CIA director David Petraeus resigns

pjl44
pjl44 Posts: 10,525
edited November 2012 in A Moving Train
Because of an affair. Before he was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi attack next week. Which he won't be doing now. Accountability, transparency, hope, change. Yep.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/09/so ... ?hpt=hp_t1
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134567

Comments

  • CH156378
    CH156378 Posts: 1,539
    :corn:
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    Dumbass for throwing away 37 years because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants.

    I'm curious though, how does his resignation affect his ability to testify? Doesn't he still possess the knowledge regardless of whether or not he's still Director?
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,525
    hedonist wrote:
    Dumbass for throwing away 37 years because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants.

    I'm curious though, how does his resignation affect his ability to testify? Doesn't he still possess the knowledge regardless of whether or not he's still Director?

    That was my question. From the CNN blog:

    [Updated at 4:52 p.m.] Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify next week before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the fatal attack in Benghazi instead of David Petraeus, according to the office of that committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    pjl44 wrote:
    hedonist wrote:
    Dumbass for throwing away 37 years because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants.

    I'm curious though, how does his resignation affect his ability to testify? Doesn't he still possess the knowledge regardless of whether or not he's still Director?

    That was my question. From the CNN blog:

    [Updated at 4:52 p.m.] Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify next week before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the fatal attack in Benghazi instead of David Petraeus, according to the office of that committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
    Ah, thank you, I'd missed that.
  • aerial
    aerial Posts: 2,319
    He will either tell the truth about what happened or lawyer up......
    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
  • Prince Of Dorkness
    Prince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    Ok... is this 1967?

    Why do we care about an extra-marital affair?

    I mean honestly... who cares? Does this really affect anyone here?
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • dimitrispearljam
    dimitrispearljam Posts: 139,725
    maybe that was the way to get out....or to cover up something bigger..
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    Ok... is this 1967?

    Why do we care about an extra-marital affair?

    I mean honestly... who cares? Does this really affect anyone here?
    Your top spy should not have a blackmail worthy secret....not a moral issue in this case.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    dimitrispearljam wrote:
    maybe that was the way to get out....or to cover up something bigger..
    One take is that the CIA was completely wrong in the intel leading up to 9/11/12 in Libya....so, maybe...
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    Ok... is this 1967?

    Why do we care about an extra-marital affair?

    I mean honestly... who cares? Does this really affect anyone here?
    Of course not; I don't think anyone in this thread has implied that...although opinions fly all over the place, so why not here too?

    I was more concerned initially thinking he wouldn't be testifying.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    pjl44 wrote:
    Because of an affair. Before he was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi attack next week. Which he won't be doing now. Accountability, transparency, hope, change. Yep.

    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/09/so ... ?hpt=hp_t1


    ummmm.... he resigned and admitted to an affair without anyone publicly knowing about it first. How is that anything other than accountability or transparency? Would you have felt better if his affair was outed in the press and he resigned in a scandal? It's easy to admit something and resign after you are caught, he didn't do that.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • marcos
    marcos Posts: 2,112
    hedonist wrote:
    Dumbass for throwing away 37 years because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants.

    I'm curious though, how does his resignation affect his ability to testify? Doesn't he still possess the knowledge regardless of whether or not he's still Director?

    Yeah, she's not even that hot. But I suppose it was just an opportunity thing attraction.
  • Prince Of Dorkness
    Prince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    tybird wrote:
    Your top spy should not have a blackmail worthy secret....not a moral issue in this case.


    Right... but the secret is out now so can't really blackmail him with it anymore.

    But I guess I see your point. That' a very good reason.

    I guess it's a bit different for say... a line worker at a GM plant than the guy who knows the names and addresses of the SEALs who took out Bin Ladin.
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • Smellyman
    Smellyman Asia Posts: 4,528
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    tybird wrote:
    Your top spy should not have a blackmail worthy secret....not a moral issue in this case.


    Right... but the secret is out now so can't really blackmail him with it anymore.

    But I guess I see your point. That' a very good reason.

    I guess it's a bit different for say... a line worker at a GM plant than the guy who knows the names and addresses of the SEALs who took out Bin Ladin.

    call me a conspiracy theorist, but I can gurantee they have way more to blackmail than a menial affair.
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,525
    blackredyellow wrote:
    pjl44 wrote:
    Because of an affair. Before he was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi attack next week. Which he won't be doing now. Accountability, transparency, hope, change. Yep.

    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/09/so ... ?hpt=hp_t1


    ummmm.... he resigned and admitted to an affair without anyone publicly knowing about it first. How is that anything other than accountability or transparency? Would you have felt better if his affair was outed in the press and he resigned in a scandal? It's easy to admit something and resign after you are caught, he didn't do that.

    Nothing to do with the affair. As CIA director, he was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi attack next week. Now he's not. That's unsettling.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    pjl44 wrote:
    blackredyellow wrote:
    pjl44 wrote:
    Because of an affair. Before he was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi attack next week. Which he won't be doing now. Accountability, transparency, hope, change. Yep.

    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/09/so ... ?hpt=hp_t1


    ummmm.... he resigned and admitted to an affair without anyone publicly knowing about it first. How is that anything other than accountability or transparency? Would you have felt better if his affair was outed in the press and he resigned in a scandal? It's easy to admit something and resign after you are caught, he didn't do that.

    Nothing to do with the affair. As CIA director, he was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi attack next week. Now he's not. That's unsettling.

    I don't really see the big deal... The Deputy Director (now Acting Director) will testify. I'm sure they both got the same briefing and reports of what happened, and will divulge/not divulge whatever info that they want.

    Unless Michael Morell completely throws Petraeus under the bus, I think that this is a non-issue.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    tybird wrote:
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    Ok... is this 1967?

    Why do we care about an extra-marital affair?

    I mean honestly... who cares? Does this really affect anyone here?
    Your top spy should not have a blackmail worthy secret....not a moral issue in this case.

    and then there's this

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11 ... s-say?lite
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,525
    blackredyellow wrote:
    I don't really see the big deal... The Deputy Director (now Acting Director) will testify. I'm sure they both got the same briefing and reports of what happened, and will divulge/not divulge whatever info that they want.

    Unless Michael Morell completely throws Petraeus under the bus, I think that this is a non-issue.

    Wow. Would your opinion change if Morell fails to answer questions because he claims to not have the knowledge to do so? Also, why couldn't Petraeus appear before the committee anyway?
  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,525
    norm wrote:
    tybird wrote:
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    Ok... is this 1967?

    Why do we care about an extra-marital affair?

    I mean honestly... who cares? Does this really affect anyone here?
    Your top spy should not have a blackmail worthy secret....not a moral issue in this case.

    and then there's this

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11 ... s-say?lite

    Meh. Non-issue, apparently.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    pjl44 wrote:
    blackredyellow wrote:
    I don't really see the big deal... The Deputy Director (now Acting Director) will testify. I'm sure they both got the same briefing and reports of what happened, and will divulge/not divulge whatever info that they want.

    Unless Michael Morell completely throws Petraeus under the bus, I think that this is a non-issue.

    Wow. Would your opinion change if Morell fails to answer questions because he claims to not have the knowledge to do so? Also, why couldn't Petraeus appear before the committee anyway?

    If he claims that he doesn't have knowledge of something, then yes, that's a problem. But how can the Deputy Director say that anymore than the Director could? And why start thinking conspiracy on what he is going to say before he even testifies?

    I'm guessing once Patraeus resigned, he wouldn't have the authority to speak on classified information? No idea there though.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln

Categories