Petraeus had not planned to resign over affair

  • Article by: KIMBERLY KINDY , Washington Post
  • Updated: November 12, 2012 - 11:36 PM

Associates say he hoped it wouldn't become public and that he was ordered to quit.

  • 58
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
clintonliesNov. 12, 12 8:30 AM

Why the fuss. Bill Clinton kept his job.

51
45
skeezyksNov. 12, 12 8:43 AM

hy is ANY of this any of our business? They were and are two private people and they broke no laws. The General's high profile does not justify the public's salacious interest in this matter; it is between the two families. And for the record, I'm a Liberal.

34
65
koolioNov. 12, 12 8:45 AM

I watched Book-T.V. on C-Span over the weekend. In February 2012,Ms. Broadwell was at a Washington D.C. book signing for her book of Petraeus "All In". Her co-author was present and his body language told an interesting story. He wouldn't even look at her when she spoke, declined to make any remarks when asked, and have a canned answer to the one and only question he fielded from the audience.

24
1
thunderNov. 12, 12 9:12 AM

We should always be concerned when one of the men who knows some of this Nation's secrets is compromised.

84
7
lechevalier5Nov. 12, 12 9:16 AM

In many states adultery is a crime and as head of the CIA he opened himself up to possible blackmail.

75
6
xyz123qNov. 12, 12 9:23 AM

I still don't get all this interest in this affair. Clinton, Kennedy, FDR etc. all had affairs and did not resign.

31
58
sfod93Nov. 12, 12 9:28 AM

Mr. Petraeus should have resigned immediately after his first FBI interview. The CIA and other USIC organizations routinely punish and fire personnel for any activity that solicits or exposes a security threat or breach. The D/CIA having an affair has serious national security ramifications.

54
4
drposterNov. 12, 12 9:38 AM

For those of you wondering why the big deal. He was the head of the CIA, by having an affair he was compromised end of discussion. For those of you won't don't know/understand how these things work, he by all rights would lose his security clearance which would make it impossible for him to perform his duties.

66
6
pieintheskyNov. 12, 12 9:39 AM

All the "fuss" is about the fact that since he is no longer employed by the CIA, he may not have to testify about Benghazi. The timing on this is a little "convenitent," don't ya think?

36
64
whynotrightNov. 12, 12 9:57 AM

@clintonlies - Why the fuss @skeezyks - is ANY of this any of our business? @xyz123q - I still don't get all this interest in this affair.*** I guess the 3 of you don't quite understand the concept of blackmail and, when this occures at this level of governemnt, the potential impact on security. The timing of all of this is very suspicious.

49
13

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Where will the Twins finish in the AL Central this season?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT

Offers & Events

Showcase MN for chance to WIN

Showcase MN for chance to WIN

Mix a video with our footage to get a chance at a $1,000 vacation gift card

Start on your mix now.


ADVERTISEMENT