# Firing Petraeus



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/...ns-as-cia-director.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

I find the firing of the head spook for having an extramarital affair a bit like shooting the cat for catching a mouse. Isn't it very odd?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/...ns-as-cia-director.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
> 
> I find the firing of the head spook for having an extramarital affair a bit like shooting the cat for catching a mouse. Isn't it very odd?


A) congratulations on your 2000th post Sir!

B) that analogy perplexes me.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> A) congratulations on your 2000th post Sir!
> 
> B) that analogy perplexes me.


Thanks & well, he's a spy. He's bound to have dodgy secrets...

He's employed to run intelligence operations abroad. ?


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

He was not fired. He resigned. And I don't understand why his resignation was necessary. After all, it is a Democrat administration. Such behavior is not only condoned but encouraged by the Democrat party. At least he did not conduct his trysts in the Oval office or a Washington DC restaurant.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Thanks & well, he's a spy. He's bound to have dodgy secrets...
> 
> He's employed to run intelligence operations abroad. ?


Hmm....an affair is less a dodgy secret and more the tawdry doings of a man lacking dependability.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Extra-marital affairs are practical firing offenses for high positions in the intelligence community. First, the use of women to get close to key figures is a time-honored practice; second, it makes the target vulnerable to blackmail.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I also don't follow Bjorn's analogy. Sadly I think Mike is right - it leaves one too vulnerable to undue influence (and I understand that this was not disclosed voluntarily, but came to light as a result of an FBI investigation). I say sadly, as my understanding is that Petraeus is a rare talent and as it seems to me that is exactly the sort of person one needs at the helm of the CIA in these dangerous times.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Balfour said:


> I also don't follow Bjorn's analogy. Sadly I think Mike is right - it leaves one too vulnerable to undue influence (and I understand that this was not disclosed voluntarily, but came to light as a result of an FBI investigation). I say sadly, as my understanding is that Petraeus is a rare talent and as it seems to me that is exactly the sort of person one needs at the helm of the CIA in these dangerous times.


Agree with Balfour's assessment of Petraeus. Moreover, he is widely regarded as a class act and gentleman. We all have feet of clay. There is a reason the Lord's prayer includes the plea "and lead us not into temptation...."


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

The guy in charge of US intelligence thought he could keep an affair a secret. I wouldn't want him running my CIA either.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/...ns-as-cia-director.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
> 
> I find the firing of the head spook for having an extramarital affair a bit like shooting the cat for catching a mouse. Isn't it very odd?


He was not fired. He resigned. It is always preferrable for an appointee to resign rather than be fired. Sometimes resignations are encouraged, even strongly so, but they are always better than a firing. It's a matter of trust and confidence. Anything an appointee does that diminishes either, or causes an unecessary distraction for the administration is a reason for resignation. Acknowledging the affair would have gotten him past any issues of blackmail, but it would not have addressed trust and confidence, nor the matter of an unecessay distraction. Put differently, embarass the administration enough and you're going to have to leave, or be fired. Appointees are responsible for running agencies of the federal government and for carrying out the policies of the administration. They are always held to different standards than other government employees, and for good reason.

Also, whatever he did, he may have done while he was in uniform. There are many service members who have been court-martialed for similar offenses. Being a general does not give the man a pass from the UCMJ. Not saying he's going to get court-martialed. Only that there may be more coming his way.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Agree with Balfour's assessment of Petraeus. Moreover, he is widely regarded as a class act and gentleman. We all have feet of clay. There is a reason the Lord's prayer includes the plea "and lead us not into temptation...."


I imagine his wife and family would probably tend to disagree with this characterisation, the Lord's Prayer notwithstanding.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I imagine his wife and family would probably tend to disagree with this characterisation, the Lord's Prayer notwithstanding.


I'm on my way to Mass and will pray for Holly Petraeus and their children. I've no interest in throwing stones at Petraeus. I've got my own sins to worry about.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm on my way to Mass and will pray for Holly Petraeus and their children. I've no interest in throwing stones at Petraeus. I've got my own sins to worry about.


It is hardly 'throwing stones' to comment that an unfaithful spouse lacks dependability. It is merely a self-evident truth.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> Extra-marital affairs are practical firing offenses for high positions in the intelligence community. First, the use of women to get close to key figures is a time-honored practice; second, it makes the target vulnerable to blackmail.


But she had excellent security clearance, most likely...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

El_Abogado said:


> He was not fired. He resigned. It is always preferrable for an appointee to resign rather than be fired. Sometimes resignations are encouraged, even strongly so, but they are always better than a firing. It's a matter of trust and confidence. Anything an appointee does that diminishes either, or causes an unecessary distraction for the administration is a reason for resignation. Acknowledging the affair would have gotten him past any issues of blackmail, but it would not have addressed trust and confidence, nor the matter of an unecessay distraction. Put differently, embarass the administration enough and you're going to have to leave, or be fired. Appointees are responsible for running agencies of the federal government and for carrying out the policies of the administration. They are always held to different standards than other government employees, and for good reason.
> 
> Also, whatever he did, he may have done while he was in uniform. There are many service members who have been court-martialed for similar offenses. Being a general does not give the man a pass from the UCMJ. Not saying he's going to get court-martialed. Only that there may be more coming his way.


There's a provision in the UCMJ on extramarital activities? Dearie me...


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> There's a provision in the UCMJ on extramarital activities? Dearie me...


Article 134. paragraph 62:

(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person; 
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and 
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

I'm expressing no opinion on the situation, just commenting on appointees and the military and the UCMJ. He is a great American and one of the best military leaders the country has had. He is, apparently, imperfect. So are we all in one respect or another.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

El_Abogado said:


> Article 134. paragraph 62:
> 
> (1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
> (2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
> ...


Exactly right.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Does this matter lower his reputation in my estimation: Yes, of course. 

Does this completely eradicate a lifetime of distinguished service, or eliminate entirely my respect for his talents and abilities: No, of course not.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> It is hardly 'throwing stones' to comment that an unfaithful spouse lacks dependability. It is merely a self-evident truth.


Just to be clear, my response was to your speculation regarding his family's assessment of his reputation for being a class act and gentleman; it had nothing to do with the affair's putative evidence of the man's general dependability. Of course, you know this. You just like to have the last word. Go ahead.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It continually amazes me how an (seemingly isolated) instance of human frailty, in the present instance marital fidelity , is sufficient for so many to conclude an otherwise honorable man/woman was a virtual total fraud! How many of us could bear upo well under such intense scrutiny? I doubt any! It seems there exists an inverse relationship to the level of moral standard(s) to which we hold ourselves and those to which we hold others...ism't that odd? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> It continually amazes me how an (seemingly isolated) instance of human frailty, in the present instance marital fidelity , is sufficient for so many to conclude an otherwise honorable man/woman was a virtual total fraud! How many of us could bear upo well under such intense scrutiny? I doubt any! It seems there exists an inverse relationship to the level of moral standard(s) to which we hold ourselves and those to which we hold others...ism't that odd? :icon_scratch:


Yes, it is instructive as well to consider Petraeus's own self-assessment, which smacks of shame and embarrassment. In recent years we have seen public figures in very high places respond instead with outrage at the thought that anyone might judge their personal conduct.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Indeed, General Petraeus is one who has lived his life IAW the Honor Code he embraced as a cadet at West Point...."We will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate among us those who do!" He seems truly a good man and has certainly proven himself to be a great soldier.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> It continually amazes me how an (seemingly isolated) instance of human frailty, in the present instance marital fidelity , is sufficient for so many to conclude an otherwise honorable man/woman was a virtual total fraud! How many of us could bear upo well under such intense scrutiny? I doubt any! It seems there exists an inverse relationship to the level of moral standard(s) to which we hold ourselves and those to which we hold others...ism't that odd? :icon_scratch:


Hear, hear. What surprises me is the utterly 'binary' attitude people can adopt to these matters.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/...ns-as-cia-director.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
> 
> I find the firing of the head spook for having an extramarital affair a bit like shooting the cat for catching a mouse. Isn't it very odd?


Coming from the world of spooks I don't find it odd at all. It was an error of judgement on his part & left him open for blackmail attempts. Also, my understanding is that he wasn't fired, he resigned voluntarilly.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> Thanks & well, he's a spy. He's bound to have dodgy secrets...
> 
> He's employed to run intelligence operations abroad. ?


He's not a spy at all. He's a decorated officer. The head of any agency, be it US, UK or Sweden is never an active operative.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> He's not a spy at all. He's a decorated officer. The head of any agency, be it US, UK or Sweden is never an active operative.


Of course, but he is briefed on and has access to the most sensitive information available. As such, his deportment must be near impeccable.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Just to be clear, my response was to your speculation regarding his family's assessment of his reputation for being a class act and gentleman; it had nothing to do with the affair's putative evidence of the man's general dependability. Of course, you know this. You just like to have the last word. Go ahead.


Ouch. That was rather unnecessary, wasn't it?


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

"War" story: When Petraeus was a lieutenant colonel commanding a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division in the 1990s, he was observing one of his subordinate units conducting fire and maneuver training with live ammunition. A private in the unit slipped and inadvertently shot him through the chest.

Petraeus was treated at a major hospital in Tennessee, where Dr (later Senator) Bill Frist operated on him, saving his life. Once he decided he was ready to be released, he argued with his doctors to discharge him from the hospital. When they refused, he removed his tubes and needles, and got down on the floor and started doing pushups until they came around to his point of view.

Here's the best part: The US Army is a "zero defects" kind of place, and shooting one's battalion commander through the chest, or having a soldier who did so in one's unit, is normally a career ender. Petraeus, however, did not hold the accident against either the captain who was in command of the unit that shot him (who later commanded his own infantry battalion as a lieutenant colonel in the 101st under Petraues in the early days of the Iraq War), or the young soldier, whom Petraeus later sent to Ranger School (for which it is a high honor to be selected).

It is ironic that a man so forgiving of human weakness and stupidy in men whom he could easily have crushed (his peers would have) was brought down for his own frailty. 

Wish we had more like him, we might win a war in my lifetime if we did, and my prayers too are with him and his family.

Cordially,
Trog


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Troglodyte said:


> "War" story: When Petraeus was a lieutenant colonel commanding a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division in the 1990s, he was observing one of his subordinate units conducting fire and maneuver training with live ammunition. A private in the unit slipped and inadvertently shot him through the chest.
> 
> Petraeus was treated at a major hospital in Tennessee, where Dr (later Senator) Bill Frist operated on him, saving his life. Once he decided he was ready to be released, he argued with his doctors to discharge him from the hospital. When they refused, he removed his tubes and needles, and got down on the floor and started doing pushups until they came around to his point of view.
> 
> ...


Great post, Trog. Yes, it is ironic but inevitable. I hope Petraeus next focuses on getting his family life back in order (no doubt his wife is hurting beyoned measure, and he knows he is responsible for that). Once he does that the best he can, I hope he finds another opportunity to serve our country. We need men of his caliber.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Petraeus was a great public servant. There are such people in the world and nation, although the extremists on both sides of our politics deny their existence (with one side denying their existence in uniform, and the other denying their existence out of uniform).

Our country is poorer for the loss of his services, whatever his personal failings. I understand the security risk aspect of it, although I have seen persuasive arguments that much of the blackmail value of adultery comes from the _reaction_ to it, just as the blackmail value of homosexuality (which used to be a basis of losing security clearance as well) came from the prohibition of homosexuality. (I'm not equating the morality of infidelity and homosexuality, just pointing out two parallel phenomena).


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> ... just as the blackmail value of homosexuality (which used to be a basis of losing security clearance as well) came from the prohibition of homosexuality. (I'm not equating the morality of infidelity and homosexuality, just pointing out two parallel phenomena).


I am going way off topic, and not offering an opinion on that issue, but while we're discussing ironies, another argument against allowing homosexuals security clearances was their inherent instability. So of course policymakers repealed "don't ask don't tell" right after an unstable homosexual junior soldier, Bradley Manning, leaked a ton of secret information to wikileaks.

Public policy is fun to watch, except when we lose good guys like General Petraeus. I hope some of the other posters are correct and he is able to continue to serve in some capacity.

Cordially,
Trog


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

This story is getting freakier by the hour.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> This story is getting freakier by the hour.


Sweater Meat had some interesting comments about Benghazi...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Troglodyte said:


> I am going way off topic, and not offering an opinion on that issue, but while we're discussing ironies, another argument against allowing homosexuals security clearances was their inherent instability. So of course policymakers repealed "don't ask don't tell" right after an unstable homosexual junior soldier, Bradley Manning, leaked a ton of secret information to wikileaks.


THAT is a taxpayer funded sex change while incarcerated just waiting to happen!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Troglodyte said:


> I am going way off topic, and not offering an opinion on that issue, but while we're discussing ironies, another argument against allowing homosexuals security clearances was their inherent instability. So of course policymakers repealed "don't ask don't tell" right after an unstable homosexual junior soldier, Bradley Manning, leaked a ton of secret information to wikileaks.
> 
> Public policy is fun to watch, except when we lose good guys like General Petraeus. I hope some of the other posters are correct and he is able to continue to serve in some capacity.
> 
> ...


So are you saying Petraeus is gay?

Otherwise, what is the point of this comment?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

He did preface his comment by saying that it was "way off topic." Given the context of the previous posts, I do not see it as bieng unforgivably gratuitous.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Troglodyte said:


> "War" story: When Petraeus was a lieutenant colonel commanding a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division in the 1990s, he was observing one of his subordinate units conducting fire and maneuver training with live ammunition. A private in the unit slipped and inadvertently shot him through the chest.
> 
> Petraeus was treated at a major hospital in Tennessee, where Dr (later Senator) Bill Frist operated on him, saving his life. Once he decided he was ready to be released, he argued with his doctors to discharge him from the hospital. When they refused, he removed his tubes and needles, and got down on the floor and started doing pushups until they came around to his point of view.
> 
> ...


From what I've read, the President did actually consider whether to accept the resignation or not. Gen. Petraeus, did the right thing by offering his resignation. He shouldn't have had the affair in the first place, but he dealt with it correctly. The president very well could have kept him on roster, however as an elected official, he does have to deal with political fall out.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> He was not fired. He resigned. And I don't understand why his resignation was necessary. After all, it is a Democrat administration. *Such behavior is not only condoned but encouraged by the Democrat party.* At least he did not conduct his trysts in the Oval office or a Washington DC restaurant.


Nobody doubts Bill Clinton was extremely stupid doing what he did and especially stupid when he continued to deny it. But the feracity with which the opposing party went after him was fairly ridiculous. Anyone with half a brain knows his affair wasn't the real issue, they just wanted a reason to get him out of office since they couldn't stand toe to toe with him on his policies.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Nobody doubts Bill Clinton was extremely stupid doing what he did and especially stupid when he continued to deny it. But the feracity with which the opposing party went after him was fairly ridiculous. Anyone with half a brain knows his affair wasn't the real issue, they just wanted a reason to get him out of office since they couldn't stand toe to toe with him on his policies.


They didn't want him out of office. They wanted to show him they could take him out of office if they wanted to. Much like R. Perot didn't want the presidency. He just didn't want Bush to have it again. It's political maneuvering.

If they really wanted him gone, they would have "High Crimes & Misdimeanor'd" him out on his buttocks in about 4 seconds.

Anyways, its not like the Dem's have a monopoly on affairs... Maybe the straight ones....


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

drlivingston said:


> He did preface his comment by saying that it was "way off topic." Given the context of the previous posts, I do not see it as bieng unforgivably gratuitous.


It is completely IRRELEVANT to the conversation, so it nothing but gratutious. Might as well bring up the fact that Newt left his wife after she was diagnosed with cancer, or Donald Trump is a pumpkin head idiot.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Surely the CIA were aware for some time of this affair?

Does this strange incident have any connection with the recent fiasco in Libya?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Haffman said:


> Surely the CIA were aware for some time of this affair?
> 
> Does this strange incident have any connection with the recent fiasco in Libya?


If he weren't a political appointee (as both a General & Director), he would have gone through a "lifestyles" Polygraph in order to get into the CIA. The affair would have come to light during the interview process and it would have been a non-issue.

I used to give security in-briefings and the first thing I told people was "Don't lie on the form. If you $%^&%$ sheep, tell them you $%^&$&^ sheep. They don't care. All they care about is that you are honest with them."

I used to work for a convicted FELON, who had a Top Secret clearance, and I know another that was investigated for Espionage (cleared).

That said, Gen. P. probably didn't have to do more than a cursory background check. He had been on active duty for the last 40 years. As a political appointee, it really didn't matter what his background was anyways. He could have thousands of dollars in unpaid parking tickets, and the decision would still be up to the president (this is not a cabinet post, iirc). Although there is Congressional oversight, there is not a whole lot, because of how firmly seated in the Executive branch the CIA is.

As for Libya, Congress is now trying to link things together. A lot of "closed session" comments are being tossed about.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Haffman said:


> Surely the CIA were aware for some time of this affair?
> 
> Does this strange incident have any connection with the recent fiasco in Libya?


TBD.

But it certainly sheds light on his prior testimony!!


----------

