Comments on: Noonan: Petraeus resignation "mysterious"
Add a Comment
- Interesting how liberals and conservatives work. Conservatives now wonder if Petraeus' resignation is somehow intended to help the president. Liberals, a few years ago when George Bush was president, used to talk about "General Betrayus." Remember that?
- Reply to this comment
- Sounds like Dickerson is the only "pundit" who has the facts right: Petraeus had to resign because CIA employees in a similar situation would have to resign! It has nothing to do with Benghazi (or Iraq or Afghanistan, for that matter). The CIA has its own standards; he was the CIA Director; that's really all that needs to be said!
- Reply to this comment
- There is something fishy going on here.
- Reply to this comment
- Sometimes an affair is just an affair. I think yhat the general resignation is not hiding anything. He was caught in an affair and decided that the right thing to do was to resign. He should be honored for his 35 years of service.
- Reply to this comment
- His resignation was obama's way to prevent Petraeus from testifying against our treasonous president. obama allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to murder Americans to keep from offending them. Petraeus wouldn't lie under oath and obama had to get rid of him.
- Reply to this comment
- From what I read before"Petraeus' name initially surfaced when a yet-unidentified Tampa woman contacted the FBI after receiving a number of anonymous harassing emails, which apparently referenced the CIA director. Federal agents quickly traced the emails back to Petraeus' biographer, Paula Broadwell, and further investigation revealed evidence - including numerous cryptic emails between the retired four-star general and Broadwell - of an extramarital affair involving the two."
He is in trouble for having an affair with a crazy lady who doesn't mind threatening another possible love interest in Tampa. Let this be a lesson men stay away from CRAZY. - Reply to this comment
- This was such a disappointing segment to watch. All those people with personal ties to Petraeus whining about how he is too important to the nation to be brought down by anything. It's another example of how the elite really believe they are above the rule of law.
- Reply to this comment
- If Petraeus does testify will they be skeptical of him due to these circumstances? I do hope the truth comes out finally. Obama, also, has the opportunity to tell the truth about Benghazi. To be qualified for President you must be honest and have the confidence of the people. I know that this is laughable when it comes to many politicians, but from the leader it should be demanded. Over two months have gone by and the hundreds of questions are met by hundreds of excuses. Now that we know that the Ambassador was asking for help many months before he was killed but also asking for help up to that deadly day. The previous bombing, a few months before, and many more questions are facing this evasive administration. There is no doubt that Obama has been evasive answering questions, but whether he is protecting Hillary or anyone else needs to be known now. Obama, if he wants to fill those shoes, needs to come forward with answers before he can even think about asking for respect from those who didn't vote for him. I would hope that there are some, who did vote for him, would also demand answers.
- Reply to this comment
- If General Petraeus is called to testify before any Congressional committee, all questions should be restricted to the performance of his duties as CIA Director. It would be unseemly and a intrusion into his personal rights for senators or represenatives to ask questions related to gossip. Personally, I think he should lawyer up if he is called to testify. He is a man caught between a rock and a hard place...and he no longer can trust anyone.
- Reply to this comment
- It sounds very mysterious, especially with the fact that Eric Cantor knew about this in October. Let's start by asking Cantor to step down while the investigation is initiated!
- Reply to this comment
