Director-Petraeus-Resigns-Cites-Extra-Marital-Affair

[realitybugll]

_http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/NATL-CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns-Cites-Extra-Marital-Affair-178159541.html

I'm very suspicious when I read this article. who knows what is really going on. I don't doubt that he did have at least 1 extramarital affair.

 

[anart]

_http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/NATL-CIA-Director-Petraeus-Resigns-Cites-Extra-Marital-Affair-178159541.html

I'm very suspicious when I read this article. who knows what is really going on. I don't doubt that he did have at least 1 extramarital affair.

It certainly looks like more is going on, though for a cover story it's not unusual. Extramarital affairs can be used against intelligence assets for blackmail reasons, so it's cause to lose security clearance. With that said, however, the head of the CIA is usually not concerned with such "minor indiscretions" from what I understand - soooo - probably a lot more here than meets the eye.

 

[Beau]

The timing with the elections is interesting. Perhaps the White House felt like he wasn't bloodthirsty enough, or it was some other kind of 'failure to follow orders' reason.

 

[Laura]

With that said, however, the head of the CIA is usually not concerned with such "minor indiscretions" from what I understand - soooo - probably a lot more here than meets the eye.

Wow, you can say that again. Wonder what's up? Right after the election, too.

 

[Windmill knight]

And yesterday I heard that Hillary is leaving the White House. Are the rats leaving a sinking ship?

_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230160/Hillary-Clinton-THREE-times-popular-nearest-rival-Joe-Biden-Democrats-presidential-candidate-2016.html

Hillary Clinton THREE times more popular as her nearest rival Joe Biden to be Democrat's presidential candidate in 2016

Hillary Clinton is already three times as popular as her nearest rival Joe Biden to be the next Democratic presidential candidate, leaked polling data showed today.

If she chose to run for the White House, as many expect her to do, she is expected to take 58 per cent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses compared to Biden on 17 per cent, according to Public Policy Polling.

Yesterday, her spokesman confirmed she will step down as U.S. Secretary of State within 'days' of President Barack Obama's second inauguration in January and is seen as a prelude as a run for the top job in 2016.

If she is after the presidency she could as well stay a little longer and boost her popularity a little more - I mean, she's got at least three more years, right? Unless she knows the administration will have many reasons to be unpopular, or it will face unsurmountable situations (no need to spell the possibilities out, do we?).

 

[Keit]

Maybe not everything in US Politics has to do with Israel, but then, again, who knows...So I made a search for Petraeus and Israel. And apparently, back in 2010, and when he was a head of military's Central Command, there was "a controversy" regarding what Petraeus had to say about Israel's policies and its lobby in the US. Of course, he refuted everything as being taken out of context, but maybe now, with the possibility of attack on Iran still looming, he had to be dealt with.

Here are quotes and links to the relevant articles:

_http://swampland.time.com/2010/03/16/petraeus-on-israel/

... Israel is clearly in the wrong and, according to the Petraeus briefing, it is hurting American foreign policy in the region. In fact, Israel is doubly wrong: its non-stop lobbying for war with Iran is also exceedingly dangerous (the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have unanimously counseled against war with Iran). The fact that David Petraeus, a hero to many on the right, is concerned about Israel’s intransigence should give AIPAC and the neocons pause. It won’t, but it should.

_http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/03/petraeus-on-israel/189340/

Petraeus sees what so much of Washington refuses to see: that Israel's year-long contempt for Obama, initiated by the Gaza campaign, entrenched by Netanyahu's victory and compounded by continued settlements and last week's humiliation of Biden is a problem. More then a problem, Israel's total impunity for its intransigence is becoming a liability for the advance of US interests around the world. Petraeus was so disturbed by a recent trip to the Middle East that he asked a team of top CENTCOM officers to brief Admiral Mullen, and asked that the region be made part of his command:

_http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/25/petraeus-sets-the-record-strai

Earlier this month, a posting on the Foreign Policy website caused a firestorm by reporting that in January, Gen. David Petraeus “sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers.”

According to the dispatch by Mark Perry (an advocate of talks with terrorist groups), Petraeus requested that the West Bank and Gaza be shifted to his Central Command (from European Command) so that the U.S. military could “be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.”

The report, which was presented as context for the recent blowup between the Obama administration and Israel, was quickly seized on by critics of Israel as confirmation of their view that U.S. support for Israel hinders America’s national security interests.

 

[Rich]

On SOTT with comment: http://www.sott.net/article/253322-David-Petraeus-resigns-as-CIA-director-over-extramarital-affair

The extramarital affair excuse just doesn't make any sense. "Petraeus was scheduled to testify next week on Capitol Hill in hearings on the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador and two CIA security officers, in Libya in September. U.S. officials said Friday that the controversy surrounding that attack - and the administration's shifting explanations for it - played no role in Petraeus's decision to resign." Whatever Patraeus's role was during the Benghazi attacks, the opposite of what 'officials' are saying seems more plausible.

On October 26th the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. "

William Kristol at the Weekly Standard wrote:

So who in the government did tell "anybody" not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why - and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations - did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

Human Events reports:

Following Petraeus's announcement, a spokeswoman for the committee said that the hearing is expected to proceed as scheduled, though the CIA director's immediate resignation will likely change the witness list. It's not immediately clear if the CIA will send a replacement witness to testify, though CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, now acting director is reportedly in line for Petraeus's position.

Would love to know what goes on behind the scenes.

 

[Niall]

CIA senior staff are probably expected to take 'vacations of filth' on a regular basis, so it's a safe bet that this is a cover story.

I wonder if the US-Libya ambassador's death at the US embassy consulate mission in Benghazi on the 11th of September, and subsequent exposure of CIA gun-running to al Qaeda groups pretending to be freedom fighters in Libya and Syria, had anything to do with it?

 

[Rich]

CIA senior staff are probably expected to take 'vacations of filth' on a regular basis, so it's a safe bet that this is a cover story.

I wonder if the US-Libya ambassador's death at the US embassy consulate mission in Benghazi on the 11th of September, and subsequent exposure of CIA gun-running to al Qaeda groups pretending to be freedom fighters in Libya and Syria, had anything to do with it?

I agree he was pushed. He never seemed to be an individual who was in charge, rather lacking a backbone and doing what was told. I think the timing opens the possibility to some neocon involvement or simply politically it was better for the Obama administration to make the changes after the election so as not to give the Behghazi issue any further potienatially damaging attention.

Interesting the links to Israel you present Keit but I think the line expressed there would be similar to Obama's.

Interesting also how Hilary publicly took the blame then declares she's off as well.

 

[seek10]

CIA senior staff are probably expected to take 'vacations of filth' on a regular basis, so it's a safe bet that this is a cover story.

I wonder if the US-Libya ambassador's death at the US embassy consulate mission in Benghazi on the 11th of September, and subsequent exposure of CIA gun-running to al Qaeda groups pretending to be freedom fighters in Libya and Syria, had anything to do with it?

I agree he was pushed. He never seemed to be an individual who was in charge, rather lacking a backbone and doing what was told. I think the timing opens the possibility to some neocon involvement or simply politically it was better for the Obama administration to make the changes after the election so as not to give the Behghazi issue any further potienatially damaging attention.

Interesting the links to Israel you present Keit but I think the line expressed there would be similar to Obama's.

Interesting also how Hilary publicly took the blame then declares she's off as well.

Though Petraeus 's decision seems to make sense in view of CIA role in Libya, Hillary clinton's resignation may not be related. Probably obama don't want to have her in that role . With second term, he has more power to dictate his internal affairs.