CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns, Citing Affair

Penurious Penguin writes "After serving as Director of the CIA since September 2011, David Petraeus resigned from his position today, November 9. The retired four-star Army general has cited an extramarital affair as reason for the resignation. Michael Morell will now serve as Acting Director of the CIA."

Comments

Job Performance

[nurb432]

That is the only thing that should be taken into consideration. As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family. As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

and if the affair was with a subordinate in the CIA?

Re:Job Performance

[Noughmad]

Yes, but not being able to conceal an affair doesn't speak well for his performance as a security agent.

And in case he voluntarily admitted to it, neither does him having a conscience.

Re:Job Performance

[Sparx139]

That's assuming that the fallout of this affair isn't going to impact his performance. It could be that the fallout of this and setting things right with his family again could keep him from his duties, or it could be as simple as he sees the role of Director as one that should lead by example, in some way embodying the integrity of the organisation. In that case, he wouldn't consider himself fit for such a role.

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

People working in the inteligence and other sensitive business can't afford to have "secrets", because it could lead them to being blackmailed. Maybe Petraeus decided it was the most ethical thing to do (he would probably insist other members of the staff to resign were they in the same situation...)

Re:Job Performance

[sumdumass]

It was probably more for him to pick up the pieces then anything but there is the threat of someone trying to blackmail him or his spouse or a family member if they knew about the affair and he was trying to keep it secrete.

Of course this could just be an excuse to not wanting to work under another Obama administration considering the flack the CIA received over the Benghazi attacks.

Re:Job Performance

[jmichaelg]

Except he's agreed to abide by the military code of conduct. So it's not as easy to ignore an affair as it is for a civilian. His rank as general is gone.

There are several odd things about this. First, the FBI investigation should have happened when he was appointed to head the CIA so why is this coming out now? Did the FBI just get around to doing their background check or has the affair been known for some time? Moreover, since the only forced resignation was his generalship, why did he resign from heading the CIA?

I doubt this had anything to do with next week's Benghazi testimony. The House is still going to want to talk to him and since he's an American citizen, the House can subpoena him if it comes to it.

---
Booth may have been a patriot but he was a patriot to the losing side.

Re:Job Performance

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That is the only thing that should be taken into consideration. As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family. As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.

Don't know much about the guy, but he seems to be one of the more competent and reliable people on the public scene, and there's one problem with them - they have so much integrity that they resign even for petty reasons where a lesser person would fight tooth and nail to keep his position. Naturally, you end up with a bunch of scumbags, just like in politics.

Re:Job Performance

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Nah, that would be fine. But if it were with one of his peers in the FSB...

Re:Job Performance

[Turminder Xuss]

And that's why J. Edgar Hoover had to resign.....oh wait

Re:Job Performance

[OhSoLaMeow]

The number one rule of spying is to never become sexually compromised. Having an affair like that can be a major national security risk.
Tell that to Monica and Bill.

Re:Job Performance

[Culture20]

Blackmail. As the head of the CIA, he was right to resign. He probably resigned because someone tried to blackmail him.

Re:Job Performance

[hawguy]

People working in the inteligence and other sensitive business can't afford to have "secrets", because it could lead them to being blackmailed. Maybe Petraeus decided it was the most ethical thing to do (he would probably insist other members of the staff to resign were they in the same situation...)

But once he went public with it, it was no longer a "secret", so could not result in blackmail.

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

i disagree, this person made a promise, swore an oath to the person most valued in his life---and he stomped on that. Therefore, he will stomp on anything in my eyes and cannot be trusted.

Re:Job Performance

[craigminah]

He could be bribed if he didn't quit or out himself. Didn't have to do both but good for him, I think he's a great patriot.

Re:Job Performance

[K. S. Kyosuke]

There are ethical people in the CIA?

Apparently, not anymore! :-) (after today)

Re:Job Performance

[TWX]

To you it might not matter, but to him it certainly did. More insidious, the blackmailer could have simply required him to omit or downplay information being reported to the President or for subordinates in investigations, with no actual lying or outright obstruction necessary. His choice to prevent that is noble, even if the actions that he took that facilitated the situation weren't.

Re:Job Performance

[Ghostworks]

The issue here is his particular job in intelligence. An extramarital affair, heavy drug use, or anything of the like is a job liability (not just a political liability) in public policy because it opens an opportunity for blackmail. That's the first problem. The second problem is that even if nobody finds out, you still have no idea what he's telling his mistress, or when they'll break up and she'll start talking. We can presume that whatever level of commitment she has in the relationship, it's probably not as high an investment as, say, his wife has in their marriage. Eventually, it will end.

Furthermore, since this whole thing is also supposed to remain a secret, that also minimizes the amount of overt protection he can afford his mistress. (This would be more of an issue, say, during the height of Cold War, when kidnapping an intelligence chief's mistress for interrogation might one day be a tempting enough target for an enemy agency. Still, it's a possibility.) There are a whole slew of operational issues built into the secrecy of this that make mistresses a bad idea for anyone in intel, with the reasons becoming more important the higher up the chain of command you go.

So now he's come clean. Doesn't that short-circuit the danger of a secret mistress? Sort of, but now you have the inherent personnel problem: it's hard to tell your operational agents about the dangers of secret affairs when you're doing it yourself.

Then you have the underlying issue of character: if he can't remain loyal to a marriage, why should we assume he can remain loyal to his country. I know that sounds like a leap. It is. But it's still the sort of question that needs to be asked. Secret societies -- even extremely popular ones, like the Masons -- have small secrets like handshakes, passwords, and rituals for a reason: if you can't trust a man with a trivial secret like a handshake, you sure as hell can't trust him with a big, juicy secret. Discipline has to be developed, and lack of discipline anywhere is a bad sign in the long run. Hell, military intelligence frowns on anyone who has more than two drinks per meal as being risky.

Re:Job Performance

[jameshofo]

Unfortunately is a little more complicated than that, he holds a high level clearance and issues like that can effect your clearance eligibility, it opens him up to being blackmailed.

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably already had a thorough background investigation done when he was at the defense department. The CIA might have accepted his existing background check instead of repeating it. The new information about his affair could have been discovered in a periodic reinvestigation.

Re:Job Performance

[__aaltlg1547]

Not in the CIA. In a position where you carry sensitive information, an affair is a liability for two reasons: (1) the person with whom you're having the affair may be a spy and be working you for information. (2) the existence of the affair can be used to blackmail you.

Having an affair can therefore cause a person to lose his or her security clearance. It's even worse when it's the head or senior official in the agency because everybody looks to that person as an example. If the DCI's affair is tolerated, everybody else would assume that they could have affairs with impunity and expose the agency to many potential leaks and blackmail situations.

So in that regard, avoiding affairs and ANY OTHER situation that can potentially compromise security IS job performance.

Don't imagine Petreus did resigned on his own. His affair was discovered in the course of investigation of a possible security leak. The FBI was investigating and discovered evidence of the affair. Petreus, whatever you may think of him, resigned under pressure if he was not outright fired by President Obama for the security compromising situation.

Re:Job Performance

[__aaltlg1547]

The FBI discovered the affair.

Re:Job Performance

[__aaltlg1547]

CIA has its own ethics. Security of the agency's information is their top priority.

Re:Job Performance

[__aaltlg1547]

Noble? I don't think so. The evidence indicates that the FBI discovered his affair. It had to be part of their official report. He was forced out.

Re:Job Performance

[__aaltlg1547]

No, but the fact that he kept secrets from the agency that could have been used to blackmail him means he's a security risk and therefore not of suitable character to work in the CIA. When you work for the CIA or any other government agency that keeps the nation's secrets, you can't keep such secrets from the agency.

Re:Job Performance

[__aaltlg1547]

Bill was a spy?

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe he tried to sabotage the presidents election campaign by making some intentional mistakes overseas, but the president won anyway.

And now, the head of the CIA, who ought to be able to diddle a dozen mistresses and not get caught, who isn't a political appointee, is quitting over an extra-marital affair we wouldn't otherwise care about.

Re:Job Performance

[oobayly]

That's the problem, the people who fall upon their swords are the ones you want to keep.

Re:Job Performance

[MrEricSir]

and if the affair was with a subordinate in the CIA?

It wasn't. The affair was with his biographer, and it was uncovered by the FBI.

Re:Job Performance

[Obfuscant]

I think the work you are looking for is "honor". When one makes vows to someone, and then breaks them, it is a sign of a lack of honor. Resigning is a sign that he has more than most people do.

Re:Job Performance

[Charliemopps]

And when china found out about this affair, threatened to tell his wife? Intelligence agents can't have secrets. Affairs, closet homosexuality, drug addictions are all primary ways for foreign governments to blackmail them.

Re:Job Performance

[poity]

Anything embarrassing can be used to blackmail someone, by political opponents and foreign agents alike. He was compromised, and this was the only way to ensure the integrity of the CIA, not just morally, but operationally as well. The latter consideration was likely the more important one.

Re:Job Performance

[blade8086]

Right. Because the order of importance goes: POTUS, JSC, DCI and then, immediately after that, nurb432.

Who gives a crap what you think?

And its not about whether *you think* it would be a blackmailable incedent - because *you dont care* it IS ONE.

The point is:

a) He might not *want* to be outed - and willing to e.g. trade state secrets to prevent it from happening if someone finds out
b) Since he's broken a critical mega-life-impacting vow (and if he has sincere religious beliefs, had a religious wedding, etc -
        essentially put his desires above all of that as well, making it in effect multiple vows at once), he cannot be trusted
c) Even if he wouldn't sell state secrets and would let himself be outed, there is no way to know this a priori, because he
        has been proven to be untrustworthy in many levels
d) Allowing him to continue in the position when a,b,c are known (even in 'secret'/'classified' capacity is a HUGE political liability)

        e.g. Fox News Headline: Barak HUSSAIN obama permits ADULTERER to run CIA. More proof that he is a closet islamist by supporting
        ISLAMIC POLYGAMY and other related crap, etc.

e) Probably lied about the affair or nature of the relationship with whomever his partner was many times in the course of internal audits ( you do know intellegence professionals are required to register and discuss the nature of relationships with all aquaintences, and are frequently 'checked up on' by other groups of intellegence professionals - e.g. 'compartmentalized security', etc.)

f) Probably 1000 things I'm not thinking of
and
g) He knows all of these things to be true, took vows keeping these in mind, probably thought them over 1000 of times every time he got turned on by women, and STILL DID IT.

So.. what kind of 'good job' is he actually doing when all of the above is true?

We're not talking about a gas station attendant, or even a surgeon here.
We're talking about one of the most powerful people in the world. Literally. He is in charge of information that has a direct impact to your life. No matter where you live in the entire planet.

Or I just got mega trolled. Thats how stupid your commment is.

Re:Job Performance

[blind biker]

That is the only thing that should be taken into consideration. As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family. As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.

This is true for almost any other profession, but the head of the CIA, a CIA operative or any other person working with classified information. The reason being, the affair could be used as a leverage for blackmailing and obtaining such classified information.

Re:Job Performance

[snspdaarf]

Wrong. It makes him vulnerable to blackmail, and that's not good if you are the head of the CIA

Re:Job Performance

[strack]

id say that is job performance. who the hell wants a CIA director who cant even keep his extramarital affair secret?

Re:Job Performance

[Sponge Bath]

...doesn't speak well for his performance

According to the comments section on the Washington Post: "Erections have consequences" and "This was a conspiracy involving the illuminaughty".

Re:Job Performance

[reboot246]

Indeed. Honorable people in government are as rare as hens' teeth.

Re:Job Performance

[danwiz]

"it could be as simple as he sees the role of Director as one that should lead by example, in some way embodying the integrity of the organisation."

When the hell has integrity ever mattered in politics????

Re:Job Performance

[Solandri]

Yes, but not being able to conceal an affair doesn't speak well for his performance as a security agent.

It's the other way around. When getting a security clearance, one of the things they look for is any skeletons you have in the closet which could be used to blackmail you. The affair itself is not particularly relevant to his job. What is relevant is that he put himself in a situation where he could potentially have been blackmailed. From best to worst, the possible situations for someone who's supposed to be protecting government secrets is:

No affair
Openly public affair
Affair, initially secret, but now admits to it
Affair, still keeping it secret

Re:Job Performance

[mattack2]

From what I heard on the NBC News (podcast), he offered to resign to Obama, who took a day to accept the resignation. Doesn't sound like a firing to me.

Re:Job Performance

[wealthychef]

It's not the lack of ability to conceal the affair that is a problem, it's the intention to conceal it that is a problem.

Re:Job Performance

[Tangential]

and if the affair was with a subordinate in the CIA?

It was his biographer. Not an employee or subordinate.
br Who really cares? His private life is just that...Private. If we have determined that bad judgment disqualifies a person from a leadership position then America is leaderless.

Re:Job Performance

[rossdee]

What about James Bond?

(of course he isn't married, so its not quite the same thing

Re:Job Performance

[aardvarkjoe]

That is the only thing that should be taken into consideration. As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family. As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.

Personally, It seems to me that someone with a demonstrable lack of integrity is not suited for the job of the director of the CIA.

Re:Job Performance

[drinkypoo]

or it could be as simple as he sees the role of Director as one that should lead by example, in some way embodying the integrity of the organisation

Integrity? George H. W. Bush's CIA Death Squads. Integrity? Yeah, OK.

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite having a conscience, I do despicably evil things. This is basic to the human condition.

Re:Job Performance

[detritus.]

But did Petraeus wear a condom? Ask Julian Assange about how much that matters.

Re:Job Performance

[confusednoise]

Actually isn't it the fact that JAMES BOND ISN'T A REAL PERSON a bigger difference?

Re:Job Performance

[gandhi_2]

Except that an extra-marital affair is something you can be blackmailed for, thus violates the terms of your security clearance.

Re:Job Performance

[_DangerousDwarf]

Conveniently timed just before he was to testify to Congress about the Benghazi attack. Now he doesn't testify. So, within days of Obama being re-elected:
- Petraeus resigns (he should have to answer questions about Benghazi)
- Clinton signals she will resign (she should have to answer questions about Benghazi)
- A drone is shot at by Iran prior to the election


And there is more. If this was Bush's reelection and this happened right after we would be up in arms!

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistically speaking, that first option is more likely to be the same as the last option. Roughly 80% of all marriages in the US have one (or more) partners who have had an affair.

Re:Job Performance

[1u3hr]

it is a sign of a lack of honor.

But he was working at the CIA. Honor is only an impediment there.

And how is this remotely "news for nerds"? Civil servant has an affair?

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean honor? He was honor then offer then honor again... gotta love them little blue pills

Re:Job Performance

[19thNervousBreakdown]

If the affair is all there is to it, then he did it right. Confess, so they can't blackmail you this time. And because now you know you're the type of person to get into that situation (I mean hey, you always knew it, but now you can't lie to yourself anymore), get out, so they can't blackmail you next time.

But you can't take it back, not ever, not for most things you do or say. Life's funny like that. Now that you've proven yourself the kind of person who can handle a situation like this the right way, you'll never be in it again. The best you can hope for is to walk away with a sliver (a tiny sliver) of dignity, and that's more than most people get.

Re:Job Performance

[vux984]

As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.

On the one hand there is the leverage and liability angle that he exposed the organization to.

One the other hand there is the whole basic integrity issue; which he's just demonstrated he lacks.

You don't want someone with that kind of character weakness heading the CIA. Period.

Re:Job Performance

[Lord Kano]

That is the only thing that should be taken into consideration. As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family. As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.

Having an affair opens him up to blackmail. He's compromised and shouldn't be heading an intelligence agency.

This isn't overreaching morality. This isn't butting into his private life. This is maintaining national security.

LK

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many Slashdot commenters have ever been is this predicament. After a horizontal liaison with a young lady from a communist country (back then, The Enemy) I promptly reported the fact to my embassy in order to prevent possible pressure or blackmail, as I worked for HMG and had access to diplomatic and commercial information.

I've no problem with Ikeus having a bit on the side, but keeping it hidden from his outfit was a big no-no and I've no sympathy whatsoever for him.

Re:Job Performance

[sjames]

Someone in his position must be careful never to put himself in a position to be extorted. That is part of the job.

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Who really cares? His private life is just that...Private.

What an incredibly naive statement. His private life, as director of the CIA, is NOT as private as that "civilians". There is a very long list of people in sensitive positions that were blackmailed / recruited by foreign intelligence agencies for just this type of sexual impropriety. Doing what he did shows incredibly bad judgment, especially considering his military leadership experience and age.

Re:Job Performance

[simoncpu was here]

I've just googled "Paula Broadwell" and found out that she's hot. Can't blame the guy...

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Resigning is a sign that he has more than most people do.

Oh horseshit. Dammit, you're too old to be that fucking naive. Worked in federal government politically appointed positions long, have you? I worked for a political appointee for number of years. Petraeus had an option of being allowed to resign, with the carrot of making the FBI case go away, or staying on board to fight it, and having his ass handed to him, with the case absorbing attention that should have gone to his job. At that level, you're only denied the resignation option if you've -really- pissed off the wrong people, in which case you're publicly fired as an example not to fuck with ... this almost never happens, either. Did you read the president's statement? Where I used to work, it was called a "Good-Bye Kiss"; its almost boilerplate with fill-in-the-blank slots for accomplishments. Honor, my ass- He is too damn old himself, with too much experience, to pull an out of this world, bone-headed move like this, one that opens him up to be worked by a hostile service.

Re:Job Performance

[swell]

"That is the only thing that should be taken into consideration..."

That's way off the mark. World leaders, be they elected, military or religious should meet a higher standard to satisfy those they lead. Someone already mentioned 'honor', a great contribution, and I'll add 'loyalty'.

We expect loyalty to be embedded into the character of those we respect. Implicit and explicit. Loyalty to country, loyalty to one's boss, loyalty to one's spouse. If a man can't be loyal to his spouse, can we expect him to be loyal to his country? Can we trust him in any matter of importance?

  - - -

That said, I have immense respect for the General far beyond any other military person I can think of at the moment. He seemed to be incredibly dedicated to his work and his mental and physical preparedness for it.

  - - -

and finally ... can we really believe anything that is spread to the media from such sources? Was there really an affair or is that juicy gossip a coverup for a more embarrassing reason? Will we ever know why he really stepped down?

Re:Job Performance

[khallow]

Reading some of the back and forth in this thread, I have to point out that having an affair, especially a secret one, is a job performance issue in the intelligence world.

Re:Job Performance

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nope, wrong. Clinton did the same thing and there were legions of educated, reputable people who fervently defended him. Petraeus deserves the same treatment.

Re:Job Performance

[elucido]

CIA has its own ethics. Security of the agency's information is their top priority.

As it should be.

Re:Job Performance

[elucido]

No, but the fact that he kept secrets from the agency that could have been used to blackmail him means he's a security risk and therefore not of suitable character to work in the CIA. When you work for the CIA or any other government agency that keeps the nation's secrets, you can't keep such secrets from the agency.

Why would he even try?

Re:Job Performance

[cheekyjohnson]

If a man can't be loyal to his spouse, can we expect him to be loyal to his country?

Seeing as how they pertain to different subjects, I certainly don't see why not. Not that I ever trust politicians or authority figures to be loyal, anyway...

Re:Job Performance

[ppanon]

CIA death squads?

He said George H.W. Bush who, prior to being president and vice president, was CIA director for just under a year in 1976. While this is probably prior to the involvement of CIA with death squads in Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, and after the Phoenix Program in VietNam, it would be surprising if there wasn't CIA involvement with death squads in Guatemala, Argentina, Chile (very likely), the Phillipines (also very likely) or another country with with one of the right-wing governments known to use death squads to silence political opposition during periods spanning the mid 70s.

While some of the death squad targets may have aguably been combatants like the Afghani and Pakistani targets of current Predator strikes, most were just citizens using speech to raise awareness of injustices perpetrated by the right wing governments and their cronies. You generally don't need death squads to kill combatants because the army can do that job. You use death squads to perform extra-legal killings of civilians in the middle of the night because they are being a political annoyance and you don't have (or can't be bothered to gather) evidence that they are involved in illegal activities.

All because of the fear that those countries would irreparably fall to communism like dominoes even though, when Nicaragua and El Salvador eventually fell, the eventual outcome wasn't as feared.

Re:Job Performance

[wisty]

The President is elected, not appointed. You can't get into the military if you admit to having smoked pot, but it's no obstacle for someone running for public office.

Re:Job Performance

[sincewhen]

But if he didn't go public - and kept it from his wife and family, it could be used to blackmail him.

Re:Job Performance

[rapiddescent]

Not so, if an individual does not reveal during their vetting procedure then that individual can be compromised. Usually it's OK to retain clearance if you have affairs or browse goatse.CX so long as its declared during vetting. I imaging that he did not come clean during vetting, hence the dismissal/resignation.

Re:Job Performance

[coma_bug]

citation needed

[1]

Re:Job Performance

[rahvin112]

He resigned because his contacts (phone/text/email) with the afairee were unusual enough that they triggered some super secret monitoring the FBI does for unusual communications. That triggered a full blown investigation whereby the FBI discovered and confirmed the affair.

He really didn't have a choice to resign given the circumstances, extra-marital affairs cost you your security clearance and he can't be head of the CIA without security clearance. Once the FBI investigation confirmed the affair he was done.

Re:Job Performance

[nyri]

As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family.

I disagree. The husband of Paula Broadwell (the 'afairee' as you put it) has the right to know that his wife is seriously two-timing him. If this getting this public is the only way of getting the word to him then so be it.

As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.

The director of CIA should not put himself in a position where he can be blackmailed. This is such a basic stuff that I'm willing to guess that CIA has a policy on this.

Re:Job Performance

[kanweg]

Then going public like he did was all that was needed. Not his resignation.

Bert

Re:Job Performance

[misexistentialist]

Even if he submitted a complete record of all activity with the woman he would certainly have been dismissed for political reasons. It would be a lot more embarrassing if the affair leaked and Obama said "It's cool, we all knew".

Re:Job Performance

[misexistentialist]

How do you know the wife wasn't on board? They often are--anything to get out of having to put out... And how many people are in government office who broke their vows through divorce, and are proud of it?

Re:Job Performance

[f3rret]

That is the only thing that should be taken into consideration. As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family. As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.

Not really.

Affairs by in large are clandestine things that would have negative repercussions for a marriage. Being that he is cleared for pretty by all the secrets of the CIA having him as easily blackmailed as that would be bad.

Re:Job Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

English lesson for today: "definitely" does not mean "something I pulled out of my ass". The vast majority of military personal involved in counter-terrorism do not and never will work for the CIA.

Contrary to what you may have read on fine websites like infowars or the Ron Paul forums, not everyone vaguely connected to the government is a clandestine CIA operative.

Re:Job Performance

[dbIII]

In some cases the "integrity" is a bit of a plea bargain to resign gracefully with lesser scandal than being thrown out for the real one. Here it looks like the problem is not that he had a mistress but that his mistress was a journalist and he was telling her things that should have remained secret - and then there's people upset about poor performance over Libya so probably a lot of people in positions of influence want him gone.

Re:Job Performance

[Hentes]

For most jobs you would be right, but intelligence is somewhat special. Female agents having an affair with high ranked intelligence people of the target country is a common tactic used by all powers. Also, the head of CIA is a very sensitive position, you want a person there whom you can absolutely trust, not a dishonest one.

Re:Job Performance

[Bing Tsher E]

He was scheduled to testify before Congress as the Director of the CIA regarding the Benghazi attacks a few days from now.

Falling on his sword?

(I vote for Biden to become president in 2013, btw.)

Re:Job Performance

[wealthychef]

Nope, wrong. Clinton did the same thing and there were legions of educated, reputable people who fervently defended him. Petraeus deserves the same treatment.

Maybe he deserves the same treatment and doesn't want it. :-) Remember that Clinton was indicted, not for having an affair, but for perjury (attempting to conceal it)? Remember how much damage it did to him, where if he had just come clean (so to speak) it seems to me he would have been much better off. The point is that being ashamed of your secret affair provides leverage to your enemies, whereas just enjoying some good ol' side nookie only damages your marriage (usually).

Re:Job Performance

[Bing Tsher E]

Ask Julian Assange about how much that matters.

Hopefully we'll get to, eventually. It won't be the most important question asked, of course.

Re:Job Performance

[khallow]

I bet more comfortable than falling off of them.

Re:Job Performance

[khallow]

And now you know how they fire people inside the Beltway. Everyone is given the opportunity to resign to make things look good publicly. It's the same reason why the resignation happened now rather than months ago when the infidelity in question was discovered by the FBI.

Re:Job Performance

[sumdumass]

Unless Obama is assassinated, I wouldn't get my hopes up. The democrats would never allow an impeachment to go through to a removal of office. They would more then likely pretend to be all for it, then raise 3 kinds of holey hell about it trying to make the republicans look bad like they did with Clinton.

But yeah, I agree something should be done about it. Although I do not think Biden is clean either. I think they wanted something to happen to somehow use it to aid in getting reelected (like they thought terrorism got Bush reelected) but then realized how much of a problem it was going to be when Romney came out swinging before half the news agencies reported on it.

Re:Job Performance

[Peristaltic]

Its only leverage for blackmail use if someone higher up the ladder of authority (Petraeus' boss or his wife) can make a damaging issue out of it.

Blackmail would more likely be used by a foreign intelligence agency to gain control over a prize intelligence asset, which is the danger he is referring to.

Re:Job Performance

[PPH]

Blackmail would more likely be used

How?

I have an open marriage and my boss doesn't care what I do with my spare time? Want to circulate pictures of me and the mistress? Fine. Can I print some extra copies? I want to send them out as Christmas cards. Blackmail can only be used if someone is threatened by the release of the information.

Re:Job Performance

[garyoa1]

Good ol' fox snooze. She was his biographer but she is also in the military. Which makes her a subordinate.

Re:Job Performance

[Peristaltic]

That's the point- Many people -are- threatened by the release of the information; as the op said: "There is a very long list of people in sensitive positions that were blackmailed / recruited by foreign intelligence agencies for just this type of sexual impropriety.". It might not be a problem for you, but it has been for a lot of others.

Re:Job Performance

[PPH]

But what sort of information and what sort of problems? And who is to judge?

Being gay in the military used to be a problem. It isn't anymore. At a couple of my past employers, going to the wrong denomination church was (still is?) a major career limiting move.

Like I said in another post: If you have a problem with some sort of non-job related behavior, you probably shouldn't be in a management or decision-making position. Something being "a problem" because its defined as being "a problem" is circular logic. Its fine for some low level grunt who has to read the company rule book. But not for policy makers.

BTW, does your wife know you post on Slashdot?

Re:Job Performance

[Eunuchswear]

Ah yes, but if you don't inhale?

Re:Job Performance

[Eunuchswear]

Blackmail. As the head of the CIA, he was right to resign. He probably resigned because someone tried to blackmail him.

Yeah. The FBI probably.

Re:Job Performance

[sesshomaru]

"Parlor Maid"

Re:Job Performance

[mjwalshe]

no once he was open about it within the agency and trying to black mail the head of the CIA is insanely risky if your lucky you get an in camera trial if not you get a Red stop.
and an investigation into hacking of the head of CIA how the fuck does this get into the public domain it should be TS eyes only an dteh FBI FFS this is the organization that had hover as a director its the last organization that should do subversion investigations

Re:Job Performance

[gmanterry]

and if the affair was with a subordinate in the CIA?

It wasn't. The affair was with his biographer, and it was uncovered by the FBI.

It does not matter who it was with. The security clearance is contingent on the person not ever being in a position where they can be blackmailed. He broke this rule. That is the reason.

Re:Job Performance

[rtb61]

Your ability to keep your word is the prime qualification for any high security job. You break you word in one aspect, why should you be trusted in any other. Stop and think for a change.

Re:Job Performance

[t0rkm3]

Interesting how that logic didn't fly when it was the President.

Re:Job Performance

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Your ability to keep your word is the prime qualification for any high security job. You break you word in one aspect, why should you be trusted in any other. Stop and think for a change.

Because sneaking behind your boss's back to post on slashdot isn't the same as selling company information to a competitor.

Fundamentalist, categorical thinking is fundamentally and categorically closedminded! =) Seriously, though, the fact is that lots of people will lie in one context to one person, but not in another or to another. Even in courts, the question you look at to determine credibility of a witness is the habit of lying under oath--you can't just bring in evidence willy nilly saying that the witness happened to lie to her friend about her age so she must have been willing to lie about [topic]

Re:Job Performance

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

not everyone vaguely connected to the government is a clandestine CIA operative.

Of course not! The people who "work" for the "CIA" aren't really operatives at all, they're just there to dupe us into thinking the rest of the government isn't clandestine operatives. Actually, the real intelligence arm of the United States Government is the Department of Agriculture. Anyone can do SIGINT work, but what really matters is who controls the milk.

*Cue X-files theme*

Re:Job Performance

[stephanruby]

That is the only thing that should be taken into consideration. As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'affairee' and his family.

Actually, it's not. If he wants to have an affair, he has to make this information public right away (and tell his wife). Otherwise, he's a possible candidate for blackmail. In this case, he probably didn't do that, or didn't do it in time, so his security clearance was probably placed in jeopardy.

Re:Job Performance

[cold fjord]

it would be surprising if there wasn't CIA involvement with death squads

Why is that? Don't you think the people in those countries could figure out how to kill someone they wanted to kill? That doesn't take much sophistication, no need for the "gringos" to show them how to do it, even if they were inclined to do so.

Re:Job Performance

[__aaltlg1547]

Interesting how that logic didn't fly when it was the President.

Who works for whom? Do you even remember?

Re:Job Performance

[Lord Ender]

Furthermore, having an affair can cause you to lose your security clearance because it puts you at risk of blackmail.

Having security clearance is mandatory for the director of the CIA, so his resignation is pretty much required.

Re:Job Performance

[Rogerborg]

"Competent"? Petraeus was the first politician to go into the military, rather than t'other way around. His spent his fast track air conditioned career stapling reports for combat officers, collecting medals like fridge magnets, teaching about situations that he'd never experienced, and giving empty, faux-profound sound bites to embedded journalists (or biographers as he doubtless viewed them).

His major achievement was pacifying Mosul and re-building the civil and law enforcement infrastructure. Of course, the situation collapsed the moment his 101st Airborne was withdrawn, which tells you everything you need to know about how successful he actually was. Never mind though, because by then Petraeus had moved on to his real career - promoting himself through WaPo articles and lobbying Congress for the 'surge' that resulted in (literally) uncounted billions being funnelled to Uncle Cheney's coffers.

The man is a puffed up little reptile whose only qualification is that he was very slightly less incompetent than the rest of the military brass.

Re:Job Performance

[MBC1977]

Your post, sadly, comes off as very ignorant. Please don't take that as a direct attack - its not. However, as a Marine Veteran who has worked directly in an intelligence capacity; you have no clue. There is a reason the U.S. government spends the large amount of coin and time it does to vet every individual who holds a security clearance.

Any sort leverage (perceived or actual) that can be gained on an individual who has access to critical information pertaining to the protection of this county; can damage this country. Gen. (ret.) Petraeus is probably one of the few individuals in the current world who has access to deep and wide knowledge of both the country's intelligence and military current and future inner-workings (esp. as DirCIA). He realizes/knows this, that's why he resigned.

Whatever your personal thoughts are about adultery, when it has the potential to interfere with national security - that person needs divorced from his security role ASAP.

Re:Job Performance

[multi io]

It does not matter who it was with. The security clearance is contingent on the person not ever being in a position where they can be blackmailed. He broke this rule. That is the reason.

Well, what can he be blackmailed with that's connected to the affair, now that the latter has been made public? And btw, anybody can be blackmailed with something.

Re:Job Performance

[timothy]

If Clinton had admitted the affair, maybe. Instead, he lied about it (or rather "them") for a long time, including to Congress, which didn't exactly help anyone in the end. He gambled on that, and lost.

Funny that everyone had "I believe Anita Hill" stickers, but not "I believe Gennifer Flowers, Among Others" stickers ;)

Tim

Re:Job Performance

[Stuarticus]

Maybe he thought if the information was released he might lose his job?

Re:Job Performance

[timothy]

Well-said.

I have great ambivalence about many of the things the U.S. government does, but I've been interviewed as a reference for several people who have applied for jobs with agencies where security clearance matters. The questions they ask to do with integrity I believe they take very seriously for exactly this reason.

The News For Nerds:

[retroworks]

SOME guys get to have TWO girlfriends...

Re:The News For Nerds:

[YodasEvilTwin]

It's easier to keep your camwhore bill a secret if your girlfriends are on AIM, Yahoo Messenger, or something more modern rather than interacting with you in real life.

Re:The News For Nerds:

[Anonymous Coward]

If he'd only been a Mormon

Re:The News For Nerds:

[Intrepid imaginaut]

And some girls get to have two boyfriends. Really, its no big deal, if people were meant to be monogamous we wouldn't need marriage in the first place. I mean of course it served a purpose in the medieval past as regards child protection and so on, but these days its a most peculair institution. If two (or three or four) people love one another they don't need legal contracts to petrify the emotion.

As for sex, come on. Why do love and sex have to be the same thing? Cats have sex, dogs have sex, animals have sex constantly without ever having to form lifelong bonds. Its an activity, no different to any sport. People should enjoy themselves as they see fit without having to swear fidelity or mutual ownership, jealousy is a poisonous emotion.

Re:The News For Nerds:

[Anonymous Coward]

if people were meant to be monogamous we wouldn't need marriage in the first place.

We weren't meant to be anything. Even if being polygamous is/were natural, so is crushing your foe's skull with a large rock. The great advantage humans have is we don't have to follow our instincts.

I mean of course it served a purpose in the medieval past as regards child protection and so on, but these days its a most peculair institution.

It still serves a purpose, stability. The State likes stability.

Cats have sex, dogs have sex, animals have sex constantly without ever having to form lifelong bonds.

A few animals do form lifelong bonds.

People should enjoy themselves as they see fit without having to swear fidelity or mutual ownership, jealousy is a poisonous emotion.

You can do that. Nobody is forced to sign a contract.

Re:The News For Nerds:

[jamesh]

SOME guys get to have TWO girlfriends...

That's fine, as long as all parties involved are aware of the situation. I guess you were so excited at the prospect of TWO girls that you forgot about that bit. This guy didn't have two girlfriends, he had a wife and a secret lover. There are enough diseases floating around these days that if i was the wronged partner i'd be pretty pissed off on that basis alone, and that's before you bring all the trust issues into it.

If you would violate the trust of someone you made a marriage vow to, I wouldn't trust you with state secrets. All the enemy has to do is set a few hot babes onto you and you'd cave instantly.

Re:The News For Nerds:

[phantomfive]

Girlfriend 2.0 can be very expensive if you already have wife 1.0, look:

Wife 1.0 has an undocumented bug. If you try to install Mistress 1.1 before uninstalling Wife 1.0, Wife 1.0 will delete MS-Money files before doing the uninstall itself. Then Mistress 1.1 will refuse to install, claiming insufficient resources.

Re:The News For Nerds:

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Even if being polygamous is/were natural, so is crushing your foe's skull with a large rock. The great advantage humans have is we don't have to follow our instincts.

Actually it takes a great deal of hard work to train most people to kill, the overwhelming majority just won't do it naturally, look it up. And did you really just compare an open lifestyle with crushing someone's skull?

Re:The News For Nerds:

[kanweg]

Do you know there are countries where it is an offense to show on TV a tiny bit of a normally covered body part anyone has and/or has seen before, but showing violent movies and dead people is not?

So yes, an open lifestyle is Evil whereas crushing someone's skull is fine (as long as it is not yours or mine).

Bert
Warning: There was sarcasm in this post (albeit not directed to the parent poster).

Re:The News For Nerds:

[PPH]

JPEG and GIF.

Re:The News For Nerds:

[pscottdv]

Its an activity, no different to any sport.

To be fair, there are actually quite a few sports that don't risk impregnating women.

Re:The News For Nerds:

[garyoa1]

Depends on your gender. Women "generally" seem to think that love and sex go together. To men they are positively, absolutely two totally different things. Not even closely related.

Re:The News For Nerds:

[mdielmann]

Its an activity, no different to any sport.

To be fair, there are actually quite a few sports that don't risk impregnating women.

Those would be the sports that nerds aren't interested in...

Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish other department heads would resign for things trice as bad as cheating on their wives.

Re:first post

[nurb432]

Nice try. I beat you by milliseconds.

care less

[bhenson]

I could care less where he sticks his dick. all i care about is does he get the job done. look at clinton he was getting office nookie and he got the job done anyway.

Re:care less

[Black Parrot]

I could care less where he sticks his dick. all i care about is does he get the job done. look at clinton he was getting office nookie and he got the job done anyway.

Uhm, I don't think it was Clinton who got the job done.

Re:care less

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, I don't think it was Clinton who got the job done.

According to the stains on the dress he did!

Re:care less

[wonkey_monkey]

I could care less where he sticks his dick.

So you do care, then?

Re:care less

[Anonymous Coward]

You really want a chief spymaster who lied in an oath to his wife? How about his oath to defend the constitution?

Re:care less

[OliWarner]

You mean it means the exact opposite of what it says?

Even though Great-Great-Great-Grandfather Coward was too stupid to work out he was saying, we don't have to parrot it. We could say "oh, that's a silly thing to say", and use the language with a modicum of respect.

5 days prior to hearing.

[Dan East]

He resigned 5 days prior to the congressional hearing on what transpired at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and other US personnel. Hillary Clinton took full responsibility for the lack of security, and of course the media let it die out right there and not have any negative repercussions on Obama or his administration in general. The buck stops with Hillary. Or whomever else it can stop at short of Obama.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Mashiki]

Doesn't matter, they should subpoena his ass. This doesn't make the information in your head go away, or any less valid. Over all, it seems like the underside of the Benghazi bus is getting pretty crowded with all the people being thrown under it.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[ibsteve2u]

And this is why he had to resign...the Republicans would have made political hay out of the situation, his past service to our country notwithstanding.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[YodasEvilTwin]

Clearly they should have gone the sexual route. If only there were a single black Republican woman willing to blow him.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not at all. Benghazi was supposed to be an October Surprise, but instead it just made people ask, "If that's so important, why didn't you bring it up on 9/12?"

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Attila Dimedici]

No, because too many people don't care that the Administration left an American Ambassador out to die without protection and made no attempt to save him while watching the attack invade American soil in real time.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[DigitAl56K]

The buck stops with Hillary. Or whomever else it can stop at short of Obama.

The President stood up during the 2nd Presidential debate, in front of the entire nation, and clearly stated the buck stops with him, and not Hillary Clinton. He made this point very clearly.

But don't let the very public and easily accessible facts get in the way of your rant.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[macwhizkid]

He resigned 5 days prior to the congressional hearing on what transpired at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and other US personnel.

Oh, for crying out loud. Look, maybe there was a genuine conspiracy relating to the Benghazi attack. Or maybe there wasn't and shit just happens.

But, if you want to convince anyone else of your case, you have to stop treating every shadow like it's a smoking gun and every government official like they're a co-conspirator until you have real, substantial evidence. That's the way it works: you don't get to claim conspiracy just by randomly picking facts to be a story and hoping some of it pans out.

If Congress wants to talk to Petraeus, they'll subpoena him. If that happens and he flees the country, then that's a story. His exact job title really doesn't matter.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Black Parrot]

For that matter, there's no evidence that anything particularly objectionable took place in Benghazi involving that day.

(Other than the attack itself.)

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Black Parrot]

If this had been under Bush the mainstream media would be on his ass 24x7.

Oh, please. The mainstream media never got on Bush's ass 24x7 about *anything*. Ignore intelligence reports warning of an immanent attack? No problem. Let OBL get away? No problem. Lie us into a war? No problem. Authorize torture? No problem.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Black Parrot]

That's a pretty brazen and stupid accusation.

Yeah, I should have said "outside FOX News and their cult followers, or grandstanding Republican committee chairs and their shills".

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[14erCleaner]

the media let it die out right there

Yes, I haven't heard anything about this attack. Those darn media, keeping it a secret like that.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[MangoCats]

Michael Moore is not the mainstream media.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[geekoid]

Wow..just wow. I'm just. uhg. Do you people simply just not know how to read? Can't handle anything more complex than black or white? Eat too much lead as a child?

Fox spews out something and is immediately shown wrong, and people like you keep repeating it.

You know what? its a complex topic, so you sit at the kids table while adults discuss it. now move along.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[geekoid]

"The fact that the Obama admin lied to the American people about what happened"
it's clearly documented that isn't true.

of right, I forgot actual facts are 'liberal'.

"If this had been under Bush the mainstream media would be on his ass 24x7."
Nope. Extract FOX News fro the equation, and the 'media' give pretty equal treatment to both sides.

Fox has skewed things so much, the rational discourse seem to be 'radically liberal'.

There is no liberal media. The only people who say that are people irritated when the media presents actual facts they don't like.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[blade8086]

Really - where is the proof of the lie?

Oh right - its tucked away in obama's koran along with his Kenyan birth certificate.

I'm sure they had some idea - but no solid proof - and thats what they said. And then, when they knew for sure, they corrected it.

What exactly are people trying to get at about the whole benghazi thing? Irrespective of the amount of security deployed,
if something would have happened, it wouldn't have been 'enough', and people would have tried to politicize it.

Same thing happened 'under bush' I'm sure in some way.

So.. is this some kind of weak ass attempt at republican '9/11 truth' commision stuff?

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[artor3]

Oh please, if he had come out and immediately called it a terror attack, you'd accuse him of fearmongering in the run-up to an election.

He waited until all the facts were in. That's commendable.

But you know what? Keep banging that drum. Keep trying to get political benefit from the deaths of innocents. While you're at it, keep treating minorities like shit and keep calling rape-babies gifts from god and keep white-knighting for the super-rich. You're just making life easier for the rest of us.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[geekoid]

SIgh..

"killing a US Ambassador and dragging his body through the streets is a massive incident."
yes it is. It's so important you should get some facts straight.

"t. The fact that he requested additional support and was refused"
the request was for a different embassy.

" The fact that the same people who should have gotten him more security lied about"
which has been shown to be wrong over and over again. Ever wonder why Romney didn't harp on about it? Becasue Obama didn't lie.

" And this event isn't worth discussing?"
not with people who can't even get the most basic facts about it correct. i.e. YOU.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Billly Gates]

How did he lie?

Intelligence reported it as a protest which is exactly how the attack played out. He referred to it as a terror attack 2 days later. Please give it up? I look at is a fishing expedition to help Romney out and out of desperation this is the best the Republicans could find.

FYI Bush lied on a constant basis and the media did not go after him nearly as much.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Billly Gates]

So embassasies got attacked before and terrorists like taking them out. THere is no vast conspiracy. Budget was cut by Ryan and intelligence informed him a protest turned violent and all of the suddent the very fact that Obama did not magically known it was a secret planned attack make him a liar worthy of impeachment?

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[R3d M3rcury]

Exactly! We should have strung up Obama like we did with Reagan, when he took full responsibility for the deaths of 241 Marines!

Oh wait. We didn't...

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Doesn't matter, they should subpoena his ass. This doesn't make the information in your head go away, or any less valid. Over all, it seems like the underside of the Benghazi bus is getting pretty crowded with all the people being thrown under it.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has already removed him from the schedule. This is how you cover up that the US State Department operation in Benghazi was a cover for a CIA operation (they were watching Libyans smuggle Gadaffi's weaponry to the Syrian rebels).

You don't talk about inconvenient things during a Congressional hearing.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Attila Dimedici]

I don't watch Fox. Now, my question is, what do you know about what happened? How is Fox wrong? Was there or was there not a drone overhead during the firefight broadcasting video back to the situation room at the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department? Were there or were there not planes that could have been there within an hour and a Special Forces Unit that could have been there within two? While the battle itself lasted for seven hours. Did the President say that it was a spontaneous reaction to a video the next day when he knew (or should have known) that it was no such thing?
Did the President order that everything be done to secure our people as soon as he heard about the attack,or not? And if he did, why was nothing done?

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Obfuscant]

yes it is. It's so important you should get some facts straight.

That's why I attributed them to where I got them.

the request was for a different embassy.

Really? Amabassador Stevens was making requests for security support for some other embassy, not the one he was in charge of? Why would he do that?

which has been shown to be wrong over and over again.

One more time, from here:

The White House issued the following statement in response to the death of J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya:

"I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."

That statement about "denigrate the religious beliefs of others" is a reference to the movie that was allegedly the cause for the incident. Obama knew otherwise. And wouldn't it be interesting to know how supporting the security of our personnel in Libya might have worked out had he directed his administration to do it before the attack?

And if the New York Times is more to your liking, here:

For days after the attack, as it became clearer that the Benghazi violence was a Qaeda operation rather than a protest, White House officials continued to stress the importance of the "hateful" and "disgusting" video, and its supposed role as a catalyst for what Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, insisted was a spontaneous attack.

This narrative was pushed on Sunday morning programs, on late-night talk shows and at news conferences, by everyone from Rice to Hillary Clinton to the president himself. When Obama spoke at the United Nations shortly after the attacks, the video was referenced six times in the text; Al Qaeda was referenced only once.

Ever wonder why Romney didn't harp on about it?

Because it wasn't appropriate at the time. Because other members of his own party were jumping down his throat for pointing it out.

not with people who can't even get the most basic facts about it correct. i.e. YOU.

I've quoted the timeline with "the most basic facts", which aren't what you claim. This "other embassy" fact you keep repeating isn't supported by the real facts. The '28 minutes' is also wrong. "Proven over and over again wrong", as you are using it, has been proven to be wrong. And I didn't make a single reference to this "Fox News" to do it.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, the buck stopped with a guy who made a stupid YouTube video... who got sentenced to spend a year in jail for it by order of Obama (in-effect and indirectly, via the actions of his political allies in California, NOT by some secret star-chamber or magic decoder ring message). No crackpot conspiracy theories... but Hillary DID promise the "muslim world" that the filmmaker would be arrested and punished (and he WAS), the entire Obama admin spent weeks blaming the YouTube for the protests that sparked the riot (even though they later had to admit under oath in congress that there never were any protests or riots of any type in Benghazi... just a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9-11) and California prisons are so over-crowded that we are releasing hardened violent criminals (but they justify a year for Mr YouTube because he violated parole on a non-violent crime by logging on to the internet).

Harry Truman must be spinning in his grave and any free-speech-loving Democrats ought to be hanging their heads in shame.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[rossdee]

Maybe he was out shagging his mistress on the night the attack happened or something.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[darue]

oh shut up. I'm so sick of you cry-baby right-tards wanting to make a big deal about this attack. ever hear of 9/11 ? when you show even half as much interest in going after bush, I might start to take you people seriously.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[darue]

yeah, don't hold your breath waiting on right-tards to be consistent or anything. then there was 9/11 "bin laden determined to strike in US" ignored.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[darue]

a quest for truth is not conducted by all the usual suspects in a witch hunt fashion. Anyway, if "mistakes were made" the first place you might want to look at is the giant CIA building near the embassy, and maybe your republican friends can out a few more facts in their oh-so-honest "quest for truth" - as if they'd know truth if it bit them on the ass. whatever went wrong will be fixed, the right-tarded wingnut witch hunt routine isn't going to help.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[uvajed_ekil]

Hillary Clinton took full responsibility for the lack of security, and of course the media let it die out right there and not have any negative repercussions on Obama or his administration in general.

No, "the media" did not stop once Queen Hillary claimed responsibility. I heard an awful lot about it after that, and I still do. It isn't the number one most important issue we have, but it did not go away because of some massive conspiracy designed to keep Obama in office, nor has it gone away yet. I think you phrased it wrong and what you meant to say is, "I'm a right-wing extremist and a sore loser who blames everything I don't like on vast, unprovable, vague conspiracies." Sorry if our guy isn't perfect and doesn't micromanage every aspect of every department, though I think that is for the best.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Media let it die? Romney made an argument out of it and it was in the news cycle constantly.

I don't know what he hoped to prove by it, really. Romney never said that he would have done anything differently.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[rahvin112]

What I know is that he was calling, texting and emailing the person he was having and affair with. Those communications were unusual and triggered an FBI investigation of who, what when and where to ensure that national security wasn't jeopardized. (He was likely investigated as a result of the revelation that Deep Throat was second in command of the CIA for years, it now appears to be standard operating procedure that everyone in the CIA including the head of the department is monitored for unusual behavior).

Anyway, the FBI investigation turned up the affair. And extra-marital affair results in immediate termination of top level security clearance. You can't have a head of the CIA without security clearance. You also need to keep in mind that with the investigation complete and the FBI having solid evidence of an affair they would have been forced to move on that data including telling the president and likely starting a legal case against him and revoking his clearance. Not only that but a juicy detail like that wouldn't have stayed secret for a day let alone the rest of his career.

He had no choice but to resign once the FBI revealed what it had evidence of. That you buy into the stupid conspiracy theory BS is stupid. That Congressmen like Jason Chafitz went on Fox and basically said this is a cover up without knowing the back story just screams the same bias and politics that cost the Republicans the election to begin with.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Attila Dimedici]

When did I mention a conspiracy? Did I at any point say that Petraeus resigned because of Benghazi? Or as part of a cover up of Benghazi?
The person I originally replied to seemed to think there was nothing controversial about what happened in Benghazi. None of what you mentioned addressed any of the points I mentioned. They addressed things I did not bring up. Considering the Administration's attempts to avoid explaining its actions in Benghazi it is certainly reasonable to suspect that there is a connection. While at this time there is no reason to believe there is a connection, a reasonable person would be open to the possibility that facts may emerge which show that there was such a connection.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[dkleinsc]

Here's my take on the Benghazi thing:
1. Somebody screwed up, big time. Hardly the first time that's happened.
2. Anyone who actually knows something for certain about it is either part of a terrorist group, or is not allowed to talk.
3. That leaves a certain news organization with the ability to say anything they like about the incident with absolute impunity. With absolutely no evidence to back up any of it, but because there's no contradictory evidence available.
4. Those who are predisposed to believe that Barack Obama is some sort of secret Muslim trying to undermine the US thus believe that there's some sort of giant conspiracy that both caused this to happen and keep the details secret from the US public. This is largely the same crowd that is firmly convinced that Bill Clinton arranged the murder of Vince Foster.
5. When the official report of what happened comes out months if not years from now, those who are in group 4 won't believe it unless it blames everything on Barack Obama.

I mean, I didn't vote for Obama, I don't approve of much of his Middle East policy, but those who keep harping on the Benghazi attack are making a mountain out of a comparative molehill. What I'm guessing happened was about 10 parts bad luck and 3 parts a really stupid mistake by some mid-level State Department bureaucrat, and the Obama political appointees (and Obama himself) only became aware of it because of the successful attack. You fix the mistake, you put whoever was responsible in charge of embassy security for Denmark (or some other relatively safe place) rather than Libya, you move on.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[dbIII]

"Only 3 people" and you are accusing the other guy of being in a coma?

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Jeremi]

[waterboarding] was legal at the time

No. Waterboarding is torture and has never been legal in the US, self-serving double-talk from the Bush administration notwithstanding. Waterboarding is outlawed by Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which have the force of law in the US. If the US were a country where the military is held responsible for its actions, both the people who did the waterboarding and the people who ordered them to do it would have been tried, found guilty, and imprisoned.

the US does it to its own pilots and special forces

The difference being that in the training scenario, the pilot is undergoing waterboarding voluntarily, and is free to refuse or cut short the process. That is very different from the situation we saw in the Bush administration, where the victim had no control over his own repeated near-drowning.

Arguing that waterboarding is legal because it's sometimes undergone voluntarily for training purposes makes as much sense as saying that tying people down and slicing them with a scalpel is legal because surgeons do it during surgery. Context matters.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[NeutronCowboy]

Or whomever else it can stop at short of Obama.

Yeah, Obama totally said that it was all Hillary's fault. Actually, wrong - he explicitly took responsibility for the incident in Benghazi. You can watch the last presidential debate for a very public announcement on that.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[cold fjord]

Coming from an educated man such as you, I'm intrigued. I would love to review any link, reference, or citation you care to provide since I'm sure you must have some facts to back that up.

By now it must be well over a thousand terrorists killed by drones in Pakistan by the US, few if any high value terrorists captured recently, and a decade ago three terrorists waterboarded.

This is no surprise, but a natural outcome.
Detainee Madness
Washington Post Confirms We Are No Longer Capturing & Interrogating High-Value Terrorists

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Black Parrot]

What part of "24x7" do you not understand?

(Hint: there are only three parts.)

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[Attila Dimedici]

What part of what I said was an accusation? Or are you saying that there aren't that many people who don't care?

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[dbIII]

One of the reasons it's difficult to make a choice about Syria is they were one of the nations torture was outsourced to, as an example of one of the inconvenient facts you are ignoring. Also I'm astonished that you think that the total number of highly classified interrogation sessions using waterboarding would be published in the press - that's as naive as expecting to see a full list of terrorist suspects for the last decade. What you've seen is the total number of slipups where idiots in politics mentioned incidents of torture by US staff, and it's barely relevant since they are still responsible for the large number of documented incidents of torture being outsourced to Syria, Egypt etc.
As for "review any link, reference, or citation" - come out of that coma and read a fucking newspaper or listen to the radio instead of just watching some cocaine addled ex-DJ on Fox.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[cold fjord]

One of the reasons it's difficult to make a choice about Syria is they were one of the nations torture was outsourced to

What makes Syria difficult is that they have fairly strong support from both Russian and China, Iranian troops fighting for the Syrian government, a heavily armed army, the possibility of drawing support and fighters from Hezbollah, an open threat of using chemical and biological weapons, uncertain prospects for the rebels, and Al Qaida militants fighting with the rebels. I don't think the possibility of Syria announcing that in addition to the thousands and thousands of people they have killed and tortured that they volunteered to mistreat a few outsiders is much of a threat. I would consider the possibility of a Syrian army chemical warhead or biological bomb falling into Al Qaida rebel hands is a much bigger problem.

Also I'm astonished that you think that the total number of highly classified interrogation sessions using waterboarding would be published in the press

The fact that an activity was highly classified doesn't seem to have been much of an impediment to its being leaked over the last 10 years as classified program after program was leaked to the press. For example, the NSA surveillance programs, financial protocols to track terrorist funding, the enhanced interrogation programs, and more were all leaked. When the Obama administration took office, it released a variety of materials regarding the terrorist interrogation programs, including the interrogation protocols, against the strong recommendations of several former CIA Directors. If the number three was actually wrong I have little doubt we would have heard of it by now.

I can understand how it might seem that it must be more. There has been a mighty mountain range of outrage and denunciation made out of the actual molehill of fact.

As for "review any link, reference, or citation" - come out of that coma and read a fucking newspaper or listen to the radio instead of just watching some cocaine addled ex-DJ on Fox.

Allow me to draw your attention to the sources I reference above: The Dawn in Pakistan, ABC News (US, not Australian), and National Review magazine. In this post, CNN. No Fox at all. As to your sources, it appears, In short, you've got nothing. All right then. Cheers.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[dbIII]

No those things just add to the list, but the primary thing would be that backstabbing a former ally creates a bad reputation especially if the former ally has truckloads of dirt on behaviour of secret services that fits the category of war crimes.

Re:5 days prior to hearing.

[cold fjord]

No those things just add to the list, but the primary thing would be that backstabbing a former ally creates a bad reputation especially if the former ally has truckloads of dirt on behaviour of secret services that fits the category of war crimes.

If you say so. When it comes to "back stabbing", don't you think the Syrians saw the way the Europeans treated Khadafi after he started coming clean and gave up his nuclear weapons program? That ship has already sailed.

It seems to me that you greatly exaggerate the closeness of the relationship between the US and Syria, and the efficacy of any claims that they might make. After all, what form would they take? "The United States returned a man of Syrian heritage to our security services in Syria, and how did we greet him? We tortured the hell out of him! . . . Just like we do to thousands and thousands of others. . . just not to death in his case. We did offer him the kindness of suggesting he not settle in Hama, where we are recreating some of our success from 1982."

Frankly, I think that anyone who believes your position already believes the US is among the worst countries on the planet, and little is likely to change that for good or ill.

So what's the real reason?

[dbIII]

Those guys in Washington D.C. cavort like rabbits so what is the real situation? Is he being moved aside to give somebody else a high profile job or was he unfit for the position and only got it in the first place by having a high public profile due to Afganistan?
A vet from Afganistan I know describes Petraeus as a clown (but won't elaborate unfortunately), anyone have any ideas why?

Re:So what's the real reason?

[AHuxley]

His origin was Army. He married the daughter of Army General William A. Knowlton, who was superintendent of West Point while he was in training.
He seems to have a deep understanding of the Vietnam Era, Haiti as the Chief of Operations for the UN force, worked hard on mastering counterinsurgency using all tools in the US spectrum of intel and death, mindful of the optics of web 2.0.
So you have the 1970's South America/1980's Vietnam lessons generation, some UN work and a new theory on using night raids via local help, drones. A well studied man at the top of the US power structure in many ways. Now this statement about family life.... that sounds more like "any" political leadership change.
So a well educated person with deep international experience, returning to the US to speak of winning the peace.
Sounds good? We are missing the "dark" side, the funding of the 'freedom' fighters since the late 1970's to get the Soviets, Yugoslavia, mess with Russia, Albania, Libya, Iraq, Iran ... a long list of small dirty wars with huge hidden costs, a constant demand for untraceable weapons, free heavy lift transport, training and missing weapons systems, cash and drugs sales.
A lot of people are making a lot of cash in the fog of war, nations are contained, nations are buying "made in the USA" for their forces, actors and ghosts pop up and take on weakened oil rich states for freedom...
Iran is the next question, from funding freedom fighters to drone flights... whats the next step? A plane or ship "lost" to induce a legal war?
What can the US bring to the game? Troops that have had 4-6-more tours of war? Equipment that needs to be replaced? Roll out next gen drones, space platforms early?
What does the dark side of the CIA want would be the other question. A quick hot war, a long slow support only "freedom fighter" war with Iran?
Who does the US power structure want at the top of the CIA? Someone from the dark side who has never been to war but knows to say "yes"
Someone who knows war and can say yes to "night raids" been 24/7 just like winning in 1970's/80's South America?
Or has some idea about some amazing optics that will make war seem amazing again. So its not so much why as when ;)

Re:So what's the real reason?

[phantomfive]

People are speculating it's about Benghazi. I am not going to speculate because I have no clue, but it doesn't look good, that's for sure.

Re:first post

[Black Parrot]

Nice try. I beat you by milliseconds.

So you got first neener.

Not in the CIA or other high Gov positiions.

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: blackmail. And not for money.

'Nuff said.

Re:Not in the CIA or other high Gov positiions.

[Billly Gates]

Mod parent up

THe sole reason the military also banned homosexuals was for the reason of blackmail. Now you can be gay but can't be married to a woman. The reason for sexual conduct is the blackmailing aspect can be used as leverage from foreign agents and governments. Honest is important and so is open transparency unlike your other office or blue collar jobs. I doubt someone is going to use blackmail from a worker at BK to get the secret of how the tomatos and lettuce go on just right from McDonalds.

Re:Not in the CIA or other high Gov positiions.

[wisty]

> THe sole reason the military also banned homosexuals was for the reason of blackmail.

So "don't ask don't tell" is a terrible policy, right?

Re:Not in the CIA or other high Gov positiions.

[Bing Tsher E]

It didn't work out very well for Joe Paterno.

Its relevant.

[nurb432]

Beacuse the CIA will influence technology, in the sense of spying on citizens, and perhaps laws to prevent encryption and other freedoms.

Personal secrets

[macwhizkid]

There are plenty of jobs where you can hold personal secrets without exposing yourself or your subordinates to real danger.

Being CIA director is not one of them.

Smells like

[Iamthecheese]

Libya.

Nobody likes a quitter!

[drainbramage]

Sorry, that sounds mean.
Hey, do you know his definition of 'incomplete'?
Balls and all!
Sorry again.
Thought of that because I heard the alleged affair was with his biographer Paula Broadwell.
Title of the book coincidentally is "All In".

Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[dfenstrate]

Sometimes shit happens and there's no way to plan for it.

'Shit' didn't just happen. A pending attack or assassination was a big concern for Ambassador Stevens months beforehand, and his requests for more security went nowhere.

Past that, there's some concern that Obama failed miserably when Hillary Clinton's legendary '3 am phone call' came.

Even if you want to say 'shit happens' for the latter, the former is still a good reason to look into the deaths of 4 Americans.

In any case, your absolute lack of curiosity on the subject makes you every bit the mindless partisan you accuse republicans of being.

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[GlassHeart]

'Shit' didn't just happen. A pending attack or assassination was a big concern for Ambassador Stevens months beforehand, and his requests for more security went nowhere.

Requests for all sorts of things are denied by superiors all the time for all sorts of reasons. Some reasons are good, some reasons are bad, and some reasons are even criminal, but you haven't established which one it was. I would suggest you present the substance of this supposed request, and show how a reasonable boss should've granted it. Just because the "big concern" turned out right in hindsight isn't actually enough.

there's some concern that Obama failed miserably when Hillary Clinton's legendary '3 am phone call' came.

That's rather vague. What did he do, and what was he supposed to do, when?

Note that I'm not defending the Obama administration's actions in any way. I'm just pointing out that I don't actually know what you're accusing them of.

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[Black Parrot]

Sometimes shit happens and there's no way to plan for it.

'Shit' didn't just happen. A pending attack or assassination was a big concern for Ambassador Stevens months beforehand, and his requests for more security went nowhere.

Past that, there's some concern that Obama failed miserably when Hillary Clinton's legendary '3 am phone call' came.

Even if you want to say 'shit happens' for the latter, the former is still a good reason to look into the deaths of 4 Americans.

In any case, your absolute lack of curiosity on the subject makes you every bit the mindless partisan you accuse republicans of being.

Those of you who get your "news" from FOX may be interested to learn that -

a) the requests for security were for a different embassy

b) a CIA response team was on site 28 minutes after the alarm went out

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[Obfuscant]

a) the requests for security were for a different embassy

August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard postions" -- saying the added guards "will fill the vaccum of security personnel currently at post... who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent."

Ambassador Stevens was referring to Benghazi, not "a different embassy" as you claim.

September 11, 2012: 9:43 a.m. Benghazi time (3:43 ET): Amb. Stevens sent cables to D.C., including a Benghazi weekly report of security incidents reflecting Libyans' "growing frustration with police and security forces who were too weak to keep the country secure."

Again, Benghazi, not "a different embassy", as you claim.

9:40 p.m. (3:40 p.m. ET): Gunfire and an explosion are heard. A TOC agent sees dozens of armed people over security camera flowing through a pedestrian gate at the compound's main entrance. It is not clear how the gate was opened.

The agent hits the alarm and alerts the CIA security team in the nearby annex and the Libyan 17th of February Brigade, one of several powerful militias serving as a de facto security presence in Benghazi. The embassy in Tripoli and the State Dept. command center were also alerted.

State Dept. Diplomatic Security follows events in real time on a listen-only, audio-only feed, according to testimony of Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant director for international programs, given before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Oct 10.

This is, once again, at the Benghazi embassy, not someplace else. A real-time feed of the audio was being monitored in DC. They knew what was happening. It wasn't a reaction to someone using their right of free speech, and shouldn't have been apologized for.

10:25 p.m. (4:25 p.m. ET): A six-member CIA team arrives from the annex with 40 to 60 members of 17th of February Brigade. The team removes Smith's body.

Hmm. 9:40PM to 10:25 PM. I do the math and get 45 minutes, not the 28 minutes you claim. An nearby annex with military forces that takes 45 minutes to show up.

But these are all lies from "Fox News", right? Try again. CBS

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[Billly Gates]

Is there any proof Obama or anyone knew he was planned to be taken down?

Obama was informed by the Pentagon a protest turned violent and Stevens was killed. 2 days later he referred to it as an act of terror as was proven in the presidential elections.

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[StormyWeather]

was that the response team that violated orders not to respond? being serious not a troll. I've read a lot on it including the timeline and I have never read this. I know there were some CIA guys that responded in direct violation over their orders, and they lost their lives saving some embassy workers at a different base.

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[Fallingcow]

Is this inaccurate?

Focus Was on Tripoli in Requests for Security in Libya

Interesting article. Covers quite a bit more than the title implies.

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[NeutronCowboy]

An nearby annex with military forces that takes 45 minutes to show up.

Yes, because everyone always has everything in a running car that is needed to deal with a forceful incursion, and everyone is always immediately clear who is doing what to whom. And no traffic jams. Ever.

People who think that the CIA team should have been there in 15 minutes and who think that troops should have been there in two hours would have sent in unprepared troops who are more likely to shoot at the own team than at the enemy.

Fucking morons. Logistics and operational due diligence decides wars. Not Rambo.

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[Bing Tsher E]

They were told to 'stand down' not to 'take what time you need to get there as fast as possible.'

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[NeutronCowboy]

Citation or get the fuck out. As in, primary source citation. Fox news doesn't count. Furthermore, here's a little test for you. Imagine, you get a phone call from a friend whose toilet just exploded and is flooding the entire first floor. Friend lives about 2-3 miles away. Now, time how long it takes to grab all your tools, brief a few more friends about the situation, load them in 2-3 cars, and then drive over to your friend's place. Now, imagine that instead of just staring at an exploded toilet, you're looking at getting shot while driving there, while being there, and there might be an unknown number of friendlies hurt, dead or shooting back at the enemy.

You're a fucking moron if you think that that doesn't add 10-15 minutes to any trip.

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[NeutronCowboy]

Ambassador Stevens was referring to Benghazi, not "a different embassy" as you claim.

Again, Benghazi, not "a different embassy", as you claim.

Actually, you partisan hack, there is no mention of Benghazi in CBS's time line. Just as an FYI, the embassy is in Tripoli, and the consulate is in Benghazi. Since you clearly don't understand the difference, I question how you can have any opinion at all on how diplomacy was conducted in Libya, it's purpose, and the logic behind the security assessments. There were indeed very specific requests for increased security detail, but your CBS article isn't the source for that. A much better source is here: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/ It's clear that the security was focused on the embassy, not the consulate. The consulate had always been exposed, and was purposefully set up in such a way by Stevens himself. He understood that you can't conduct diplomacy and outreach programs if you're always hiding behind concrete barriers and massive guns.

There were security issues, but those were standard failures where small problems snowballed into 4 dead people. By the way, those four dead people in Libya are less than die every day in Afghanistan across all NATO forces. So congratulations on latching on to a small issue that crept up in an unstable country. If that's the worst Obama did, he did one hell of a job. It's too bad you're so blinded by partisan hatred that you are incapable of looking at the issue rationally.

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[Black Parrot]

was that the response team that violated orders not to respond? being serious not a troll. I've read a lot on it including the timeline and I have never read this. I know there were some CIA guys that responded in direct violation over their orders, and they lost their lives saving some embassy workers at a different base.

You have probably read more about it than I have, so I'll defer to your views on that topic.

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[Black Parrot]

Those of you who get your "news" from FOX may be interested to learn that -

a) the requests for security were for a different embassy

b) a CIA response team was on site 28 minutes after the alarm went out

You are a liar, Black Parrot.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that I'm misinformed, but you'll need to do more than call me a liar to convince me that I am.

Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror.

[Obfuscant]

Imagine, you get a phone call from a friend whose toilet just exploded and is flooding the entire first floor.

1. He's your friend, not the person you are paid to protect.

2. It's a broken toilet, not a life threatening incident. No reason to risk your life getting there in a hurry.

3. You're not a professional plumber. You don't have a professional plumber's truck sitting outside your house so you can respond to 24/7 calls. If you did, you wouldn't need the time to "grab all your tools, brief a few more friends", or load them into cars.

"Adding 10-15 minutes" to a trip doesn't excuse the claim that it took them only 28 mintues when the clock says more like 45. And it shouldn't take 45 minutes to get from a nearby annex to the site of the trouble.

Really?

[roboticbebop]

Considering what kinds of ethically and legally questionable stuff the CIA does as part of it's day-to-day operations, this is what it takes to get fired? Maybe he got fired for getting caught. If an intelligence spook can't cover up something as basic as an affair up then he probably shouldn't be running an entire intelligence agency.

Re:Really?

[geekoid]

Or maybe the CIA isn't all what you think it is?

Re:Really?

[dbIII]

Or maybe the CIA isn't all what you think it is?

That is true - it was supposed to be a central point for collecting intelligence, but now homeland security takes on a large portion of the role it was supposed to fill. Bush was too much of a weakling to dismiss the failed leadership and restructure the CIA so that it would work as intended and instead set up another monolith.

Re:He's not the same as you and me...

[PPH]

But was his wife vetted for a clearance? What if Petraeus shared secrets with her, which she in turn whispered to the pool boy?

You can go down this road quite a ways. Better to hire someone who can string a mistress along without telling her anything of value. Completing a Leykis 101 course should be mandatory for all US intelligence agents.

This is going to get very messy

[electron sponge]

Petraeus' biographer Paula Broadwell under FBI investigation over access to his email, law enforcement officials say

Petraeus Resigns Over Affair With Biographer

He had an affair with his biographer, which apparently began while he was active duty military in Afghanistan. Extramarital affairs are illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He'll be lucky if the DoD doesn't bring him out of retirement just to take a star off his shoulder.

Re:This is going to get very messy

[iiii]

Maybe. But most of the time they don't prosecute things like this, even though they are technically in violation. This is high profile enough that it might get a different response. My bet, though, is that they let him slip into retirement as quietly as possible.

FWIW, this is what she looks like: https://www.google.com/search?q=Paula+Broadwell&tbm=isch

Re:This is going to get very messy

[iiii]

Also, this is what his wife looks like: https://www.google.com/search?q=Holly+Petraeus&tbm=isch

Re:This is going to get very messy

[argStyopa]

Is it ironic or subtle that her book is titled "All In"? /rimshot

I'll be here all week, try the veal.

This is different, security is involved

[Anonymous Coward]

He resigned because the affair was with his biographer Paula Broadwell, author of the now ironically titled book "All In". Besides sleeping with him she apparently also improperly accessed his emails, creating a security breach, so Petraeus's security clearance has been (for now at least) yanked. Petraeus himself is apparently not under investigation but yanking the person's clearance pending the outcome is apparently standard procedure. Anyway he could not continue running the CIA without a clearance.

More info here.

Next time ...

[PPH]

... hire someone with an open marriage.

Re:Next time ...

[blade8086]

Right - Because someone who sticks his dick in random people he barely knows could in no way be compromised.

No risk of 1-month-later polonium poisoning, no risk of planting bugs on his person, no risk of kidnapping, easier
auditing and cross-checking of associates by the various 'men in black' which are paid and required by the nature
of his position, no risk of his driver / bodyguards / etc. getting seduced by turbo-hot-lady-that-gives-wicked-head-and-is-always-around etc.

if everyone just screwed each other problems wouldn't exist!

and its not like he wouldn't lie for something else he wanted!

yeah.

moron.

Complete the phrase

[wonkey_monkey]

Slashdot: News for _____

Re:Complete the phrase

[Penurious Penguin]

eclectic nerds

Re:Complete the phrase

[electron sponge]

Slashdot: News for _____

News for nerds, _______

Spoiler: Stuff that matters

Re:Complete the phrase

[geekoid]

A) The contexts of 'Stuff that matters' is 'Nerd stuff that matters'
B) You can't just through 'Stuff that matters' to mean anything.

C) This matters..how?

Re:Complete the phrase

[Penurious Penguin]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/ - How? Maybe stuff like that. I guess we'll see what Micheal has up his sleeve now. If you'd like me to dig up other links, I'll comply.
Respectfully

Re:Complete the phrase

[fightinfilipino]

being in the CIA is about as nerdy as it gets.

Re:Complete the phrase

[wonkey_monkey]

Maybe stuff like that.

Yes, that completely different story matters. This one doesn't (in the classic Slashdot sense).

Re:Complete the phrase

[Penurious Penguin]

Maybe you use "completely" a bit loosely when noting differences in this case. Petraeus was central to both stories, and when such an individual resigns, some may want to be informed. It would be a hard argument to persuade any informed person that the CIA has little to do with technology. Maybe a bit far out, but as an example, when Steve Jobs passed away, there really was nothing any more technical about the event than the death of any other individual. It was a death, and may have better been posted on Wikipedia or the NY Times instead. But it made BIG news anyway, and few complained -- and apple didn't stop producing. That is admittedly not a great example, but it hints a point.

I don't and can't judge the relevance of a post by the number of comments alone, but the numbers might in some obscure way indicate interest; that is, if they aren't all similar to yours, in which case I'd not be writing this. Certainly it's been discussed to some degree. Is a major intelligence agency deeply imbued in technology supposed to be unappealing to nerds? If so, how restricted should content be? And where exactly is the defining boundary? The CIA seems well within reasonable boundaries to me, and if you want the coveted topic of lawsuits, they have a few too, even though most readers here aren't attorneys. I'm open to suggestions though.

I Read That As...

[JohnPerkins]

...'Michael Moore' the first time around, which would have been...weird.

Re:I Read That As...

[pgdave]

Me too. Weird, but the world might be safer.

If you read just a little ...

[jabberwock]

... you'll find that the affair was apparently discovered by the FBI during an investigation into Petraeus' biographer, Paula Broadwell.

"The biographer for resigning CIA Director David Petraeus is under FBI investigation for improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information, law enforcement officials told NBC News on Friday." (NBC News)

I'd say this makes the story: 1) Slashdot-worthy; 2) Probably not in any way about Benghazi; 3) Messier and more mysterious than the average case of adultery by a public official.

Re:If you read just a little ...

[Black Parrot]

... you'll find that the affair was apparently discovered by the FBI during an investigation into Petraeus' biographer, Paula Broadwell.

"The biographer for resigning CIA Director David Petraeus is under FBI investigation for improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information, law enforcement officials told NBC News on Friday." (NBC News).

Interestingly, the Feds are always arguing that they don't need warrants to access your e-mail because it's inherently insecure.

Private Sector

[sir-gold]

He should call up Mike Quinn over at Cisco. I heard Mike has a new hobby that he could use some help with. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/cisco-vp-memo-leaker-finding-you-now-my-hobby

Re:Private Sector

[blade8086]

Nice one!

and..?

[geekoid]

someone got caught cheating and resigned from a govenment position.
I'm not sure why this is here.

Re:and..?

[Penurious Penguin]

Considering the ambitions held by the CIA for all things cyber, I truly hope you've busted me submitting irrelevant material to Slashdot. But I'm the kind of guy who never tires of hearing "what Linus says" about whatever and so on. If you could pardon the post for just one thing; maybe it has value just for bringing attention to a new individual in a position of power and influence, quite possibly including a lot of technology. Otherwise, I continue to sway on the edge of significance and apologize for taking up a space on the RSS. In the meantime, have a look at this: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/ -- It might offer some bit of an answer to your question/statement.
Respectfully

Tinfoil Hat: ON.

[Ira Sponsible]

Now Petraeus won't be testifying before Congress about Benghazi. This "affair" is a perfect excuse for him to disappear. No one will wonder why he's not coming into work, or why he's not at home. Don't be surprised if his body is discovered in a few days, and it's called a suicide, complete with a handy explanatory suicide note. Just my suspicious opinion.

IT Connection?

[aembleton]

I'm just trying to work out where the IT / news for nerds connection is here?

The title of the biography is "All In"

[yuje]

One wonders if it was a quote from one of their "interviews".

Re:The title of the biography is "All In"

[BooMonster]

"I have decided to step down from my position so that I can spend more time with my mistress. "

Who the hell cites an affair for resigning?

WTF? That is all? It is not like he dressed female

[bussdriver]

He should have been put in the FBI, where directors can dress like women and other activities...
This looks more like cover for something else.

Why did he resign?

[DNS-and-BIND]

I'm curious - why did he resign? After all, an extramarital affair was not enough for the President himself to resign. I don't get it. He even admits the affair - while the President denied, denied, denied until a DNA test caught him with the evidence of his own dried semen on an intern's dress. Genuinely curious here, any answers?

Re:Why did he resign?

[Obfuscant]

Genuinely curious here, any answers?

Yes. He's a human being (who thus makes mistakes, sometimes bad ones) who holds himself to a higher standard of honor than some others. He broke a vow, he violated a trust, and he's stepping down so that his impropriety won't be an issue for anyone.

He's a graduate of West Point, which has a well-known honor code that has caused many people to resign, even if they were only marginally involved in improper actions. He taught at West Point, which means as a leader he has to hold even more strongly to that code.

It's a shame. He's had people with less honor pulling stunts like calling him "General Betrayus", and others who have called for rigorous investigations of some without any evidence of wrongdoing, only the potential for the appearance of such, who are still in government service.

Um...

[you-nix-boy]

Seriously, who gives a shit? Our country looses far too many qualified people based on the standards of the prudish... It seems that an affair is an issue between an individual and their spouse, not the individual and their work.

There has to be more to this

[asmkm22]

So the head of our intelligence and spy agency can't keep an affair secret, and there was no way to sweep this under the rug? What the hell are we funding them for?

just because they discovered his affair?

[Heri]

You fucked up. We need you to step down. We'll give you a chance to do it by yourself. Come up with an story and goodbye.

Biographer was accessing Petraeus' Email!

[McGruber]

What has an extramarital affair got to do with running the CIA?

That question has been answered by a NBCNews headline: "Petraeus' biographer Paula Broadwell under FBI investigation over access to his email, law enforcement officials say":

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/09/15056607-petraeus-biographer-paula-broadwell-under-fbi-investigation-over-access-to-his-email-law-enforcement-officials-say?/

Re:Does he run Linux?

[c0lo]

And why is this is slashdot?

Because he's one of the next potential Cisco's VPs?

Oh God I read that summary wrong the first time

[Feltope]

I now know I am losing it.
I read "Michael Moore will now serve as Acting Director of the CIA."

That was a terrifying thought.

Dear Black Parrot: Obfuscant Just Pwned You

[Nova Express]

Lesson: Facts do not cease to be facts just because they were reported on Fox News.

Different members of the Obama Administration have said different things about Benghazi at different times.

American forces in a position to help were evidently told repeatedly to stand down.

Charles Woods, the father of the slain Tyrone Woods, thinks Obama is lying. And the mother of slain State Department employee Sean Patrick Smith just came out and said "I believe that Obama murdered my son” though his negligence. Compare the amount of press given to them compared to Cindy Sheehan.

Now two chain-of-command figures central to the Benghazi controversy, CIA Director David Petraeus and General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, have resigned, while a third, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, has been reassigned.

None of this necessarily means that Obama issued the stand-down order, or validates the speculation in some quarters that Ambassador Stevens may have been involved in arms transfers. But how blind do you have to be to think that the fact that no additional forces were sent to protect Americans during a seven hour battle with jihadests is unworthy of being investigated?

CIA not a fan of having staff in compromised roles

[gelfling]

To the idiots who whine this is about consenting adults, it's not. It''s about national security and the risk or being extorted or blackmailed or otherwise compromised. Please take your 'everyone should smoke weed all day if they like it" thinking somewhere else.

Re:Yeah right!

[hangman54]

I concur....

A clandestine affair...?!?

[meburke]

What the heck! It sn't like spying requires you to be open and honest at all times. Mybe he is over-qualified for the position.

The real news is...

[Bartles]

that as a result of this resignation, his testimony at congressional hearings next week on Benghazi has been cancelled. I'm not quite sure how that exempts him from hearings, I wouldn't be surprised to see a subpoena issued.

Re:Smells Fishy...

[PPH]

They all do.

Re:CIA not a fan of having staff in compromised ro

[PPH]

It''s about national security

No, its not. They interviewed a correspondent with FBI sources this morning (link). He stated that, other then resolving the purpose behind some suspicious e-mails, the FBI had no issue with the affair from a security standpoint. It was Petraeus that made a personal decision to resign. Because, as they surmised, he hadn't lived up to the same code of conduct that he expected of his employees.

Now there's the blackmail issue: If the boss gets his panties in a bunch over your personal life, it creates an opportunity for coercion by blackmail through the threat to your job. For all anyone else knows, this could be nothing more than a minor bump in your personal life (look at Clinton, for example). So this makes a good argument to keep people out of supervision roles who have codes of moral conduct that go beyond the basic requirements of the job. Petraeus' embarrassment over his own behavior and the subsequent risk this could put subordinates at carer-wise is the threat. Not the behavior itself. I say the Pentagon and all defense contractors need to clean the bible-thumpers out of management ASAP.

What a wuss

[PPH]

The FBI was investigating Broadwell (Petraeus' biographer) for accessing e-mails without authorization. Unless she got his e-mail password off a post-it on his office monitor (a major FAIL for the CIA director), that's her problem, not his.

So now, they come to him over the e-mail issue and he breaks down, confesses an affair and resigns??? How do we train these CIA people anyway?

"Abdul, we haven't even put the electrodes on his testicles yet. And already he's crying like a baby and babbling all his secrets!"

Hasn't he watched any James Bond movies lately?

Reportedly provided his email password

[jtara]

It's been reported that she had been given the password to his email account, to help her research her book.

Does that change your opinion?

Re:Reportedly provided his email password

[jtara]

This was erroneous reporting on a local TV station. They got the email part right, they got the details wrong. Now it's being widely reported that his biographer sent some abusive emails. Nothing about her having access to his email account.

I can't imagine being in his position. You really can't trust anybody, not your neighbors, store clerks, your friends of decades. Nobody, because they can all be bought. This is even more so for lower-level personnel who probably have more access to real secrets than the director.

What's the nerd angle?

[matunos]

You know that Slashdot is not most of our only source for news, right? So when you just post general current events stories, you're not really informing most of us, and you're diluting the value of your brand.

Amd what's worse, there apparently *is* a news for nerds angle here, as the affair was discovered by the FBI while they were monitoring the general's email. But that angle is left unstated in the post.

I am disappoint.

Second Thoughts

[32771]

Seeing all the other people leaving, I'm wondering whether he might have thought that personal reasons aren't cutting it anymore.

History Repeats Itself

[Scot Seese]

Someone go dig up history's last Five-Star general, Supreme Allied Commander / then US President Dwight Eisenhower, who banged his personal driver back and forth across the US & Europe during the entirety of World War II - and share this with him, so he can have a jolly good chuckle before going back to sleep.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/06/us/eisenhower-letters-hint-at-affair-with-aide.html

No one hired Petraeus to be a marriage counselor or church pastor; he was hired to conquer and pacify a sovereign country and its insurgency. Then he was hired to play the dirty pool of espionage & subterfuge.

Foreign Red Team has zero leverage against Petraeus with this information; all he had to do was own up to it, admit a mistake an move on. This affects his family and his marriage, not his ability to spy on and clandestinely kill people. In fact, the alphabet-soup spy agencies (NSA, CIA in particular) have come as far to allow openly LGBT employees for many years. As long as you're already fully out & fabulous, there is no leverage to be used against you. You are not a potential exploit vector for agressors.

I make no apology or excuse for Petraeus' actions - what he did is morally reprehensible. But it had absolutely zero impact on his ability to perform his duties.

First Cartwright, then Petraeus

[daboochmeister]

At one point I entertained the notion that JIm Cartwright (former Vice-Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) would make a good presidential candidate ... then he failed to keep his zipper up. Then quite honestly, Petraeus came to mind ... nevermore, i guess.

And lost in the noise from Petraeus, a major defense contractor lost an about-to-be-king to the same thing ...

The News For Nerds: gMail was used

[cyberdime]

The hardcore news for nerds is that the director of the CIA, the leading spy agency in the free world, was using gMail. Either Petraeus is too stupid to be spymaster-in-chief or Google is running an email system secure enough for the CIA and the FBI team that combed through his emails. It's also possible that the account was phony but one wonders why Petraeus wasn't quick to deny the authenticity of the emails.

publicity motive

[InertialGuy]

It could be worth creating, finding or inventing something he could be blackmailed for if someone wanted to get rid of him, or to get publicity to sell the biography.

Re:burn notice

[neminem]

Heh. While I do love that show (new episodes starting now, woo!), my first thought was really more about Covert Affairs. Burn Notice doesn't really deal much with the guys at the top, like Covert Affairs does. I could totally see this as a smear campaign driving Arthur Campbell crazy (though I couldn't really see him actually cheating.)

The more I hear ...

[PPH]

... about this incident, the more I envy Petraeus. I can't even begin to count the times I could have used FBI intervention when a bunny-boiler I'd been seeing went off the deep end.