A House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staffer told The Daily Caller that former CIA Director David Petraeus will not testify before the committee next week. The committee, however, expects to have a CIA witness at its November 15 hearing.

Petraeus was slated to testify about the September 11, 2012 attack that resulted in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. His testimony was to come before both the House committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee in closed door hearings.

He unexpectedly announced his resignation Friday, citing an extramarital affair.

CBS News’ Mark Knoller reported on Twitter that Petraeus also will not testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee and that acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify in his place.

The House and Senate panels could choose to subpoena Petraeus to compel his testimony.

Her biography of Petraeus was titled, “ALL IN!” Hey-yo!

She met Petraeus in 2006 when he spoke at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, where she was a graduate student. When she told him about her research interests in counterterrorism and military intelligence, he handed her his card and offered his help. “He really cares about mentoring,” she told the Charlotte Observer.



  1. Captain Obvious says:

    Hmmm. The chief spy of the United States was in a secret affair and is now vulnerable to blackmail. Nah that seems like a crappy reason. I’ll go with the conspiracy theory.

    • ± says:

                      How is he vulnerable to blackmail?

      • Captain Obvious says:

        Um, spies don’t open themselves up to blackmail; affairs, debt, whatever. This is like Rule #1 in spy school. He would fire anyone who worked for him that did the same thing, even if it had been revealed.

        • ± says:

          I like your cool non sequitur response and all and that Petraeus (putatively) had an affair and everyone knows about it.

          So how is he vulnerable to blackmail?

    • So what says:

      The former “chief spy” knows as much about spying as he does about keeping it in his pants. He was never in the intelligence side of the military.

      • noname says:

        Aren’t spies emotional eunuch! They can’t share anything with their spouse, family, friends ….

        Their non work relationships are incidental and cover against their mission focus and beliefs.

        Petraeus can now lead a more emotionally attached, normal, healthy and committed life!

        Petraeus and his family will be the better for resigning!

        The CIA and gov have plenty of trained emotional eunuchs and tools to replace him!

  2. Glenn E. says:

    Jokingly, Petraeus wouldn’t have had to resign if Romney had become President. Mott’s religion allows for multiple wives, girlfriends, concubines, mistresses, etc. No disgrace there.

    But seriously. Is this the latest way to get out of a Congressional witch hunt. “Sorry fellas, but I cheated on my wife. So I’m outa here. Talk to the next guy”. I’ll bet a lot of lesser ranked soldiers wish they could duck out of a sticky situation, so easily. But they conveniently got rid of the “Hey I’m Gay!”, get out of the US military excuse. So the “unfaithful hubby” had to be made plausible for the top brass. Bet it doesn’t work for Non-Coms. Even though it cost a lot more tax dollars to train military officers. They can walk for any number of reasons. Obviously they’re easily replaceable. While the common soldier is vital cannon fodder. Can’t let them wriggle out of their contract. Wars would grind to a halt. OMG!

  3. Glenn E. says:

    BTW. I’ll bet the tabloid press WILL restrain themselves from saying, “Did Petraeus, Betray US?”

    • Captain Obvious says:

      How about “Patraeus All In with Paula Broadwell”?

    • Captain Obvious says:

      McCullough was in first with “cockup”.

    • Cap'nKangaroo says:

      Was the biographer “embedded” with General Patraeus in Afghanistan?

    • ± says:

      As you allude, the media used the puerile ‘Petraeus betrayed us’ years ago under Bush II. The ‘captains’ missed your point.

  4. Lost my clearance in 1977 says:

    Giving your f**k puppet access to his classified email was Petraeus’s real problem.

    For doubts about Benghazi, consult the ever-reliable snopes.com.

    If this shameful exploitation of a national tragedy doesn’t convince Fox followers to reconsider, nothing will.

  5. MikeN says:

    Translation, he was being blackmailed into not saying anything deviating from the Obama line. Finally gave up so he wouldn’t be asked about his lies to Congress when he said it was a video that caused the attack.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      MikeN, you’ve got to up your game. jim g has got a theory that’s way wackier than yours.

    • Cap'nKangaroo says:

      Please provide a link to to any testimony to Congress of General Petraeus saying a video led to the attack. Please be sure it is actual testimony or official press release and not some right-wing bloggers supposition of what he might have said.

    • McCullough says:

      Pretty much what you said.

  6. jim g says:

    It wasn’t about an affair. Now that Obama’s in for a second term and now there’s nothing WE can do about it…
    director of CIA was ordered by POTUS to begin ops against US citizens right here at home. This man has a shred of integrity and refused. And so THIS is the story we’ve been handed, the media recites it like mindless zombies. And the job now goes to whichever lackey will obey the order

  7. Bob Morris says:

    FYI: Any Mormon today found to be secretly polygamist is excommunicated, period.

    • Cap'nKangaroo says:

      And some are openly polygamist and consider The Latter Day Saints to have broken the covenant with God and thus are not to be followed.

    • Sidnfrank says:

      What about openly polygamist?

  8. Cap'nKangaroo says:

    My conspiracy theory is that Obama is creating this big news story to take the heat off of Karl Rove.

    All the right-wing nutjobs will be blogging about Patraeus and Benghazi instead of holding Rove accountable for wasting some $400 Million on the election. This will give Rove time to save his SuperPacs so he can f**k up again next election cycle.

  9. EastCoastCrackP0t says:

    Petraeus needs to fight back. Grab on and pull them down with him.

    Total Snow job.

    Angus King 2012 May he be the senator version of Gary Johnson.

  10. prof. johnnycakes says:

    Resigns due to infidelity? …Oh please.

    If this is the real reason, what’s next?

    Getting a Purple Heart for a papercut?

  11. I’General Petraeus was on active duty at the time of the affair so it’s adultery and punishable under Article 134 of the UCMJ.

    Pull his ass out of retirement and court-martial it.

  12. dave m brewer says:

    If he cheats on his wife… He will cheat on farm animals.

  13. bobbo, one true Liberal recognizing Obama is too far Right says:

    Cheating on his wifey = Zero reason to resign, but this is America.

    Mistress got access to Secret Emails? = Plausible. If she is prosectured for same, that will be known if a few days.

    Refusing Obama illegal/immoral order? = Super Neat if true. If true, Betrayus would still only be HALF A HERO. Refusing the order is not enough. Making the reason public would be the heroic thing to do. So, while interesting, I don’t think thats it. Violating the constitution is authorized by law. Generals became generals by following orders and the law. No constitutional scholars in the ranks.

    Pillow talk.

    Yea, verily.

    • bobbo, one true Liberal recognizing Obama is too far Right says:

      WHOA—thats typing so bad as to evidence that other error of mine==skipping words in steam of conscious epileptic fit.

      Must slow down.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      I don’t think anyone really thinks that cheating on his wife is a reason to quit. Lot of stress, long times away from home, etc probably contributed to a mistake. Morally the only he has to answer to is his family.

      But he’s head of the spooks, and part of the job is not leaving yourself open to security leaks and coercive influence. His job is to make sure it doesn’t happen, not be the cause of it.

      He’s a quality guy, he’ll be back in public service again. No one will hold it against him.

  14. Neptune5 says:

    he seemed like a real standup guy.

  15. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Under a Democrat regime, only homosexual affairs are tolerated.

    Drudge beat Beavis and Butthead, noting the title of her book is “All In” and that this was a “covert affair.”

    • So what says:

      That must be great news for the republican side of congress it means they won’t get in trouble any more at the airport.

      Why is it always the hypocritical GOP who gets caught with their hands down some other guys pants?

      Alfie you’re a conservative republican hell you’re a deeply religious conservative republican. Is there something should tell your wife?

  16. JohnK says:

    Sorry, but your headline is full of sh!t. Congress has subpoena power. He can still be required, forced, to testify. Therefore, you wingnuts can still push for THE IMPEACHMENT.

    • McCullough says:

      Congress! Ha….That’s a good one.

      Executive Privilege…ever hear of it? Think Fast and Furious.

      • JohnK says:

        Soooo…. You just replied that your headline never was true, if he could always claim executive privilege.

  17. bobbo, one true Liberal recognizing Obama is too far Right says:

    There is “nothing” stand up about a guy that cheats on his wife.

    There is nothing stand up about a guy that allows his mistress to access top secret documents and quits a job requiring secrecy and blaming that breach on his infidelity.

    Like 99% of anyone else—he is not a stand up guy===just a human being muddling through this veil of tears as best he can from day to day. Cream and scum both rise to the top, usually in about equal proportions.

    The American mania for heros is all rather childish. So is expecting people to be faithful to their spouses. THAT is an issue between the two people in the marriage–not for the greater public at large.

    …. same as it always was.

  18. John E. Quantum says:

    I find it interesting that nobody is discussing how this all came out right after the election. If it had come out just before the election…….

    There once was a man named Petraeus
    With whom Paula Broadwell doth layeth
    When he shouted “All In”
    She looked up at him
    And asked him to give her his loins’ breath

    • bobbo, one true Liberal recognizing Obama is too far Right says:

      What do you find interesting about that?

      Lets all get excited about an issue that has practically zero impact on our lives?

      Great Hubbub!!!!

  19. Hyph3n says:

    I’m a little disappointed no one is proposing a “CIA is taking out one of its own” theory. That or it’s actually a CIA plot to send Petrarus deep undercover into the Republican party. You guys are losing you edge.

    • noname says:

      Sometimes a Cigar Is Just a Cigar, but; it certainly can be much more fun and sexy to imagine a conspiracy wrapped in an enigma shrouded by a conundrum shrouded in a myth!!

      After listening to the Republican this the last election; conspiracy and conundrums are getting old.

  20. msbpodcast says:

    That was the point I raised in BoingBoing.

    It was probably easier to talk his wife, (who can’t be made to testify against him so he can tell her the truth,) into this affair bullshit cover than it would be to try to get away with lying to congress (those fuckers are mean [look at what they did to Clinton.])

    Now he’s magically off the hook by falling on a pillow instead of on his sword.

    • Captain Obvious says:

      I’m don’t think either they would have ripped into Patraeus like the Republicans did with Clinton.

      • msbpodcast says:

        That’s because Patraeus is a known quantity. (He could have them, uh, disposed of, by his ol’ army buddies or his new spook buddies.)

        Politicians are good at looking the other way when its suits their asses.

        Its been that way since before Julius Ceasar.

  21. plarsen says:

    You Americans are truly funny.

    Sexual scandal = consensual sex between adults. Why this is anyones business beyond the immediate involved is incomprehensible. Privacy does not exist in your dictionary. It would be rather more worrisome if a man like Petraeus had no interest in sex.

    Anyway, most men are pretty much helpless if a young woman really makes an effort. Our principal brain is tiny.

    OTOH you guys nearly elect a man for President who is a member of a religious sect. Have you guys read the Book of Mormon?

    Keep up the show – it’s hilarious. We here in Europe make a mighty effort – but it is hard keeping up to your level.

    • Dallas says:

      It’s seeking scandal and entertainment at others expense!

      Land of the hypocritical :-)

      My morals are better than yours ! ( but they’re for sale)!