[GeronL]

I do not trust anyone who works for Obama, first off. This guy did not resign after Benghazi, if he were very upset about happened he would have.

[FreeReign]

I do not trust anyone who works for Obama, first off. This guy did not resign after Benghazi, if he were very upset about happened he would have.

I would also think then that you wouldn't trust a Rat congressman from Maryland who leaked confidential information about supposedly what Petraeus said at a closed hearing, right??

[Paladin2]

"after Benghazi"

POTUS/State were the Jehadi gun runner trail bosses. CIA were just the peons/slaves.

Agreeing to be part of the Regime has consequences. It's good to know ones place (a man's got to know his limitations").

[generally]

Maybe.

But there is another way to look at it. If I managed to get appointed CIA director by 0bama, I’d definitely take the job and do my best to use that position to protect the country. At the same time, I’d keep an eye on 0bama. (Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.) The only way I’d resign is if I thought that would benefit my country more than staying on the job.

Not saying Petraeus thinks the way I do, but I wouldn’t rule that out.

[FredZarguna]

The rat congressman was the ranking member of the committee meeting in closed session. He described the Republican congressmen present as incredulous at the explanation given what the Pentagon had already told the Senate and hostile to Petraeus. He made his remarks on September 14th. In the intervening two months no Republican present at the meeting has contradicted his characterization. It's pretty safe to assume the story is true.

It's also safe to assume that unless both the chair and the ranking member have offered Petraeus immunity or he's only speaking without being sworn or he didn't give sworn testimony on 9/13 that this current story is BS. Because otherwise Petraeus will be incriminating himself for perjury.