This whole thing is insane. The timing, the conincidence, the affair, the “blackmail,” the resignation, the acceptance of resignation.
The “affair” ended shortly after it began. Just enough to hold over his head? And the FBI (answering to Holder, who remains in contempt of Congress) finds that he sent “thousands of emails” in pursuit of the affair’s extension. What gave the FBI the hint to investigate Petraeus’ safety?
Then we get to the stories told by Petraeus to Congress. As a result of blackmail or “friendly advice”? Call me naive, but I don’t think years of duty-honor-country can continue to condone such sabotage. The deal was, I’m imagining, that if he resigned, he’d get nothing good out of it: it’s one thing to resign as a matter of honor, another thing entirely when it’s a matter of dishonor.
Then there’s the security argument. Petraeus had opened himself and the agency (and the country) to pressure or blackmail because he was hiding a secret. Well, he’s told the secret. It’s out. How can he still be blackmailed by it? (Clinton wasn’t.) So if he can’t now be blackmailed for it, why did Obammy accept his resignation? Unless Petraeus had already broken, or was about to break, faith with Obama or his administration?
And the libs dare toss Watergate at us.
How did you figure that out? It seems as though it lasted a lot longer than "shortly?"