Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Peteus resigns

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 355 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 9, 2012 12:12:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 11, 2012 12:47:04 PM PST
Stated cause: an extra-marital affair.

NBC newsbreak. More distracting, salacious details at 4.

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 12:13:43 PM PST
Boomy says:

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:16:25 PM PST
You mean Petraeus!

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 12:18:19 PM PST
Rev. Otter says:


Posted on Nov 9, 2012 12:18:56 PM PST
harmonious1 says:

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 12:21:56 PM PST
Here is Petraeus' resignation letter:

HEADQUARTERS Central Intelligence Agency
9 November 2012

Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA. After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.

As I depart Langley, I want you to know that it has been the greatest of privileges to have served with you, the officers of our Nation's Silent Service, a work force that is truly exceptional in every regard. Indeed, you did extraordinary work on a host of critical missions during my time as director, and I am deeply grateful to you for that.

Teddy Roosevelt once observed that life's greatest gift is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing. I will always treasure my opportunity to have done that with you and I will always regret the circumstances that brought that work with you to an end.

Thank you for your extraordinary service to our country, and best wishes for continued success in the important endeavors that lie ahead for our country and our Agency.

With admiration and appreciation,

David H. Petraeus

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:27:07 PM PST
The best you can say is he owned it, no dissembling or excuses. Hate the act, admire the honesty (and resignation).

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 12:31:12 PM PST
Voice of god says:
Unless the affair was with a co-worker or compromised security in some way, I don't see why he should resign. His personal life is personal. I don't care or need to know whom he bones.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:34:29 PM PST
That and I am pleased that he is not holding his own press conference where he apologizes to his wife were the wife looks on somewhat mortified....think Mark Sanford, Bill Clinton, John Edwards and a whole host of others. Glad he just sent the letter out for others to read!

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 12:35:13 PM PST
Jim Penname says:
I guess getting off the bus seemed better than getting under it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:36:05 PM PST
I agree with you to a certain extent if he was not in a high security type of job...apparently affairs can be used for blackmail...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:37:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2012 12:37:27 PM PST
Boomy says:
Uhhh...for a politician, that may be OK...for the CIA director...unless the wife is OK with it, NOT OK...same as the problem with the secret service earlier this year.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:37:27 PM PST
Rasstro says:
Voice of God,

Some light on it for even if it was not with a co-worker. Any affair can compromise security, because it puts the person in a position where you can be blackmailed either to give some information or for other reasons. This is also why periodic security investigations are required for those with a clearance, to ensure that no one can be compromised due to affairs, finances, etc...

Hope that helps.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:43:57 PM PST
I still don't get it. How is his case any difference from Clinton or Kennedy? Seems rather extreme for him to resign without some extenuating circumstances.

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 12:44:16 PM PST
The only blackmail which might have taken place would have been an insider wanting a leg up in career status. No foreigner would get close enough to transmit a blackmail request - besides the black helicopters would have taken them out.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:46:56 PM PST
Considering it's the CIA I would not be surprised if it's some sort of cover-up.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:50:49 PM PST
Voice of god says:
He's creating a cover so he can infiltrate a gang in a Russian prison and find out where a suitcase full of toxic chemical weapons is. Lil Wayne is the plucky sidekick and John Woo directs.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 12:57:53 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2012 1:00:49 PM PST
Rasstro says:

That is a tricky question, because politicians do get some leeway for the very reason that the people elect them and thus give them via the vote a need to know when it comes to classified information. Petraeus was an appointee, thus he was not voted into his position, he like every appointee would require a full background check to ensure his reliability to keep and maintain classified information.

This has always been an issue with security clearances/classified information and politicians. You cannot tell a person duly elected by the people to a position of oversight that they cannot have full oversight. Agencies that handle classified cannot live in a vacuum. One thing that the people should do is not to put politicians like this in places like Congress that oversee classified information, they should be held to a higher standard (my personal opinion). To mitigate some of this though you just don't put them on committees like Defense or State, maybe give them a seat at Agriculture.

As for Presidents, now this is really tricky, because ultimately as Commander in Chief, as the head of the nation, they should be allowed access to all information required to perform their duty, this is why personally we need to hold elected officials especially the President to a higher standard than regular citizens, until we do so we live in a world of a lot of gray.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 1:08:04 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2012 1:11:27 PM PST
Venus: I thought about that, too. He married the daughter of the superintendent of West Point. She's has years of sacrificing. Might have shrugged at this one, especially if she knew it wasn't true.

He was scheduled to to testify before Congress next week on the Bengazi witchhunt.

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 1:08:57 PM PST
Voicebox5 says:
Do you think this is truth, or is he falling on his sword to protect Obama about Benghazi? Hint: if you think it's completely coincidental timing, I have a wonderful pile of manure and a handful of magic beans to sell you.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 1:38:53 PM PST
Jim Penname says:
"Do you think this is truth, or is he falling on his sword to protect Obama about Benghazi?"

Opposite. I think he is falling on his sword in order to free himself to testify fully abut Benghazi.

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 1:50:10 PM PST
Kilgore says:
maybe wifey. just stated, if you want this marriage you get out of that hussy kitchen.... could just be o overzealous wife making demands.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 2:04:34 PM PST
They're saying now he's not going to be testifying...hmmmmm.....
The timing is too coincidental...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 2:10:09 PM PST
Voicebox5 says:
Do you think for a minute that the administration would let the "truth" come out? It would lead to impeachment hearings, which would lead to no action in the Senate, which would lead to more bitter resentment between GOP and Dem forces in Congress. Obama would only be able to push through his agenda by way of executive fiat... oh, wait. That's already been happening the last two years.

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 2:11:04 PM PST
Jim Penname says:
"They're saying now he's not going to be testifying...hmmmmm....."

Congressional committees have the power of Subpoena.
As a private citizen he will be beholding to no one .
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Politics forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
2396 14 hours ago
St Louis Riots 1111 9 seconds ago
why did israel provoke the latest war? 1618 21 seconds ago
Republicans embracing black or gay candidates apparently doesn't go over well with Democrats 5 1 minute ago
Officer suffered facial fractures 761 1 minute ago
Time To Rewrite The Constitution 37 3 minutes ago
After further review I believe my intial assumption were wrong; it looks like Micheal Brown was indeed wrongfully killed 731 4 minutes ago
Another stark confirmation of white colonial oppression: Grand Jury has 9 white members and only 3 black members 60 6 minutes ago
Obama is acting just like a malignant narcissist by shirking his responsibilities in the face of criticism 127 6 minutes ago
what news sources have you found to be crediable? 24 8 minutes ago
It's funny how, as soon as Holder pulled into town, all of the riots and looting stopped like a switch 7 9 minutes ago
Another radio station dumps Rush Limbaugh. 44 15 minutes ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  50
Total posts:  355
Initial post:  Nov 9, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions