Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well heck, it was OK for a President to be too weak, yet it's suddenly not OK for a head of the CIA?
This story still doesn't quite add up.
totally agree, however, is it b/c she had access to his computer along with highly classified info? If so, whole different ball game and she could be prosecuted....that would be a felony wouldn't it? and if so, they will put her away, so not to have any more leaks.....
however, there is another side of this story...Our President, bought soldiers home, to appease his special interest groups, however in doing so, put the remaining soldiers and all the consultants in harms way. Plus, the money that is being spent over there to pay the consultants is astronomical....and boy could I tell you stories about the corruption with those sub contractors.
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 hearings she is chairing next week into the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.
How did he go from schedued to testifying but now he "will not need to"?
This should have no effect on that at all.
Many here said this is unrelated so there is no reason for such a change.
I ask why?
One has no bearing on the other.
Good for you
There is still hope for the human race...
Glad you said that, it is fishy, isn't it?
The president got to keep his job. Why can't Petraeus?
Maybe because Clinton wasn't involved in an investigation that had to do with national security, and possibly more????
You really don't get why Petreaus resigned? You might want to read the link I provided above. Read the background of Broadwell as posted above. And lastly, he is no longer in the military nor works for the government - he is an unemployed civilian. As such, his invitation to appear before the Congressional hearing was presented while he was D/CIA has probably been rescinded. While D/CIA he could not decline a request to appear before the hearing committee. Apparently he doesn't plan on testifying as a civilian, although he said he was looking forward to it while D/CIA.
It doesn't appear Peter King is going to let Petraeus off the hook.
"Despite his resignation on Friday citing an extramarital affair, former CIA Director David Petraeus should not back out of plans to testify on the recent attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a high-ranking House member said Friday on CNN.
Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Peter King, who is also a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has been a vocal critic of the Obama administration's handling of the September 11, 2012, attacks in Libya that killed four Americans including diplomat Chris Stevens."
"'David Petraeus testifying has nothing to do with whether or not he's still the CIA director, and I don't see how the CIA can say he's not going to testify,' King said.
"I think his testimony is certainly valuable, it's certainly necessary," King continued. "He was at the center of this and he has answers that only he has."
If Petraeus does not testify as originally scheduled on Thursday, King said, "It should be very soon after that."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.