CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns, Citing Affair 401
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."
Job Performance (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.
Re:Job Performance (Score:4, Insightful)
and if the affair was with a subordinate in the CIA?
Re:Job Performance (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Job Performance (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't. The affair was with his biographer [slate.com], and it was uncovered by the FBI. [foxnews.com]
The title of the biography is "All In" (Score:5, Funny)
One wonders if it was a quote from one of their "interviews".
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't. The affair was with his biographer [slate.com], and it was uncovered by the FBI. [foxnews.com]
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 (Score:4, 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.
Re:Job Performance (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re:Job Performance (Score:4)
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 (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Job Performance (Score:5, 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".
Re:Job Performance (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Job Performance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Job Performance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Job Performance (Score:4, 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?
Re:Job Performance (Score:4, Informative)
He said George H.W. Bush who, prior to being president and vice president, was CIA director [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] in VietNam, it would be surprising if there wasn't CIA involvement with death squads in Guatemala, Argentina, Chile [wikipedia.org] (very likely), the Phillipines (also very likely) or another country [yahoo.com] 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 (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...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are ethical people in the CIA?
Apparently, not anymore! :-) (after today)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem, the people who fall upon their swords are the ones you want to keep.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Job Performance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Job Performance (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 headin
Re:Job Performance (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.
Re:Job Performance (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Job Performance (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.
Re:Job Performance (Score:5, 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.
Re:Job Performance (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Reportedly provided his email password (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Job Performance (Score:5, Funny)
The News For Nerds: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The News For Nerds: (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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 y
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Sounds good. (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish other department heads would resign for things trice as bad as cheating on their wives.
care less (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Uhm, I don't think it was Clinton who got the job done.
Re: (Score:2)
I could care less where he sticks his dick.
So you do care, then?
5 days prior to hearing. (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.
Re:5 days prior to hearing. (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:5 days prior to hearing. (Score:4, 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 [youtube.com] during a Congressional hearing.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 perfec
Re: (Score:2)
Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. (Score:3, Insightful)
'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 curiosi
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. (Score:5, Informative)
'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. (Score:5, Informative)
a) the requests for security were for a different embassy
Ambassador Stevens was referring to Benghazi, not "a different embassy" as you claim.
Again, Benghazi, not "a different embassy", as you claim.
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.
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 [cbsnews.com]
Re:Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. (Score:5, Informative)
Is this inaccurate?
Focus Was on Tripoli in Requests for Security in Libya [nytimes.com]
Interesting article. Covers quite a bit more than the title implies.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 [go.com]
Dear Black Parrot: Obfuscant Just Pwned You (Score:3, 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 [foxnews.com].
Charles Woods, the father of the slain Tyrone Woods, thinks Obama is lying [weeklystandard.com]. And the mother of slain State Department employee Sean Patrick Smith [utsandiego.com] just came out and said "I believe that Obama murdered my son” though his negligence. Com
Re:5 days prior to hearing. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [yahoo.com]:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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. (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.
Re: (Score:3)
[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,
Re:5 days prior to hearing. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, there's no evidence that anything particularly objectionable took place in Benghazi involving that day.
(Other than the attack itself.)
So what's the real reason? (Score:3)
A vet from Afganistan I know describes Petraeus as a clown (but won't elaborate unfortunately), anyone have any ideas why?
Personal secrets (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
Nobody likes a quitter! (Score:2)
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".
This is going to get very messy (Score:5, Informative)
Petraeus' biographer Paula Broadwell under FBI investigation over access to his email, law enforcement officials say [nbcnews.com]
Petraeus Resigns Over Affair With Biographer [slate.com]
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 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Complete the phrase (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot: News for _____
News for nerds, _______
Spoiler: Stuff that matters
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Private Sector (Score:2)
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 [networkworld.com]
and..? (Score:2)
someone got caught cheating and resigned from a govenment position.
I'm not sure why this is here.
IT Connection? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try. I beat you by milliseconds.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try. I beat you by milliseconds.
So you got first neener.
Its relevant. (Score:2)
Beacuse the CIA will influence technology, in the sense of spying on citizens, and perhaps laws to prevent encryption and other freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] course should be mandatory for all US intelligence agents.
Re: (Score:2)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the CIA isn't all what you think it is?