Do you think Petraeus was really fired?

Interesting point.

But without knowing what enquiries are in train, I wonder if a CIA chief can be 'required' to give testimony/evidence in public.

Here in the UK, matters relating to the actual operation of security services' activities have always been subject to a clamp-down/veil of silence - on the grounds that divulging certain facts would undermine/jeopardise the very nature of 'secret service' ops - giving 'succour to enemies' etc etc.

We now have a land-mark building on the banks of the Thames - HQ of our internal/external MI5/MI6 security services - in line with current 'transparency' demands - but it's difficult to believe another Dept x doesn't exist elsewhere - OFF the record, OFF the radar screen, OFF all traceable trails of financial accounting, etc.

SOoo secret that - as with nuclear bombing codes - only a handful know it exists, under a guise which changes its 'non-existent' ID as serving officers, ministers and even Prime Ministers come and go.

Yonks ago - we had the infamous 'Profumo affair' - a Defence minister sucked into a web or honey-trap of 'sexual naughtiness' - caught pants down sleeping with floozies also bedding a senior KGB officer. He served some time in jail, for PERJURY (denying under oath) for involvement in other goings-on - which is when more than a few beans were spilled.

Petraeus's 'ill-judged 'affair' might be similar - or not. A 4-star General with an exemplary record exposing himself to public inquiry is embarrassing to say the least.

ONE suspects - HANDS-ON CIC Obama (heroic Tracer and Exterminator of Osama Bin-liner) will find it convenient for Petraeus to exit stage left - 'coincidentally' just as Secretary of State H Clinton confirms she is standing down.

Who 'carries the can' for the the ghastly Benghazi affair will no doubt STICK in the minds of many - whilst Obama somehow asserts (or denies) this particular buck isn't/ought not to be on HIS Oval desk.

Interesting times lie ahead.

If he is called to testify, he'll be called to testify. His work or lack of it will not matter.

I think he resigned. I'm sorry that he felt compelled to do so.

added as edit - I don't really think the problem with the affair was AT the White House. I think internal regulations for "spy" organizations including the managerial level calls for behavior above reproach. If you can be blackmailed for a behavior, whether anyone actually IS blackmailing you or not, that sends up all sorts of clouds on your service in an agency such as the CIA. Personally, I think his personal affairs are between him, his partner in the affair, and his wife, and it is none of my business. He did an exemplary job in the service of our nation while he was in the Military, and I have no reason to doubt he did the same sort of exemplalry job at the CIA. However, there is a whole lot going on at the CIA that none of us here in the general public know about, so it is impossible for us to say what exactly he has or has not done.

As far as this being a move by Obama or his administration to oust someone who knew the dirt...I think you are assuming facts not in evidence. Besides, if that were true, LBJ would have KEPT him...as Johnson put it, it's better to have someone inside the tent , peeing out rather than outside the tent, peeing in. Of course, LBJ didn't say "peeing."

i do no longer understand what united states you wakened in yet it is united statesa.. common Petraeus could be entitle to a path if charged. If Hillary try that stunt as president the articles of impeachment could be on her so speedy and be out of place of work till now the ink could be dry on mentioned order. i'm no longer prepared on Hillary and that i understand she isn't that insane to even evaluate that concept. This united states in user-friendly terms had one firing squad that replaced into in WWII and NONE below the UCMJ. So the place did you get that concept because of the fact Petraeus advised the actuality issues are going nicely in Irag and the surge is working. So lower back your question no longer in concept or fairly.

No. Obama wanted Him to Stay. But Petraeus is a Soldier of Honor. And He KNEW He couldn't Head the CIA- with THAT kind of Scandal hanging over His head.

At that level it should be.

I mean, I know Bill Clinton got away with one, but not without a ton of negative publicity.

Nobody, not even a general, could maintain prowess with this kind of scandal.

It's a bit of saving face. He is not insisting on holding office like Blagojevich did. That looks douchey.

I don't think this will hinder his credibility if he has to testify.