Petraeus’ Resignation: What Changed? Why Is He No Longer Going To Testify Before Congress?
Yesterday, David Petraeus resigned as Director of the CIA, citing an extramarital affair.
General Petraeus was scheduled to testify before Congress about the Benghazi debacle. Except that, hours after the announcement of his resignation came the news, without further elaboration, that he was not going to do so.
Why not? That he has now stepped down from the post does not change that he was, in fact, Director of the CIA and that he presumably (…. well, is there any doubt now?) possesses information that could shed light on the terrible events, decisions and repeated inaction that led to the death of four Americans at the Benghazi consulate during the September 11 attack. This is one rare instance where I agree with Dem Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Friday that she believed Petraeus’s infidelity did not require him to resign.
Congressman Peter King still very much plans to call on General Petraeus to testify. Any response along the lines of, “Not gonna happen; I’ve quit because I had an affair” would pass no test of credulity, legality or honor. Is this how the General wishes to conclude his remarkable career?
David P, Dan and Warrington have pointed out that, for several reasons, General Petraeus was obliged to resign in light of the affair. I stand corrected on that point. My not fully expressed thought was to question his resignation if its purpose was solely to get him out of testifying before Congress.