General Petraeus Resigns As CIA Head

[ShamrockOnHelmet]

Saying that if you'd have sex with person x makes you unfit to do job y is a lazy intellectual argument.

If you don't like what public servants do in their personal lives, I suppose thats okay. The public servant put themselves in that position. But clearly the American public, as a group, is not very bright, and tend to revert to simpleton group-think on matters like this.

I personally don't care about his preference for multiple women. It shouldn't matter. But it does to the moronic masses, and he has to know that going into the job.

 

[BobD]

It is not a personal attack against you. However sleeping around with other women while you're married is not a crime but it is wrong. When you get married thats supposed to be a speacial thing for a couple. But lets say your boss is sleeping around on his wife and gets caught he should be forced to resign? No work is different from personal. We all know he didn't resign on his own this was forced with oh such perfect timing.

I'm not judging the General and I volunteer my shortcomings.

I wouldn't buy into the conspiracy theory. It's because of the position he held. As the Director of Central Intelligence you have to be pretty untouchable. The people he leads are put through security clearance nightmares with deep inquiries into their personal lives. Things like poor personal fianances or affairs can be used to show bad judgement, looked at as a character flaw, an integrity issue and a potential weakness.

 

[JughedJones]

Do you guys really think that the head of the CIA or any other intelligence agency falls under the same rules as other cabinet members when it comes to indiscretions like this?

You can't run the most delicate and secretive organization in the world and go around ****ing other broads than your wife... if you don't see how that's a security risk... I don't know what to tell you.

I've known a couple people who had family with security clearance, they question everyone they know... pretty uncomfortably.

You know why? The oldest trick in the book to get intelligence from a dude is to wait till right after they orgasm. Kind of Spy School 101.

I know some people are expecting some kind of grand conspiracy here, but I would be willing to bet that it's just a matter of Petraeus getting his willie wet with the broad who's been his biographer.

He shouldn't have done it, she might go to jail for trying to break in to his email.

99/100 times conspiracies are just a simple explanation.

 

[Joee]

Commit adultery as a 2/LT or Ensign, out you go. Get a DUI, out you go. Crash a gajillion dollar airplane because of some bonehead maneuver, you may stay and even fly again. Lose a rifle on maneuvers at Camp Pendleton, into the brig you'll probably go. Run a ship aground on an uncharted shoal and you'll be relieved and career ended.
The military has lots of third rail items and you know you're rolling the dice if you flirt with them. It appears the CIA is a military culture and this unbelievably brilliant individual really screwed up. Zipper failure has, and probably will, ended many a career.
I don't think this singularly undoes his contributions or accomplishments.

 

[pkt77242]

I have a problem with this timing. You can say what you want this didn't just come about.

The timing is because she is being investigated by the FBI because she might have had access to his email and some classified info. That is why this happened.

 

[irishff1014]

The timing is because she is being investigated by the FBI because she might have had access to his email and some classified info. That is why this happened.

I am throwing the Bull S-hit flag!!!

 

[Redbar]

I am throwing the Bull S-hit flag!!!

Based on what? This is clearly a security issue. I do not make any moral determinations on his behavior, there is clearly a double standard for politicians and the nation's Top Spook. There is a really common sense reason you would not want a philandering spy with national secrets and above top secret clearance, the same way you wouldn't want them to have financial issues. While those same common sense reasons may not be as "critical" for a rank and file congressman, and they may not exist at all for your plumber. How is that not obvious.

 

[Black Irish]

It's interesting how many people will shrug their shoulders over the affairs of high profile people with the "no big deal, it's a personal matter" line of reasoning. But if that same high profile person got recorded telling racist jokes at a party, you'd be hard-pressed to find that same live-and-let-live, laissez faire attitude. Those understanding types would be calling for that person's head for using "poor judgement" and "insensitivity."

 

[Rhode Irish]

Is the only difference between Petraus and DC politicians is that we know about this affair?

I don't understand why an affair makes you unfit to lead the CIA. What am I missing?

He resigned, so assuming he made his own decision maybe he felt like he couldn't do the job while hell was breaking loose in his personal life. But I agree with your larger point: I don't care who boinks who...no idea why peoples' sex lives continue to be news stories. The percentage of sexually deviant or unfaithful public servants is probably very close to the percentage of sexually deviant or unfaithful people in society at large.

Its ridiculous that it is an issue for anyone but their spouse. BobD's argument about if you would cheat on your spouse you would also commit treason is garbage, with all due respect to him. Lots of people cheat; lots of people don't commit treason. The two things aren't in any way related.

I think Petraeus will be remembered as a fine public servant and an American hero, and this will be a footnote in his biography. Ultimately, this is a big deal only to him, his wife, Paula Broadwell and her husband, and whatever children they all have among them. Nobody else should care.

 

[phgreek]

So Bill Clinton and John F Kennedy should have resigned too?

Ding ding...add in Weiner and a host of others who were forced to leave through media circus and pressure...

 

[Rhode Irish]

It's interesting how many people will shrug their shoulders over the affairs of high profile people with the "no big deal, it's a personal matter" line of reasoning. But if that same high profile person got recorded telling racist jokes at a party, you'd be hard-pressed to find that same live-and-let-live, laissez faire attitude. Those understanding types would be calling for that person's head for using "poor judgement" and "insensitivity."

Um...yeah, because a public servant with bigoted views is far more dangerous than a public servant who is sexually promiscuous. One thing can effect others, and the other can't. Please tell me that you aren't struggling to see the difference.

 

[GoIrish41]

Is the only difference between Petraus and DC politicians is that we know about this affair?

I don't understand why an affair makes you unfit to lead the CIA. What am I missing?

An affair opens one up to blackmail. Not good in this line of work. He would be in a position where he would have to dismiss others who had these types of vulnerability, and he would appear to be a hypocrit in these cases. He did the honorable thing by stepping down.

 

[phgreek]

He resigned, so assuming he made his own decision maybe he felt like he couldn't do the job while hell was breaking loose in his personal life. But I agree with your larger point: I don't care who boinks who...no idea why peoples' sex lives continue to be news stories. The percentage of sexually deviant or unfaithful public servants is probably very close to the percentage of sexually deviant or unfaithful people in society at large.

Its ridiculous that it is an issue for anyone but their spouse. BobD's argument about if you would cheat on your spouse you would also commit treason is garbage, with all due respect to him. Lots of people cheat; lots of people don't commit treason. The two things aren't in any way related.

I think Petraeus will be remembered as a fine public servant and an American hero, and this will be a footnote in his biography. Ultimately, this is a big deal only to him, his wife, Paula Broadwell and her husband, and whatever children they all have among them. Nobody else should care.

While my personal views inform me that those who cheat have an issue...I think it needs to be more than my gut.

I look at it like this...when you get a security clearance the want to know a couple things.

Credit History....ie are you someone who puts themselves in a position to be bribed, manipulated with Money
Mental History...ie are you a person who lacks the stability to understand the import of the information you may have, and toprotect it accordingly
Chemical dependency...can you become vulnerable...can the manipulation be done with substance, or will you render yourself unstable

Yea they ask your 3rd grade teachers dog about you...but those are kinda the big 3 if you of course don't have a criminal record.

I don't think the process of infidelity renders you more or less likely to be "turned". I think the prospect of getting caught, and the perceptions of others is huge motivation to cover it up...and therein is the vulnerability...it makes infidelity lead to desperate decisions. So when a guy owns it...I'm less likely to question him, and his ability to do the job. It tells me he isn't willing to be put in a position to be manipulated. Just my take.

As I mentioned earlier, my beliefs inform me he needs to go away for awhile and get it together...resignation was honorable in that he showed he cares more about the CIA. He showed integrity because he owned it. After things calmed down I would never bat an eye at putting the General in a position of trust in the future.

 

[Rhode Irish]

While my personal views inform me that those who cheat have an issue...I think it needs to be more than my gut.

I look at it like this...when you get a security clearance the want to know a couple things.

Credit History....ie are you someone who puts themselves in a position to be bribed, manipulated with Money
Mental History...ie are you a person who lacks the stability to understand the import of the information you may have, and toprotect it accordingly
Chemical dependency...can you become vulnerable...can the manipulation be done with substance, or will you render yourself unstable

Yea they ask your 3rd grade teachers dog about you...but those are kinda the big 3 if you of course don't have a criminal record.

I don't think the process of infidelity renders you more or less likely to be "turned". I think the prospect of getting caught, and the perceptions of others is huge motivation to cover it up...and therein is the vulnerability...it makes infidelity lead to desperate decisions. So when a guy owns it...I'm less likely to question him, and his ability to do the job. It tells me he isn't willing to be put in a position to be manipulated. Just my take.

As I mentioned earlier, my beliefs inform me he needs to go away for awhile and get it together...resignation was honorable in that he showed he cares more about the CIA. He showed integrity because he owned it. After things calmed down I would never bat an eye at putting the General in a position of trust in the future.

Yeah, I agree. Don't want my comments to come across as pro-cheating, because I'm definitely not that. I don't think it should be a fireable offense - it isn't a professional indiscretion, its a personal one. But I also think he did the right thing by stepping away from his position - hard to imagine how he could be invested in the job the way he needs to be with all that is going on in his personal life.

 

[mgriff]

Ha-look in the mirror. Throwing the penalty flag on this one?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me? I'm hardly a paragon of integrity, but I do try my best. My comment was in regard to the soldiers I'm sure he's sentenced at Article 15 hearings in his career, who were booted out of the military or given career changing punishments as a result of their issues.

I suppose my comment was in regard to some of the injustices of the UCMJ disciplinary process, where officers are judge, jury, and executioner. Their word cannot be challenged because of the cadet creed I posted earlier.

We were talking about how one of my wife's soldiers currently is getting booted out of the military for something. She had to turn him in for it, so she feels responsible, but she thinks it is absolutely ludicrous that the lower enlisted get booted out when the higher ranking officers get nothing and are much better positioned to recover from issues. Again, we were talking about some of the injustices of the UCMJ.

 

[BobD]

Its ridiculous that it is an issue for anyone but their spouse. BobD's argument about if you would cheat on your spouse you would also commit treason is garbage, with all due respect to him. Lots of people cheat; lots of people don't commit treason. The two things aren't in any way related.

Thanks RI. Much appreciated

If you smoke, it doesn't guarantee you'll die of cancer. I just increases your odds.

 

[Fbolt]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me? I'm hardly a paragon of integrity, but I do try my best. My comment was in regard to the soldiers I'm sure he's sentenced at Article 15 hearings in his career, who were booted out of the military or given career changing punishments as a result of their issues.

BOOM! Killer comment right there.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Congress wants answers on Petraeus affair - Yahoo! News

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Looks like they got another one

Scandal widens in probe of top US general's emails - Yahoo! News

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

And....

Petraeus Affair: FBI Agent Actions Investigated - Yahoo!

 

[Irish Houstonian]

When did the FBI let Anthoney Weiner join??? I thought they had standards.

 

[PLACforever]

I just got around to getting up to speed on this whole thing.
Read the Yahoo! article and literally LOL'd.

 

[NDFan4Life]

LMAO!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a85V_Sqt8Yo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[phgreek]

Well...based on initial depictions of the General's testimony:

1) his current testimony seems to contradict what he said in a previous discussions with congress about this situation...thats never good.

2) words were removed from the CIA's talking points which hung this on Al Qaeda. Thats not good either...

Obviously the next jump is...see, they were just trying to cover before the election...

I'm not dismissing that...but there is another motivation in here...and a cautionary tale.

beyond the obvious issues of dishonesty...can anyone see the issue now with the administration's compulsion to remove terrorist from our lexicon...anyone see how this strange double talking compulsion could be at the heart of a miscommunication so gross that it caused this entire issue, and unessesarily raised suspicions...how bout we all start speakaing plainly, and honestly and cut the PC sh!t. I just want to go all Sam Kinison on the administration...SAY IT...SAY IT!

 

[Downinthebend]

Well...based on initial depictions of the General's testimony:

1) his current testimony seems to contradict what he said in a previous discussions with congress about this situation...thats never good.

2) words were removed from the CIA's talking points which hung this on Al Qaeda. Thats not good either...

Obviously the next jump is...see, they were just trying to cover before the election...

I'm not dismissing that...but there is another motivation in here...and a cautionary tale.

beyond the obvious issues of dishonesty...can anyone see the issue now with the administration's compulsion to remove terrorist from our lexicon...anyone see how this strange double talking compulsion could be at the heart of a miscommunication so gross that it caused this entire issue, and unessesarily raised suspicions...how bout we all start speakaing plainly, and honestly and cut the PC sh!t. I just want to go all Sam Kinison on the administration...SAY IT...SAY IT!

Real double think is defining combatants as any military aged males we happen to kill.

 

[tommyIRISH23]

Well...based on initial depictions of the General's testimony:

1) his current testimony seems to contradict what he said in a previous discussions with congress about this situation...thats never good.

2) words were removed from the CIA's talking points which hung this on Al Qaeda. Thats not good either...

Obviously the next jump is...see, they were just trying to cover before the election...

I'm not dismissing that...but there is another motivation in here...and a cautionary tale.

beyond the obvious issues of dishonesty...can anyone see the issue now with the administration's compulsion to remove terrorist from our lexicon...anyone see how this strange double talking compulsion could be at the heart of a miscommunication so gross that it caused this entire issue, and unessesarily raised suspicions...how bout we all start speakaing plainly, and honestly and cut the PC sh!t. I just want to go all Sam Kinison on the administration...SAY IT...SAY IT!

Ill admit, I'm not an Obama supporter, but I am hoping there is an explanation for this. He is still the President of the US, and I have to pray that he's not at the center of an absurd cover up in order not to jeopardize his re-election, or something more nefarious.

Although, for a man who ran on the premise of government transparency, this is whole debacle is sickening.

Obama's approach to governance seems to be very utilitarian, and ideological. I don't agree with it, but if it turns out he flat out lied to preserve his agenda, I don't know how anyone can objectively look at the situation and not find it insulting. I'd even argue that it exceeds Watergate.

The House would definitely impeach him. The Senate would need to vote 2/3's as guilty, right? Hopefully, it doesn't come to this.

 

[phgreek]

Real double think is defining combatants as any military aged males we happen to kill.

not quite sure what you are getting at here...but it sounds like a playground defense.

Is this you saying Bush's policies regarding combatants was worse... in response to my criticism of this administration's unhealthy obsession with avoidance of "terrorist"???

 

[phgreek]

Ill admit, I'm not an Obama supporter, but I am hoping there is an explanation for this. He is still the President of the US, and I have to pray that he's not at the center of an absurd cover up in order not to jeopardize his re-election, or something more nefarious.

Although, for a man who ran on the premise of government transparency, this is whole debacle is sickening.

Obama's approach to governance seems to be very utilitarian, and ideological. I don't agree with it, but if it turns out he flat out lied to preserve his agenda, I don't know how anyone can objectively look at the situation and not find it insulting. I'd even argue that it exceeds Watergate.

The House would definitely impeach him. The Senate would need to vote 2/3's as guilty, right? Hopefully, it doesn't come to this.

AS I said...I think there might bea reason, but I need more data to be sure...

One thought I had was someone took the CIA's statement, and sanitized it dutifully removing references to terrorists etc. not to cover up to aid in the election, but in compliance with a general policy regarding statements to be issued from the Whitehouse. Is it possible it happened BEFORE decision makers saw it..if so, .given the spatial relationship to protests that WERE thought to be about a film, and modified intel removing specifics it was intended to communiicate...is it totally implausible they ended up making some assumptions, and getting it wrong....its abig stretch given the timeline, but its possible.

I too am hoping its something other than a cover-up.

 

[Downinthebend]

not quite sure what you are getting at here...but it sounds like a playground defense.

Is this you saying Bush's policies regarding combatants was worse... in response to my criticism of this administration's unhealthy obsession with avoidance of "terrorist"???

I hate the Republican foreign policy just as much as the Democratic foreign policy. So, no its not a playground defense. It is in reference to the way the Obama administration counts deaths by their drone strikes.

 

[phgreek]

I hate the Republican foreign policy just as much as the Democratic foreign policy. So, no its not a playground defense. It is in reference to the way the Obama administration counts deaths by their drone strikes.

ok...understood.