CIA Director General David Petraeus' resignation

Post by **River** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:24 pm

[Note: I split this off from the "President Obama: What's Next?" thread - VtF]

Whoa. Petraeus resigns as CIA Director. He says it's because he had an extra-marital affair.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:43 pm

That's a pretty dumb reason to resign from the CIA, IMO.

Post by **Frelga** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:45 pm

Maybe he was blackmailed?

Too many spy novels.

Post by **Holbytla** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:28 pm

He handled the situation correctly imo.
Without possessing any facts, it seems like he headed the situation off at the pass before it became an issue. It's fairly likely that this story was coming out one way or another, and he did the right thing by stopping the firestorm before it started.

Post by **Frelga** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:40 am

Well, the right thing, IMO, would have been not having an affair. Certainly a man in his position is expected to exercise sufficient judgment and self control.

Eta: NYT is saying that this came to light when FBI was checking his computer to see if it was compromised. The head of the CIA could not have been that clueless, could he?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:33 am

He couldn't have been. He knew he was doing something that disqualified him for a security clearance.

Post by **River** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:01 am

If he just wanted out, he probably could have just called up Obama and said "I'm done," and left it at that. Why the professional suicide?

Post by **Holbytla** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:19 am

Frelga wrote:Well, the right thing, IMO, would have been not having an affair. Certainly a man in his position is expected to exercise sufficient judgment and self control.

Eta: NYT is saying that this came to light when FBI was checking his computer to see if it was compromised. The head of the CIA could not have been that clueless, could he?

Well goodness, I thought that aspect was clear without being specifically stated. Of course not having an affair was the right thing to do for a million reasons, and he was mistaken and displayed poor judgment and a lack of character for partaking in such a thing. I think that was clear from the start.

What was refreshing and different, was that he admitted his guilt without the long drawn out hoopla of denials and media frenzy that haunted any number of people from the recent past.

What he did was wrong, but how he dealt with the situation was correctly done. Whether that was a decision made by the Obama administration or himself personally, is circumspect. Whether this was put on the back burner until after the election is also circumspect.

A bad situation was handled correctly for a change, and that was the aspect of this sad story that I found encouraging..

Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:52 am

Um, Holby, the affair was revealed in the midst of an as yet unidentified FBI investigation. It's not like he just admitted it out of the goodness of his heart. The fact that the FBI was investigating the head of the CIA (and former commander in both Iraq and Afghanistan) is more than a little disturbing.

Post by **Alatar** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:38 am

I find this whole "lack of judgement" argument "for a man in his position" to be just an excuse for being judgemental. I really don't give a monkeys who sleeps with who as long as its between consenting adults and it doesn't affect how they do their job!

Post by **Túrin Turambar** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:45 am

If I was in a snide mood, I might post a picture of Holly Petraeus next to Paula Broadwell and suggest that the General's judgement is perfectly sound, but I'm not, so I won't

.

I'll just echo Dave's comment and say that the entire thing seems weird and sudden and I have to think that there's more to it than this. I understand that the affair dates from when Ms. Broadwell was embedded (snark) with Petraeus in Afghanistan in order to work on his biography, so it presumably pre-dates his involvement with the CIA.

Post by **anthriel** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:44 pm

Holbytla wrote:
Frelga wrote:Well, the right thing, IMO, would have been not having an affair. Certainly a man in his position is expected to exercise sufficient judgment and self control.
Well goodness, I thought that aspect was clear without being specifically stated. Of course not having an affair was the right thing to do for a million reasons, and he was mistaken and displayed poor judgment and a lack of character for partaking in such a thing. I think that was clear from the start.

Ummm... Bill Clinton. John Edwards. Many others that I probably have blocked out at this moment. A man in their position really really SHOULD exercise sufficient judgment and self control. Many don't.

Is Petraeus a Republican, btw, or associated with Republican values in some way?

I kind of wondered why this was such a big deal too, Alatar. I'm not a big fan of infidelity in general, but does it really affect his ability to do his job?

Lord M wrote:If I was in a snide mood, I might post a picture of Holly Petraeus next to Paula Broadwell and suggest that the General's judgement is perfectly sound, but I'm not, so I won't .

Can I infer from this that Holly Petraeus is not as attractive as Paula Broadwell??

If I were in a less forgiving mood, this comment might truly not sit well with me, Lord M.

Post by **axordil** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:57 pm

Petraeus had been mentioned by many as a GOP hopeful, though I always detected hopefulness in those mentions. He may be Republican, but he struck me as somewhat less political than Eishenhower, who's my gold standard for non-political politicians.

Ike fooled around too, for what it's worth, during WW II. Being a commander of armies in times of war does things to otherwise strong and decent people...then again, war isn't decent.

Post by **anthriel** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:25 pm

axordil wrote:Petraeus had been mentioned by many as a GOP hopeful, though I always detected hopefulness in those mentions. He may be Republican, but he struck me as somewhat less political than Eishenhower, who's my gold standard for non-political politicians.

You know, now that you mention that, it does sort of ring a bell.

Ike fooled around too, for what it's worth, during WW II. Being a commander of armies in times of war does things to otherwise strong and decent people...then again, war isn't decent.

There is something to that. I am reading a book about WW I, and the descriptions of people's behavior in the streets on Armistice Day are... well, let's just say that primal behaviors were much in effect.

Post by **Frelga** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:37 pm

He was a Bush's appointee (?) who was at one time considered a possible Republican challenger to Obama in this election we just had. Why did you ask, anthy?

Yeah, yeah, Bill Clinton. It always comes back to Bill Clinton.

I dunno, some people still talk about officer's honor. No one has mentioned a politician's honor in a long time.

Actually, what I find most appalling is his apparent lack of judgment in compromising his computer.

So, is he still going to testify?

Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:03 pm

Frelga wrote:He was a Bush's appointee (?) who was at one time considered a possible Republican challenger to Obama in this election we just had. Why did you ask, anthy?

Actually, he was appointed by President Obama to his last two positions, as commander of the forces in Afghanistan, and as CIA Director.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:44 pm

To elaborate on my earlier comment, if I were caught sleeping with my biographer, there would be a variety of consequences, but getting fired wouldn't be one of them. And the argument that "a man in his position" needs to show more moral fiber doesn't hold much weight either, given the sorts of activities the CIA routinely engages in (and that's just considering the ones we know about).

Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:58 pm

Hey Dave, when is your biography coming out?

Clearly, there is a lot more going on here than has been (or in all likelihood, will be) revealed.

Post by **Frelga** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:59 pm

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
Frelga wrote:He was a Bush's appointee (?) who was at one time considered a possible Republican challenger to Obama in this election we just had. Why did you ask, anthy?
Actually, he was appointed by President Obama to his last two positions, as commander of the forces in Afghanistan, and as CIA Director.

This is what I meant:

President George W. Bush sent Petraeus to Iraq in February 2007, at the peak of sectarian violence, to turn things around as head of U.S. forces. He oversaw an influx of 30,000 U.S. troops and moved troops out of big bases so they could work more closely with Iraqi forces scattered throughout Baghdad.

Petraeus' success was credited with paving the way for the eventual U.S. withdrawal.

After Iraq, Bush made Petraeus commander of U.S. Central Command, overseeing all U.S. military operations in the greater Middle East, including Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Source

Although as far as I know, no one made any connection between Petraeus's having an affair and any party affiliation he had or did not have. Which is why I wondered why anthy asked about Republican values.

From the same article:

The FBI discovered the relationship by monitoring Petraeus' emails, after being alerted Broadwell may have had access to his personal email account, two of the officials said.

Talk about "should have known better."

And alerted by whom, we wonders.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:05 pm

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Hey Dave, when is your biography coming out?

Clearly, there is a lot more going on here than has been (or in all likelihood, will be) revealed.

I keep checking Amazon, but they seem to be dragging their feet.

I'm sure there's more to it too, but this seems awkward even as a cover story.