then lied to a Grand Jury about it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Lawyering up to get out of the mess that's going to come out. The CIA made the official statement about the
turn of events. His version might be something he doesn't want to get out there. Sometimes, when you lie once,
you end up covering it up with another lie. Not saying this is the case, because I like Petraeus, but it is one more
possibility. He may not want to end up his career with more blemish.

Then again, he may want to be able to talk freely without the need of the politics of holding his former office.
This is the third general that this administration has tried to throw under the proverbial bus. Maybe he wants to
be in control of his own destiny. Just a possibility, Dave. There is a lot more we don't know, and maybe never
will.

[DaveTN]

Sorry, but I don’t buy into the “Everything is a cover-up at the highest levels of government”.

I’m not saying that the incidents didn’t make his decision to resign easier; may well have.

But “lawyering up” won’t get him out of anything. Cheating on your wife, as far as I know doesn’t carry criminal charges, and as far as I know he isn’t suspected of any other criminal acts. I guess he could try, but they would just grant him immunity and force him to testify.

A person can only invoke the 5th in criminal matters, and only in a civil hearing if there is reason to believe criminal charges will be filed. He can’t refuse to answer in a Congressional hearing.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Gentlemen,

You seem to be forgetting something. What was the source of the information? Who found the affair? The FBI figured it out, from what I gather. The FBI and the CIA have always tried to limit each other. Looks like the FBI won this round.

It is not a cover up. Seen any video interaction between the reporter, and the General? His demeanor changed, he was very favorable to her, and it showed.

I wish they would not boot him for this, though his actions did create a major security breach. I like the fellow. I think he has served this nation exceptionally well. I hate to see this happen.

[mcurrier]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352570515' post='843153']
Gentlemen,

You seem to be forgetting something. What was the source of the information? Who found the affair? The FBI figured it out, from what I gather. The FBI and the CIA have always tried to limit each other. Looks like the FBI won this round.

It is not a cover up. Seen any video interaction between the reporter, and the General? His demeanor changed, he was very favorable to her, and it showed.

I wish they would not boot him for this, though his actions did create a major security breach. I like the fellow. I think he has served this nation exceptionally well. I hate to see this happen.
[/quote]I guess the fbi is in the private detective business now. LOL Dems didn't see it as a major security issue when Clinton was boinking Monica. Can't get any higher on the potential breach scale than that. The timing of this is highly suspect to be sure.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352570515' post='843153']
Gentlemen,

You seem to be forgetting something. What was the source of the information? Who found the affair? The FBI figured it out, from what I gather. The FBI and the CIA have always tried to limit each other. Looks like the FBI won this round.

It is not a cover up. Seen any video interaction between the reporter, and the General? His demeanor changed, he was very favorable to her, and it showed.

I wish they would not boot him for this, though his actions did create a major security breach. I like the fellow. I think he has served this nation exceptionally well. I hate to see this happen.
[/quote]

One prob with your assertion: FBI may have known about this for a year or two. Petraeus first met Broadwell in 2009.

I think it's quite reasonable to think BHO had this dirt available for some time. It's the LBJ way, "I don't trust a man unless I've got his pecker in my pocket."

- OS Edited November 10, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1352563680' post='843089']
Sorry, but I don’t buy into the “Everything is a cover-up at the highest levels of government”.

I’m not saying that the incidents didn’t make his decision to resign easier; may well have.

But “lawyering up” won’t get him out of anything. Cheating on your wife, as far as I know doesn’t carry criminal charges, and as far as I know he isn’t suspected of any other criminal acts. I guess he could try, but they would just grant him immunity and force him to testify.

A person can only invoke the 5th in criminal matters, and only in a civil hearing if there is reason to believe criminal charges will be filed. He can’t refuse to answer in a Congressional hearing.
[/quote]They have invoked the 5th in Congressional hearings for years. He can answer any way he pleases, considering
the consequences. People have been giving immunity from prosecution for their testimony in those hearings, also. Maybe
he would be at jeopardy if he went into classified information, but they tend to use the cloak of security a bit too much. I
think that is why said he will probably lawyer up before anything else happens with him.

That "Ron Brown" thing is a concern I imagine he has, also.

[TMF]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352571932' post='843175']

One prob with your assertion: FBI may have known about this for a year or two. Petraeus first met Broadwell in 2009.

I think it's quite reasonable to think BHO had this dirt available for some time. It's the LBJ way, "I don't trust a man unless I've get his pecker in my pocket."

- OS[/quote]

Hence the timing. Could all be coincidence; I'm certainly no conspiracy theory guy, but the timing of all this is fishy. If this was something Obama was hiding up his sleeve until after the election, I'd say he's dirtier than I gave him credit for.

[gjohnsoniv]

As some others have said, I'm no conspiracy theory person, but the timing is very convienient.

[DaveTN]

I hope the FBI (or anyone else) couldn’t track the head of the CIA’s email without the CIA knowing it. But I guess you just never know. [img]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/TourGlide/Web%20Stuff/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Guest HvyMtl]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1352573873' post='843206']
Hence the timing. Could all be coincidence; I'm certainly no conspiracy theory guy, but the timing of all this is fishy. If this was something Obama was hiding up his sleeve until after the election, I'd say he's dirtier than I gave him credit for.
[/quote]

The timing was definitely political. It was held until after the elections. That is the nature of politics, and business. Do not get rid of the popular guy, until after the election, or you sold all the stock the company needs you to.

[mcurrier]

HILLARY CLINTON DECLINES TO TESTIFY BECAUSE OF BUSY SCHEDULE - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-asked-clinton-to-testify-on-benghazi-but-she-declines-due-to-scheduling-conflict/article/2513151

[mcurrier]

Must be nice to be able to a: "decline", and b: over a busy schedule. Next time I am called to testify, I'll have to remember that one.