Petraeus Resigns- Cites Affair

[Lucky]

Give some respect to the former General for owning up to exposing the country to a blackmailed CIA leader. David Petraeus has resigned as head of the CIA after having an affair. He has been marrried for 37 years. Details not known:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/citing-affair-petraeus-resigns-as-cia-director.html?hp

[Guest EXPAT]

So my question is why resign? Does having an affair immediately disqualify you for all jobs?

[Lucky]

Not here it doesn't. Even the rather prim Senator Diane Feiinstein thought he should stay. We don't know enough about it. He could have been blackmailed- not good for the head of the CIA. My thinking is that his professionalism came to play.He would expect high standards of himself, and if he did not live up to them, then he didn't feel he should have the position.

Gay men often have open relationships. But that has not become popular in the straight world.

[Guest hitoallusa]

It's all out so he can't be blackmailed. I don't know why he has to resign... Even Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon had more than one wife... Personal issues can be resolved among him, his wife and the woman without affecting his job performance. But I like the fact that they try to set high standard for people in office so I commend them for that. It shows the very strength and quality of US government.

Not here it doesn't. Even the rather prim Senator Diane Feiinstein thought he should stay. We don't know enough about it. He could have been blackmailed- not good for the head of the CIA. My thinking is that his professionalism came to play.He would expect high standards of himself, and if he did not live up to them, then he didn't feel he should have the position.

Gay men often have open relationships. But that has not become popular in the straight world.

[TotallyOz]

I admit that when I saw this I was confused as to why he would resign. There must be more to the story. They did keep it under wraps until after the election at least.

[Lucky]

Now we learn that the FBI was involved, the affair went on a long time, Petraeus did not volunteer his breech of ethics until it was discovered by the FBI, so not so honorable after all. Apparently she was trying to access his email, so something was not right.

I guess we should be glad he is gone. I wasn't too comforable with a military man running the CIA anyway.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Oh my dear Lucky why are you not comfortable with a military man running the CIA? After all he is a civilian now. From a book, it seems that career CIA officials have more power over the director. The role of CIA director is a go between president and career officials. It once had additional task of being director of national intelligence but after several issues director of CIA is no longer director of national intelligence.

Now we learn that the FBI was involved, the affair went on a long time, Petraeus did not volunteer his breech of ethics until it was discovered by the FBI, so not so honorable after all. Apparently she was trying to access his email, so something was not right.

I guess we should be glad he is gone. I wasn't too comforable with a military man running the CIA anyway.

[Guest EXPAT]

I think Lucky is right. A military man would usually always take a military solution instead of one of diplomacy just by nature and if a military man is leading the CIA it actually might push more war mongering. Not necessarily but more likely.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well I disagree, they are experts in planning and carrying out military operations, not necessarily war mongerers. The agency doesn't have any incentives to prefer any war unless some misguided people want to keep their position for a personal gain.

As we don't expect a mortician to promote death, we can't expect that a former military officer will promote war.

I think Lucky is right. A military man would usually always take a military solution instead of one of diplomacy just by nature and if a military man is leading the CIA it actually might push more war mongering. Not necessarily but more likely.

[Lucky]

Even Diane Feinstein now agrees that a resignation was the right thing to do. This affair has apparently been going on for years and Petraeus only owned up to it when he got caught.

Since those who worked with him in the Middle East were aware of the affair, how did it escape the scrutiny that comes with being nominated to head the CIA?

[MsGuy]

Since those who worked with him in the Middle East were aware of the affair, how did it escape the scrutiny that comes with being nominated to head the CIA?

Loyal staff?

[Guest hitoallusa]

It is very likely that he was asked about it or questioned there was anything that might compromise his work but he may have lied at that time. Maybe that's why he confessed and resigned. I think he is very cute and sexy. Guys like that women don't leave alone unfortunately...

There is also a possibility that they waited after the election for this to get out too. I just want people to separate one's marriage and infidelity from politics.

[lookin]

Loyal staff?

Not once Paula Broadwell got ahold of it.

[MsGuy]

Get your mind out of the gutter, lookin.

[Lucky]

[Guest Hoover42]

Maybe that's why he confessed and resigned.

To be clear, as Lucky said, he didn't confess and he didn't resign because of any ethical compunction. He resigned because he was asked to resign when the affair became public knowledge.

[Lucky]

Now it looks as if a second woman is involved with Petraeus, and all of this came out of a catfight between the two women. And all ths went right past the FBI vetting team?

[lookin]

And all ths went right past the FBI vetting team?

What happens in Kabul stays in Kabul.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Not one but two? How am I ever trust my future husband if all the men are like him??? I hope not... My true love only will love me till death..

[Guest hitoallusa]

I think otherwise. He confessed that he committed adultery and he voluntarily resigned.. I think that is a very noble and honorable thing to do. Clear contrast to what Bill Clinton did. Let's forgive him and move on.

To be clear, as Lucky said, he didn't confess and he didn't resign because of any ethical compunction. He resigned because he was asked to resign when the affair became public knowledge.

[Lucky]

Sure. let'smove on. But forgive? This guy was set up as an example for young soldiers, and he failed them. He was set up as a leader, and he failed. He endangered the security of the country; although it could have been minor, he should't have. We now have a leadership vacuum at the CIA because of him.

[Guest hitoallusa]

I understand your sentiment. And you are right he did something that could have compromised his work.

Well everybody makes mistakes and that is why there are measures and back ups for this kind of unfortunate and unexpected incidents. I don't think there is a leadership vacuum since the deputy took over as acting director.

Forgiving and showing compassion for one's weakness are due since he acknowledged and then resigned., IMHO...

[lookin]

Sure. let'smove on. But forgive? This guy was set up as an example for young soldiers, and he failed them. He was set up as a leader, and he failed.

Not by me he wasn't, and it remains a source of wonder why we have this enduring need to set people up as 'examples' and then rend our garments when they fail to live up to our expectations, as they nearly always do. The guy may be a terrific general, but I've never seen a particularly strong correlation between running a war and being a faithful husband.

I wonder if we really believe that "This time it's different! This is a leader who will never cheat on his betrothed. He will always pay his taxes and he will never tell a lie." We must know better. All anyone has to do is look back over this very Forum and we'll find lots of threads dealing with idols who have feet of clay. We can't keep making that same 'mistake' over and over again unless we're just plain nuts.

My current working hypothesis is that we set people up as 'examples' just because we get so much pleasure from gloating when they fall off the pedestals we construct for them. If anyone was ever crazy enough to try setting me up on a pedestal, I'd kick the damn thing over before the plaster was dry.

[Lucky]

Well, throw this into the mix, from SFGate:

During a talk last month at the University of Denver, Broadwell raised eyebrows when she said the CIA had detained people at a secret facility in Benghazi, Libya, and the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA base there was an effort to free those prisoners.

Obama issued an executive order in January 2009 stripping the CIA of its authority to take prisoners. The move meant the CIA was forbidden from operating secret jails across the globe as it had under President George W. Bush.

CIA spokesman Preston Golson said: "Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless."

Broadwell did not say who told her about CIA activities in Libya. The video of Broadwell's speech was viewed on YouTube.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.co...p#ixzz2C3gj0z1h

And, from HuffPo:

But Broadwell's access appears to have raised red flags even during her embed, and the concerns continued long after her embed was over, when her relationship with the general reportedly took place.

Former aides have told The Washington Post that they found the general's closeness with Broadwell unusual, and were frequently troubled by the level of access she appeared to have while in Afghanistan.

Officials at the CIA also told the Associated Press that they had been taken by surprise when Broadwell posted a photograph taken at the agency's Langley headquarters on her personal Facebook page.

In an October speech at the University of Denver, Broadwell cited a little-known detail about the attacks in Benghazi, which had recently flared into controversy that threatened to envelop Petraeus.

Noting that the CIA director was under pressure to not publicly defend himself because of the sensitive nature of the CIA's activities in Libya, Broadwell mentioned that the agency was holding "a couple of Libyan militia members" as prisoners in a secure annex.

"They think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back," she said.

Broadwell eventually cited Fox News for some of the information contained in her speech. Early news reports about the speech referred to a Fox News article that uncovered the CIA's role in Benghazi. The article, by Fox's Jennifer Griffin, made no mention of the prisoners, raising questions about how Broadwell may have come to this information.

But in an Oct. 26 appearance on Fox, Griffin did in fact mention "three Libyan attackers" who had been taken into custody by CIA agents.

The CIA has adamantly denied the reports.

When the FBI later opened its investigation into the relationship between Broadwell and Petraeus this summer, following clues that appeared to suggest someone may have hacked into the director of the CIA's email account, they found classified documents on Broadwell's personal computer, according the The Wall Street Journal.

Investigators eventually concluded that the documents had not been given to Broadwell by Petraeus, and dropped that line of inquiry.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Fox had not reported the presence of Libyan prisoners at the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, at the time of the attacks, prior to Paula Broadwell's speech in October. The original story cited reports raising the question of whether Broadwell may have been the source for the information. Jennifer Griffin had appeared on Fox News Oct. 26 and mentioned the prisoners.

[lookin]

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Fox had not reported the presence of Libyan prisoners at the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, at the time of the attacks, prior to Paula Broadwell's speech in October. The original story cited reports raising the question of whether Broadwell may have been the source for the information. Jennifer Griffin had appeared on Fox News Oct. 26 and mentioned the prisoners.

Never mind!

That little correction at the end does appear to take some of the steam out of the kettle. Still, it's a juicy tale, and I bet Karl Rove is kicking himself for not knowing about it a week ago.

Wonder how long till he declares the election invalid.