Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

401 comments

Job Performance (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937731)

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 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937797)

and if the affair was with a subordinate in the CIA?

Re:Job Performance (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937959)

Nah, that would be fine. But if it were with one of his peers in the FSB...

Re:Job Performance (5, Informative)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938307)

and if the affair was with a subordinate in the CIA?

It wasn't. The affair was with his biographer [slate.com] , and it was uncovered by the FBI. [foxnews.com]

Re:Job Performance (4, Insightful)

Noughmad (1044096) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937819)

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:Job Performance (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938179)

The FBI discovered the affair.

Re:Job Performance (4, Insightful)

Sparx139 (1460489) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937831)

That's assuming that the fallout of this affair isn't going to impact his performance. It could be that the fallout of this and setting things right with his family again could keep him from his duties, or it could be as simple as he sees the role of Director as one that should lead by example, in some way embodying the integrity of the organisation. In that case, he wouldn't consider himself fit for such a role.

Re:Job Performance (5, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938409)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937845)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937883)

There are ethical people in the CIA?

Re:Job Performance (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938021)

There are ethical people in the CIA?

Apparently, not anymore! :-) (after today)

Re:Job Performance (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938305)

That's the problem, the people who fall upon their swords are the ones you want to keep.

Re:Job Performance (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938191)

CIA has its own ethics. Security of the agency's information is their top priority.

Re:Job Performance (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937951)

To me, it wouldnt be a blackmailable incident as i wouldnt care if he was 'outted'.

I may not approve of the guy personally, but i dont have to be his 'friend' for him to do a good job.

Re:Job Performance (3, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938063)

To you it might not matter, but to him it certainly did. More insidious, the blackmailer could have simply required him to omit or downplay information being reported to the President or for subordinates in investigations, with no actual lying or outright obstruction necessary. His choice to prevent that is noble, even if the actions that he took that facilitated the situation weren't.

Re:Job Performance (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938213)

Noble? I don't think so. The evidence indicates that the FBI discovered his affair. It had to be part of their official report. He was forced out.

Re:Job Performance (2)

Turminder Xuss (2726733) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937963)

And that's why J. Edgar Hoover had to resign.....oh wait

Re:Job Performance (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937995)

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 (4, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938239)

No, but the fact that he kept secrets from the agency that could have been used to blackmail him means he's a security risk and therefore not of suitable character to work in the CIA. When you work for the CIA or any other government agency that keeps the nation's secrets, you can't keep such secrets from the agency.

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937861)

The number one rule of spying is to never become sexually compromised. Having an affair like that can be a major national security risk.

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937965)

Nonsense.

Re:Job Performance (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937971)

The number one rule of spying is to never become sexually compromised. Having an affair like that can be a major national security risk.
Tell that to Monica and Bill.

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938147)

It derailed Clinton's work on the Israel-Palestinian peace talks didn't it? Clinton got the closest to negotiating a lasting peace and then suddenly oh shit some Jewish broad is slobbing his knob in the oval office!

Re:Job Performance (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938253)

Bill was a spy?

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937877)

It's hard to know where the line should be drawn, but in this case there may be other circumstances that make resigning a sensible option. Like if his wife said "I'll stay with you if you agree to quit the job where you met and fucked that girl down the hall."

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938145)

He needs a better wife. Some of us have wives who don't mind if we have affairs. (Of course, this works both ways, so don't have an open marriage if you can't handle your wife having an affair too.)

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938345)

I can sleep with any woman I want, and so can my wife.

Works for me.

(Double-checks to make sure post Anonymous button is checked)

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937893)

It does affect his job performance in a key way, it is something he could be blackmailed over. With clearances, especially the kind he would've had, you cannot have anything in your life that you could be blackmailed over as it makes you untrustworthy.

The way to diffuse that is to own the mistake and admit it publicly. If everyone already knows about it, one can no longer be blackmailed. This incident would still cause enough bad PR and distraction that it may be worth it to step aside to avoid the attention this would draw. He's also had a long and productive career, this may be an extra nudge that it is time to move onto something else, hopefully retirement as the man has certainly earned it.

Re:Job Performance (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937931)

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:Job Performance (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937935)

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 heading the CIA?

I doubt this had anything to do with next week's Benghazi testimony. The House is still going to want to talk to him and since he's an American citizen, the House can subpoena him if it comes to it.

---
Booth may have been a patriot but he was a patriot to the losing side.

Re:Job Performance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938149)

He probably already had a thorough background investigation done when he was at the defense department. The CIA might have accepted his existing background check instead of repeating it. The new information about his affair could have been discovered in a periodic reinvestigation.

Re:Job Performance (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937941)

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.

Not in the CIA or other high Gov positiions. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937955)

One word: blackmail. And not for money.

'Nuff said.

Re:Not in the CIA or other high Gov positiions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938121)

That's a fact. This smells so bad skunks are turning away.

Re:Not in the CIA or other high Gov positiions. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938373)

Mod parent up

THe sole reason the military also banned homosexuals was for the reason of blackmail. Now you can be gay but can't be married to a woman. The reason for sexual conduct is the blackmailing aspect can be used as leverage from foreign agents and governments. Honest is important and so is open transparency unlike your other office or blue collar jobs. I doubt someone is going to use blackmail from a worker at BK to get the secret of how the tomatos and lettuce go on just right from McDonalds.

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937957)

His job isn't just about performance. He's privy to state secrets and security. If he's spending time secretly with someone who knows (besides the obvious) what could transpire between them or what he might say. Was a background check run on her? Maybe not. Is she a secret agent from another country? Probably not but who knows? His actions could jeopardize national security and that's why this is problematic.

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938329)

What a bunch of paranoid motherfuckers. Threats to national security are right up there with terrorists and child molesters: bogeymen.

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937977)

He obviously resigned because of Benghazi, dude, the affair is just a cover to save face so the military doesn't look bad having a general getting fired from the CIA for incompetence.

Re:Job Performance (3, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937987)

Blackmail. As the head of the CIA, he was right to resign. He probably resigned because someone tried to blackmail him.

Re:Job Performance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938005)

i disagree, this person made a promise, swore an oath to the person most valued in his life---and he stomped on that. Therefore, he will stomp on anything in my eyes and cannot be trusted.

Re:Job Performance (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938017)

He could be bribed if he didn't quit or out himself. Didn't have to do both but good for him, I think he's a great patriot.

Re:Job Performance (5, Insightful)

Ghostworks (991012) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938069)

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 (1)

jameshofo (1454841) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938081)

Unfortunately is a little more complicated than that, he holds a high level clearance and issues like that can effect your clearance eligibility, it opens him up to being blackmailed.

Re:Job Performance (4, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938177)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938287)

Or maybe he tried to sabotage the presidents election campaign by making some intentional mistakes overseas, but the president won anyway.

And now, the head of the CIA, who ought to be able to diddle a dozen mistresses and not get caught, who isn't a political appointee, is quitting over an extra-marital affair we wouldn't otherwise care about.

Re:Job Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938375)

Kind of talks about his character. We do not necessary need to put any ethical values in the adultry but what does it say about his character and his promises to his wife about being faithful. Could he do the same against the USA? Doesn't really matter if the answer is no, his trustworthiness is already questioned.

first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937733)

first post

Re:first post (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937817)

Nice try. I beat you by milliseconds.

Re:first post (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937943)

Nice try. I beat you by milliseconds.

So you got first neener.

Does he run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937743)

And why is this is slashdot?

Re:Does he run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937975)

Dunno. Because now a NEW shady CIA guy will be watching over you?

Its relevant. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938011)

Beacuse the CIA will influence technology, in the sense of spying on citizens, and perhaps laws to prevent encryption and other freedoms.

Apparently.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937747)

Petraeus did betray us.... or at least his wife.

NOT TECHNOLOGY NEWS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937757)

.....

The News For Nerds: (5, Informative)

retroworks (652802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937787)

SOME guys get to have TWO girlfriends...

Re:The News For Nerds: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937947)

Google polyamory. More common among nerds, for whatever reason.

Re:The News For Nerds: (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938057)

It's easier to keep your camwhore bill a secret if your girlfriends are on AIM, Yahoo Messenger, or something more modern rather than interacting with you in real life.

Re:The News For Nerds: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938293)

If he'd only been a Mormon

Re:The News For Nerds: (5, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938413)

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.

Sounds good. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937803)

I wish other department heads would resign for things trice as bad as cheating on their wives.

care less (2)

bhenson (1231744) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937841)

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.

Re:care less (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937967)

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:care less (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938041)

Uhm, I don't think it was Clinton who got the job done.

According to the stains on the dress he did!

Re:care less (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938337)

I could care less where he sticks his dick.

So you do care, then?

Nothing to see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937843)

Go about your business.

Certainly don't think about him being scheduled to testify before Congress on Benghazi next week, and not being allowed to any more.

Move along...

5 days prior to hearing. (5, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937859)

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. (5, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937897)

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. (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937927)

And this is why he had to resign...the Republicans would have made political hay out of the situation, his past service to our country notwithstanding.

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (-1, Troll)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938003)

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.

There's a controversy about Benghazi outside FOX News and grandstanding Republican committee chairs?

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938115)

No, not at all. Benghazi was supposed to be an October Surprise, but instead it just made people ask, "If that's so important, why didn't you bring it up on 9/12?"

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (2, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938139)

No, because too many people don't care that the Administration left an American Ambassador out to die without protection and made no attempt to save him while watching the attack invade American soil in real time.

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938309)

That's a pretty brazen and stupid accusation.

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (0)

schwit1 (797399) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938143)

The fact that the Obama admin lied to the American people about what happened and blamed some stupid movie producer is a serious problem. They knew it was a terrorist attack within an hour of it happening.

If this had been under Bush the mainstream media would be on his ass 24x7.

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938299)

The fact that the Obama admin lied to the American people about what happened and blamed some stupid movie producer is a serious problem. They knew it was a terrorist attack within an hour of it happening.

If this had been under Bush the mainstream media would be on his ass 24x7.

Not really. The president (either Obama or Bush) does something a lot more objectionable every day or two. For that matter, there's no evidence that anything particularly objectionable took place in Benghazi involving that day.

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938333)

For that matter, there's no evidence that anything particularly objectionable took place in Benghazi involving that day.

(Other than the attack itself.)

shut the fuck up shut the fuck up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938395)

You still trying to astroturf this bullshit? You FUCKING LOST!!! Take a fucking vacation.

There was a point at which the Administration seemed confused about whether the attack was premeditated or was part of the protests about the movie. (The fact that there were protests in the world in response to the movie--REGARDLESS of whether the movie was morally "to blame"--is undeniable.) However, from the beginning they called this a terrorist act and placed moral blame on the attackers.

Now, I know that YOU ALSO KNOW THIS. You ABSOLUTELY know that Obama did NOT put the moral blame on the movie producer. You know and you don't care. And you wonder why people like me get angry in response to your type spouting your flavor of bullshit? Because people get mad when someone keeps feeding them the same bullshit everyday. People don't like liars.

Now go on that fucking vacation and nurse your fucking wounds, you little shithead astroturfing wannabe.

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (0, Troll)

Microlith (54737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938019)

It's a conspiracy!

You do realize that the only reason Benghazi is even remotely believed to be some massive incident is because Fox News and other right wing talking heads keep chattering on like mad about it. Sometimes shit happens and there's no way to plan for it.

But hey, anything to take down Obama. That was the plan for the last two years and it failed miserably.

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938087)

Clearly they should have gone the sexual route. If only there were a single black Republican woman willing to blow him.

Base partisan politics? Look in the mirror. (3, Insightful)

dfenstrate (202098) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938163)

Sometimes shit happens and there's no way to plan for it.

'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.

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938285)

OBAMA LIED, PEOPLE DIED

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938157)

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.

Grow up. The "buck" stops with the person responsible for the agency in question. The State Department. If Hillary Clinton is big enough to take the blame you can quit whining about not being able to pin it on Obama. In short, the president is not God, he does not know everything and he can not wave a wand to change / fix things. Petraeus is resigning for personal reasons and professional. He's ex military. An affair is not something that you ignore in the military. It's about honor and responsibility.

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (2, Informative)

DigitAl56K (805623) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938181)

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:5 days prior to hearing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938199)

Get the nutcases out of your party so that sane, intelligent people have an alternative to the Democratic ticket, and you can talk.

Until then, STFU.

Re:5 days prior to hearing. (2, Informative)

macwhizkid (864124) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938311)

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 wants to talk to Petraeus, they'll subpoena him. If that happens and he flees the country, then that's a story. His exact job title really doesn't matter.

So what's the real reason? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#41937867)

Those guys in Washington D.C. cavort like rabbits so what is the real situation? Is he being moved aside to give somebody else a high profile job or was he unfit for the position and only got it in the first place by having a high public profile due to Afganistan?
A vet from Afganistan I know describes Petraeus as a clown (but won't elaborate unfortunately), anyone have any ideas why?

This is different, security is involved (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938321)

He resigned because the affair was with his biographer Paula Broadwell, author of the now ironically titled book "All In". Besides sleeping with him she apparently also improperly accessed his emails, creating a security breach, so Petraeus's security clearance has been (for now at least) yanked. Petraeus himself is apparently not under investigation but yanking the person's clearance pending the outcome is apparently standard procedure. Anyway he could not continue running the CIA without a clearance.

More info here [nbcnews.com] .

He's not the same as you and me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41937909)

His job isn't just about performance. He's privy to state secrets and security. If he's spending time secretly with someone who knows (besides the obvious) what could transpire between them or what he might say. Was a background check run on her? Maybe not. Is she a secret agent from another country? Probably not but who knows? His actions could jeopardize national security and that's why this is problematic.

Re:He's not the same as you and me... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938275)

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.

Personal secrets (2)

macwhizkid (864124) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938013)

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 (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938035)

Libya.

Nobody likes a quitter! (1)

drainbramage (588291) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938131)

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".

Really? (1)

roboticbebop (2771317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938167)

Considering what kinds of ethically and legally questionable stuff the CIA does as part of it's day-to-day operations, this is what it takes to get fired? Maybe he got fired for getting caught. If an intelligence spook can't cover up something as basic as an affair up then he probably shouldn't be running an entire intelligence agency.

This is going to get very messy (5, Informative)

electron sponge (1758814) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938277)

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 ... (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938323)

... hire someone with an open marriage.

Complete the phrase (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938343)

Slashdot: News for _____

Re:Complete the phrase (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938387)

eclectic nerds

I Read That As... (1)

JohnPerkins (243021) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938349)

...'Michael Moore' the first time around, which would have been...weird.

Acting Director (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41938359)

I think "Acting Director" is something like a theater director, where subordinate CIA personnel are taught how to convincingly appear to be looking out for the best interests of America in foreign territory, but while staying home and doing something a little different. Not sure though; just a guess. /sarcasm

If you read just a little ... (1)

jabberwock (10206) | about a year and a half ago | (#41938363)

... 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)

I'd say this makes the story: 1) Slashdot-worthy; 2) Probably not in any way about Benghazi; 3) Messier and more mysterious than the average case of adultery by a public official.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...