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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

The News For Nerds:

[retroworks]

SOME guys get to have TWO girlfriends...

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.

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.

[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.

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: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