OK, maybe it's just me:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

But why is it that sleeping with a woman he's not married to is all it takes to get a CIA director out of office? I mean it seems a rather underwhelming offense given how many people who retain their positions in office *coughDavidVittercough* happen to have done much worse things and retain their position and shamelessly keep doing the same kind of foolishness they got in trouble for beforehand. In today's America where the self-appointed defenders of traditional marriage cheat on their cancer-stricken wives to establish the bases for their third marriages and where sexual mores have changed for the better, how is this is at all a cause to dismiss anyone or for anyone to resign?

Sure, it might be bad 'if they talk' but then again, people like J. Edgar Hoover got away with much more than this. I really don't know what to make of Petraeus's resignation, so I'm basically asking you guys:

If someone in that position is boinking someone who's not his wife, should that alone be enough to lead to his resignation? (I admit to gendered bias in the question here but there aren't too many female politicians involved in sex scandals yet so that can be excused). I don't think it should be and I find the whole reaction to have more to do with puritanical pseudo-moralism than anything inherent in the offense. What do you think?

Comments

[dwer.livejournal.com]

without the stigma!

[404.livejournal.com]

Just because people routinely break laws/rules/code of conduct/etc. doesn't mean that we shouldn't have them.

[404.livejournal.com]

The former just happened, and the latter two happened 15+ years ago. Planning to exhume Reagan and put him on trial for pulling the marines out of Lebanon? Philip the IV already tried that with Boniface the VIII. This isn't the 13th or 14th century.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

Actually the article does not make any distinction of where the classified documents came from, and does note that the investigation is ongoing. Other articles discuss the fact that she might have abused this relationship to gain access to his work e-mail.

The point is that this isn't just a cut and dry sleeping with a stranger situation. The details of this affair necessarily bring up issues of national security.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I suspect we are supposed to be flattered or something. :-)

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

I mean, after all is said and done, it might be that everything was above the table except the sleeping around. But I can definitely understand why both Petraeus and Obama would not want this over their head while trying to run the affairs of the country.

You've already been letting this woman shadow you for a favorable biography, giving her access that walks right up to that line of keeping your countries secrets. Sleeping with her just brings up all sorts of questions that you'd rather be on a classified dossier between agencies rather than the front page of the New York Times. If he was to continue his gig, you would need the details to be so public nobody would question the situation. Now it's clear all we're going to get is that "national security was not threatened", which would also be true if she had gotten a whole bunch of WikiLeaks type data for a tell-all story waaay down the line.

(I just realized how outdated the idea of front page is. Small sad.)

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Good point. This move is actually damage control ....

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Most of them are posted by Paft, so...

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Careful, he might want you to specify which decades of the 13th and 14th century.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The power afforded to the penis placement police is astonishing. We are still in the clutches of our puritanical beginnings.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The "cover up" in Benghazi is the rights 9/11 trutherism.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It's simple really.

Vulnerability to blackmail renders one ineligible for a security clearance.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Yes it does, in an agency whos buisiness is all about secrets and otherwise underhanded deals the inability to keep your extra-marital affairs on the downlow is certainly a red flag.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Right-wing conspiracies? I doubt it.

As for false talking points, well (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1598695.html)...

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Doesn't seem too far fetched to me, sounds like the kind of office politics that I've witnessed from a few I know that worked government jobs. They're very serious about keeping their information secure, and in the case of our intelligence agency, some of that information could very well cost people's lives.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

In some ways, yes.

But considering how critical his security clearance is, I don't think he could perform the duties of his office while under a public investigation (which could drag on forever). He would basically be on desk duty. A figurehead available for photo-ops. And a disgraced figurehead seems like the worst kind of figurehead.

If he didn't step down, Obama would have publicly fired him. So it's not like he'd even get the benefit of 18 months pay pending the various bureaucracy it takes to fire a typical government employee.

If it had been his housekeeper, or maybe his wife's sister, I could understand trying to ride out the storm. I could understand us saying that it's not our place to be the morality police. It would be easy enough to prove she didn't have access to any state secrets. But this is not that scenario.

I actually saw this question play out on my Twitter wonk list. Every single person, both right and left, saying "lose your job over an affair? Crazy!" and then an hour later saying "oooh. Never mind. This is ugly and makes perfect sense."

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

It was actually hikarugenji most recently (just seemed like Paft).

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

In most scenarios, I'd agree with you.

But sleeping with your biographer, who you were giving preferential access, and who would have good reason to take advantage of additional access, when your job is protecting state secrets?

Yikes.

This is on the same level as Edwards using campaign contributions to take care of his mistress and lovechild. Not shopping around for your next wife.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I see your point. However, what we are saying is that the director of the CIA cannot have an affair due to his job description.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

He's no longer vulnerable to blackmail, everyone knows.

Couldn't any misdeed could make you vulnerable to blackmail.

So, any infidelity nullifies security clearance?

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

No. Just that he would have to document his affair closely so that he could prove that the affair did not provide a security risk.

If he never granted his mistress access to sensitive areas, if he never contacted her using an unsecured connection on his secured computer, or left her in the same room as his secured computer or blackberry, that would be fine.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

There is that, but as politikitty pointed out above ...You're already giving her access that walks right up to that line of keeping your countries secrets. Sleeping with her just brings up all sorts of questions that you'd rather be on a classified dossier between agencies rather than the front page of the New York Times.

As for infidelity, I suppose it depends on the infidelity.

Anyone who is up for, or getting thier clearance renewed gets investigated by the FBI, it's up to the principal investigator to make the "Vulnerability to blackmail" call. Hell I know that when I first got mine, an agent went around interviewing half my former co-workers, high-school aquaintances and even my ex-girlfriend. Whatever he got from them couldn't have been all rainbows and unicorns (I was a bit of a delinquent in my younger years) yet my clearance was eventually approved.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

LOL. Access to senstive areas!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

yet my clearance was eventually approved.

As was Bradley's.

I got access into Travis AFB to work on code after a security check. I wonder how high is the bar actually is? Depends on the clearance I expect.