talkpolitics | OK, maybe it's just me:

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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Now it's a lot of coulda shoulda woulda. You are just making up tabloid conspiracy theory drama as you go along. You can claim that I am reading it too generally if you want, but you're making an awful lot assumptions and throwing in a lot of unfounded conjecture.

Yes. When we don't know what happened, all there is is conjecture.

You're treating this like it's a courtroom. Where reasonable doubt is reason enough to say the guy is innocent.You don't know what happened either. Your statements are also conjecture. You are reading into the situation only enough to create the narrative that you would like.

I have been perfectly candid that we do not know the truth and that he might have never put state secret's in jeopardy. That she might have been gotten those classified documents she wasn't supposed to have in some other manner.

On the other hand, you have insisted that your conjecture must be true, and you've twisted english and logic to make your story sound more plausible.

But that doesn't actually make your conjecture any more valid than mine. So it seems rather ridiculous that you're wasting an awful lot of time trying to tell me I might be wrong, when I readily admit that I might be wrong.

Yes. When we don't know what happened, all there is is conjecture.

I am basing my comments on the article that you provided.

You're treating this like it's a courtroom. Where reasonable doubt is reason enough to say the guy is innocent.

Yeah. That is how we do things in America. Or the way they should be done, anyway.

I have been perfectly candid that we do not know the truth and that he might have never put state secret's in jeopardy. That she might have been gotten those classified documents she wasn't supposed to have in some other manner.

So, you just make stuff up to suit your agenda.

On the other hand, you have insisted that your conjecture must be true, and you've twisted english and logic to make your story sound more plausible.

It’s only more plausible because it is based on the article you linked to. You are trying to turn this from, what seems like, a simple misstep from a national hero into a spy novel to feed your taste for drama.

But that doesn't actually make your conjecture any more valid than mine. So it seems rather ridiculous that you're wasting an awful lot of time trying to tell me I might be wrong, when I readily admit that I might be wrong.

Then why do you present your argument as truth? All you’re doing is reinforcing what I am saying.

I posted the article from the Wall Street Journal because it wasn't engaging in gossip. It was giving very narrow statements as to the few known facts.

That doesn't mean that any of the gossip going around isn't true. It just means that as of right now it's unsubstantiated. When you stated that I was making a lot of assumptions, I quickly agreed. I've agreed going on eight hundred times now.

I put those facts out there so that underlankers would realize that this isn't just a simple open-shut case of infidelity. Everybody else wanted to make this a morality play. I was pointing out that the allegations are potentially much more complicated.

He should absolutely not go to prison due to this affair. But since we do not know the details of this affair, we cannot say for certain that it was improper for him to step down. And we cannot say for certain that he stepped down solely because he stuck his Johnson where it didn't belong.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that maybe since you don't have all the facts, it might have actually been a completely appropriate resignation that had more to do with the keeping of state's secrets than his sexual misadventures.

You're right. I don't have all the facts. But I don't have to make them up to suit my agenda. Maybe Sasquatch and some space aliens held her down while Patreaus and Santa Clause raped her. See? I make stuff up, too.

I am confused about the agenda I supposedly had in this situation. We aren't even talking about politics.

(deleted comment)

They've already been investigated and resolved. The only reason Diane Feinstein is starting an investigation is to find out what the Intelligence Committee wasn't informed when there was suspicion of a breach. It is really a procedural inquiry, not a security one.

And, again. That has already been investigated by the FBI and found not to be a threat.

OK, maybe it's just me:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject