CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns, Citing Affair

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns, Citing Affair

Posted by timothy on Friday November 9, 2012 @12:11PM from the he's-no-clinton dept.

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."

71 of 401 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Job Performance by nurb432 · 2012-11-09 12:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:Job Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-09 12:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  and if the affair was with a subordinate in the CIA?
2. Re:Job Performance by Noughmad · 2012-11-09 12:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
3. Re:Job Performance by Sparx139 · 2012-11-09 12:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
4. Re:Job Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-09 12:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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...)
5. Re:Job Performance by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-11-09 12:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
6. Re:Job Performance by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-11-09 12:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nah, that would be fine. But if it were with one of his peers in the FSB...
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
7. Re:Job Performance by Turminder+Xuss · 2012-11-09 12:32 · Score: 2
  
  And that's why J. Edgar Hoover had to resign.....oh wait
  
  --
  You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
8. Re:Job Performance by Culture20 · 2012-11-09 12:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Blackmail. As the head of the CIA, he was right to resign. He probably resigned because someone tried to blackmail him.
9. Re:Job Performance by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-11-09 12:36 · Score: 2
  
  There are ethical people in the CIA?
  Apparently, not anymore! :-) (after today)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
10. Re:Job Performance by TWX · 2012-11-09 12:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
11. Re:Job Performance by Ghostworks · 2012-11-09 12:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
12. Re:Job Performance by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-11-09 12:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
13. Re:Job Performance by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-11-09 12:51 · Score: 2
  
  The FBI discovered the affair.
14. Re:Job Performance by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-11-09 12:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
15. Re:Job Performance by MrEricSir · 2012-11-09 13:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
16. Re:Job Performance by Obfuscant · 2012-11-09 13:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
17. Re:Job Performance by poity · 2012-11-09 13:25 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
18. Re:Job Performance by blade8086 · 2012-11-09 13:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
19. Re:Job Performance by Sponge+Bath · 2012-11-09 14:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ...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".
20. Re:Job Performance by Solandri · 2012-11-09 14:41 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
21. Re:Job Performance by mattack2 · 2012-11-09 14:51 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
22. Re:Job Performance by wealthychef · 2012-11-09 15:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Currently hooked on AMP
23. Re:Job Performance by Tangential · 2012-11-09 15:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
24. Re:Job Performance by aardvarkjoe · 2012-11-09 15:24 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
25. Re:Job Performance by confusednoise · 2012-11-09 15:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Actually isn't it the fact that JAMES BOND ISN'T A REAL PERSON a bigger difference?
26. Re:Job Performance by 1u3hr · 2012-11-09 16:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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?
27. Re:Job Performance by vux984 · 2012-11-09 16:47 · Score: 2
  
  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.
28. Re:Job Performance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-09 18:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
29. Re:Job Performance by ppanon · 2012-11-09 20:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
30. Re:Job Performance by sincewhen · 2012-11-09 21:27 · Score: 3
  
  But if he didn't go public - and kept it from his wife and family, it could be used to blackmail him.
  
  --
  -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
31. Re:Job Performance by Peristaltic · 2012-11-10 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  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.
32. Re:Job Performance by Peristaltic · 2012-11-10 06:20 · Score: 2
  
  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.
33. Re:Job Performance by gmanterry · 2012-11-10 12:17 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
The News For Nerds: by retroworks · 2012-11-09 12:17 · Score: 5, Informative

SOME guys get to have TWO girlfriends...

--
Gently reply
1. Re:The News For Nerds: by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-11-09 13:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:The News For Nerds: by phantomfive · 2012-11-09 16:04 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Sounds good. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-09 12:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

I wish other department heads would resign for things trice as bad as cheating on their wives.
care less by bhenson · 2012-11-09 12:22 · Score: 2

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.
5 days prior to hearing. by Dan+East · 2012-11-09 12:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Better known as 318230.
1. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by Mashiki · 2012-11-09 12:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
2. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-11-09 12:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
3. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by DigitAl56K · 2012-11-09 12:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
4. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by macwhizkid · 2012-11-09 13:03 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
5. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-09 13:20 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
6. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by geekoid · 2012-11-09 13:43 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
7. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by blade8086 · 2012-11-09 13:49 · Score: 2
  
  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?
8. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by artor3 · 2012-11-09 13:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by geekoid · 2012-11-09 13:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
10. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by Billly+Gates · 2012-11-09 13:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
11. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-11-09 14:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
12. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by Obfuscant · 2012-11-09 14:29 · Score: 2
  
  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.
13. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by darue · 2012-11-09 17:24 · Score: 2
  
  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.
14. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by uvajed_ekil · 2012-11-09 18:06 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
15. Re:5 days prior to hearing. by Jeremi · 2012-11-10 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  [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.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
So what's the real reason? by dbIII · 2012-11-09 12:23 · Score: 2

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?
Personal secrets by macwhizkid · 2012-11-09 12:36 · Score: 2

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.
Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. by dfenstrate · 2012-11-09 12:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
1. Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. by GlassHeart · 2012-11-09 13:22 · Score: 2
  
  '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.
2. Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-09 13:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
3. Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. by Obfuscant · 2012-11-09 13:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
4. Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. by Fallingcow · 2012-11-09 19:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Is this inaccurate?
  Focus Was on Tripoli in Requests for Security in Libya
  Interesting article. Covers quite a bit more than the title implies.
5. Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. by NeutronCowboy · 2012-11-09 20:39 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
6. Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. by NeutronCowboy · 2012-11-10 06:48 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
This is going to get very messy by electron+sponge · 2012-11-09 12:58 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Next time ... by PPH · 2012-11-09 13:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

... hire someone with an open marriage.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Complete the phrase by electron+sponge · 2012-11-09 13:17 · Score: 2

Slashdot: News for _____
News for nerds, _______
Spoiler: Stuff that matters
The title of the biography is "All In" by yuje · 2012-11-09 13:42 · Score: 4, Funny

One wonders if it was a quote from one of their "interviews".
1. Re:The title of the biography is "All In" by BooMonster · 2012-11-10 02:46 · Score: 2
  
  "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?
Dear Black Parrot: Obfuscant Just Pwned You by Nova+Express · 2012-11-09 16:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Reportedly provided his email password by jtara · 2012-11-10 05:53 · Score: 2

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?