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

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

They tried to claim it was an attack because of a video for two weeks. They hid that they knew what was going on at the time of the attack. They are hiding whether the president failed to act or the military failed to follow orders. They aren't saying who knew what and when they knew it, and the story has been changing and inconsistent.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Intelligence even now points towards the video having SOME impact. However, we're talking about previously, when Susan Rice (the "they" you keep referencing) went on TV. At that time, she said the following:

"based on the best information we have to date" it appeared that it was a spontaneous protest in Benghazi "as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo... sparked by [the video]" "But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent."

She then added, when pressed on whether the attack was planned or al-Qaeda was involved, that we didn't know yet and could not make any definitive conclusions.

Which is absolutely appropriate for someone in her position to say, what with early intelligence reports conflicting between groups claiming responsibility (and claiming the video as their motiviation!) and other intelligence contradicting this. As our understanding of the event evolved, so did the administration's words on what happened. That's called "initially having the wrong info and speaking out about it, and later correcting oneself when more info is gained." That's is not even remotely the same thing as a "coverup."

---

In terms of what Obama did and did not do during the attack itself, just look to Panetta's own words. They did not have anyone close enough to respond in time. Yes, troops in the area were on hightened alert. Yes, additional help had been requested: for TRIPOLI, not Benghazi. When the attack happened (and after the initial attack there was a lull - there was not 8 straight hours of firefight - before the final attack in which the Seals were killed) there wasn't anyone nearby to intervene. Even WITH that, we were still able to get teams in to evacuate the survivors, too late, unfortunately for the ambassador who had gone missing during the first attack.

But to imply that Obama just sat there, either letting people die willingly, or through incompetence, or because he wanted his bedtime, is just insane. There is no reason to think anything happened apart from an attack, which was responded to appropriately, with the resources on the ground at the time. There was no cover up.

Anyway, Panetta, again, on why we didn't have a billion soldiers waiting at Benghazi: "You had the movie, the 9/11 anniversary and unrest in various countries in that region. All that factored into the decision to put troops on a heightened state of alert. But that doesn't mean forces are positioned everywhere in the world, ready to run to the rescue. We're not the fire department. And there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's not appropriate as we now know that it wasn't the truth. The best information they had did not indicate anything about the video, but instead that it was a coordinated and deliberate attack that had been building for some time. The two groups claiming responsibility didn't claim the video was a motivation.

Actually, the military said that they had resources about 2-3 hours away, they just were never told to go. And the president said that he did tell Panetta to go. So, either he didn't actually, or Panetta disobeyed. There really aren't that many options here, and they're all bad for someone. We just need to know which one.