[TimG]

I've heard it called a "sex scandal" in the media many times, the latest being on NPR this morning. Just wondering if you think it amounts to a "sex scandal"?

[dwar0123]

It is by definition a sex scandal. A scandal where sex played a key part.

I think the better question is if they should have made such a scandal out of it. But that point is moot with respect to your question, they did and it is.

[Aberlour10]

Keeping all this CIA stuff on side and looking only at their pure human relationships...we wonder here in Germany about this "scandal". .Nobody has to stand down here if there is a secret partner in his life, any politicans, any general. This is absolutely private thing... even for 2 prime ministers a few years ago.
.

[barmar]

There are two reasons scandals like this are an issue:

1. If someone has high security clearance, it can be used to blackmail them. Although once it becomes public knowledge, I don't suppose that's much of a concern.

2. It speaks to their character and judgement. If someone can't make good decisions in their personal life, can you trust them to make good decisions regarding national intelligence?

In the case of Petraeus, not only did he did he make the poor decision to have an affair, the woman he had it with is kind of crazy.

[mike777]

Aberlour10, on 2012-November-16, 15:21, said:

Keeping all this CIA stuff on side and looking only at their pure human relationships...we wonder here in Germany about this "scandal". .Nobody has to stand down here if there is a secret partner in his life, any politicans, any general. This is absolutely private thing... even for 2 prime ministers a few years ago.
.

Often but not always in the USA it seems the sex scandal will try and be linked up to some type of crime or the breaking of some law.

If you add up thousands of laws such as lying to the feds about the sex scandal it can be hard to not break at least one law..

In other words the cover up is worse than the sex....

In this case with the army involved you have a ton more laws/rules such as adultery being against the rules...

Per your post I guess German Generals dont break any rules with adultery...

With your prime ministers I dont know any of the details but it sounds like there were no law suits or accusations of any cover up or laws being broken..


"Nobody has to stand down here if there is a secret partner in his life, any politicans, any general"

[dwar0123]

mike777, on 2012-November-16, 17:20, said:

"Nobody has to stand down here if there is a secret partner in his life, any politicans, any general"

Pretty sure a secret partner has never been a reason for someone to stand down, here or anywhere or even any-when.

That's the advantage of keeping it secret.

[mike777]

I would think keeping such a secret would be pretty stressful for a General if adultery was against the law or if you have a family but then maybe not for some who might have the viewpoint it is an advantage.

[Aberlour10]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-16, 17:49, said:

Pretty sure a secret partner has never been a reason for someone to stand down, here or anywhere or even any-when.

That's the advantage of keeping it secret.

I meant >>>> no reason for the married politicans to stand down because having secret partner when the whole thing goes to the public....yellow press etc etc..


The current prime minister of Bavaria (the boss of the most conservative german party CSU C=Christian, married, 3 children) ...did not stop his extramartial affair even, as it was a headline in the news, sired a child with her, and vistited both in hospital in the flesh of cameras....he is still the head of Bavaria's goverment...

There was only one german politicans who had to stand down cause to his love affair...not because he was married but...his girlfriend was 16....

[kenberg]

It certainly involves sex, right? So I guess the question is, is it a scandal. I suppose that no one on this thread is stunned to hear of a powerful man having sex with a (comparatively) young woman, despite the fact they are both married. So what's up? Security and judgment, as barmar says.

This affair was discussed on another thread and I mentioned Christine Keeler. Here is from the wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia..../Profumo_Affair

Quote

Lord Denning released the government's official report on 25 September 1963, and, one month later, the prime minister, Harold Macmillan, resigned on the grounds of ill health, which had apparently been exacerbated by the scandal. He was replaced by the Foreign Secretary, the Earl of Home, who renounced his title to become Sir Alec Douglas-Home. However, the change of leader failed to save the Conservative Party's place in government; they lost the general election to Harold Wilson's Labour a year later.

OK, of course that's the Brits for you, even more uptight than the Yanks about sex. Maybe so.

Can I try fiction and you tell me if it fits? In Day of the Jackal, there is a plot by the generals to assassinate DeGaulle, and the Jackal is the hit man. High level ministers are coordinating a search for the Jackal. At one of their meetings it is revealed that one of the ministers has been a source of information because of loose talk with his mistress. He leaves the room and, if I recall correctly, returns home and kills himself. Just Frederick Forsythe's sense of drama? Perhaps.

Apparently there was no real security breach in this case. Broadwell maybe had some low level classified stuff at home, and it should not have been at home. No one will die as a result. But the guy worked for CIA. And he behave foolishly. This matters.

Guys can be oblivious. Imo, women have their blind spots also. But guys are legendary for missing the obvious. How does the song go? Sometimes a man's caught looking, at things that he don't need.

So, is it a sex scandal? It's all just too bad, that's my thought.

[mike777]

btw tonight's tv reports suggested:

1) He will get a big book deal
2) he may become President of Princeton.

[mike777]

Aberlour10, on 2012-November-16, 19:08, said:

I meant >>>> no reason for the married politicans to stand down because having secret partner when the whole thing goes to the public....yellow press etc etc..


The current prime minister of Bavaria (the boss of the most conservative german party CSU C=Christian, married, 3 children) ...did not stop his extramartial affair even, as it was a headline in the news, sired a child with her, and vistited both in hospital in the flesh of cameras....he is still the head of Bavaria's goverment...

There was only one german politicans who had to stand down cause to his love affair...not because he was married but...his girlfriend was 16....

so
1) his political enemy did not accuse him of bringing top secret docs to his love nest that his lover could see while he slept. or accuse him of spending public money on his lover or add whatever you prefer...please note the word accuse...true or not not the issue...

2) his wife....kids..inlaws..etc did not raise a big stink about him being a liar and cheat and all the pain he caused his family.....

3) the voters could care less about point one or two in Bavaria...so this guy is still an effective leader?

--


btw is not bavaria where they killed the king/prince of the disney castle because he was a lousy ruler?

http://suite101.com/...-murder-a399821

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-November-16, 15:52, said:

In the case of Petraeus, not only did he did he make the poor decision to have an affair, the woman he had it with is kind of crazy.

He may not have known that when he started the affair.

[kenberg]

I have been thinking a little more about this. Here is a simple (?) question: If Bill Clinton did not resign over Monica, why should Petraeus resign over Paula? I'm not sure I have a good answer. I would have been more than content to have had neither of these affairs see the light of day. Somehow, expecting better of our CIA chief than we do of our president doesn't sound so good. In both cases the judgment seemed truly awful. When the news was all Monica all the time i had this fantasy of Hillary saying to Bill something like "For God's sake Bill, you are now the president. I expect you to have a better choice of playmates." Paula, at first glance, and maybe even at second glance, is a more attractive choice than Monica but still I would hope the "Oh, General, you are so clever, I need to write a book about how clever you are" would get pretty old, pretty fast. And she is weird. If the affair truly began only after he left command to take up his job at the CIA, that seems time enough. A guy is supposed to recognize trouble when he sees it. Being male myself, I find it a little embarrassing that we can be gotten to so quickly. Monica, as I understand it, sat in the front row and hiked up her skirt. Paula was somewhat more subtle but still, get a grip, General.

Anyway, if anyone has a good explanation for why Petraeus had to resign but Clinton didn't, I am ope to hearing it.

apropos of nothing in particular, I quote from the column of David Ignatius:

Quote

The day Petraeus resigned, I received an e-mail from an Arab intelligence contact who expressed what surely has been going through the minds of many people around the world. I will quote it precisely, punctuation and all: "He needs to resign cause he has an affair? What da hell??? He is brilliant!!!! Why like this????"

Full column at
http://www.washingto...5445_story.html

[PassedOut]

I'm sure that most posters here know that it is illegal in the US to encrypt emails or other electronic communications in such a way that the government cannot easily decrypt them. The Post has an interesting story related to the effects of this: FBI investigation of Broadwell reveals bureau’s comprehensive access to electronic communications

Quote

The FBI started its case in June with a collection of five e-mails, a few hundred kilobytes of data at most.

By the time the probe exploded into public view earlier this month, the FBI was sitting on a mountain of data containing the private communications — and intimate secrets — of a CIA director and a U.S. war commander. What the bureau didn’t have — and apparently still doesn’t — is evidence of a crime.

How that happened and what it means for privacy and national security are questions that have induced shudders in Washington and a queasy new understanding of the FBI’s comprehensive access to the digital trails left by even top officials.

FBI and Justice Department officials have vigorously defended their handling of the case. “What we did was conduct the investigation the way we normally conduct a criminal investigation,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Thursday.

But the only way that the government can be certain that emails don't contain evidence of a crime is to read (or analyze electronically) every one of them.

[y66]

Quote

Like many others in Washington, Bruce Riedel, a C.I.A. veteran and a presidential adviser, wondered whether the affair really required Mr. Petraeus, who turned 60 on Wednesday, to step down and leave the agency leaderless. But under the military law that governed his 37-year Army career, adultery is a crime when it may “bring discredit upon the armed forces.” And a secret affair can make an intelligence officer vulnerable to blackmail.

The C.I.A. director, Mr. Riedel said, probably felt he had no choice.

“I think Dave Petraeus grew up with a code that’s very demanding about duty and honor,” he said. “He violated the code.”

That sounds about right to me assuming the code also requires not getting caught.

[mike777]

kenberg, on 2012-November-18, 10:22, said:

I have been thinking a little more about this. Here is a simple (?) question: If Bill Clinton did not resign over Monica, why should Petraeus resign over Paula? I'm not sure I have a good answer. I would have been more than content to have had neither of these affairs see the light of day. Somehow, expecting better of our CIA chief than we do of our president doesn't sound so good. In both cases the judgment seemed truly awful. When the news was all Monica all the time i had this fantasy of Hillary saying to Bill something like "For God's sake Bill, you are now the president. I expect you to have a better choice of playmates." Paula, at first glance, and maybe even at second glance, is a more attractive choice than Monica but still I would hope the "Oh, General, you are so clever, I need to write a book about ho9w clever you are" would get pretty old, pretty fast. And she is weird. If the affair truly began only after he left command to take up his job at the CIA, that seems time enough. I guy is supposed to recognize trouble when he sees it. Being male myself, I find it a little embarrassing that we can be gotten to so quickly. Monica, as I understand it, sat in the front row and hiked up her skirt. Paula was somewhat more subtle but still, get a grip, General.

Anyway, if anyone has a good explanation for why Petraeus had to resign but Clinton didn't, I am ope to hearing it.

apropos of nothing in particular, I quote from the column of David Ignatius:



Full column at
http://www.washingto...5445_story.html

I think it was much more an issue of honor and duty for the general, Clinton was influenced by a different culture compared to the general. Keep in mind Clinton had many many affairs, this was not his first one.


Words such as duty, honor and country I think meant a lot to the general and he felt like he had failed to live up to a code that was important to him..if no one else.

--


btw times certainly change Admiral King, the top Navy guy, during WWII had numerous affairs.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2012-November-18, 14:24, said:

Words such as duty, honor and country I think meant a lot to the general and he felt like he had failed to live up to a code that was important to him..if no one else.

He did not resign when he "failed to live up to a code that was important to him." He resigned when the word got out.

As to the blackmail angle, I doubt very much if Petraeus could have been blackmailed for a little affair like that: So far as we know, no force was involved. Unless someone has married for money and stands to lose a lot if an affair is revealed, why would anyone submit to blackmail over an affair these days? Doesn't make sense.

I really think that he should have told Clapper, "Pound sand!" and rode out the turbulence, if he really cared about his duty to his country. Unless there's a lot more still hidden...

[kenberg]

It appears that the code of honor requires resignation if you get caught. This thread asks if we are really dealing with a sex scandal. One might also ask if a code that requires resignation if you get caught is properly called a code of honor.

The Post this morning also had a long article about military attitudes. It makes for interesting reading.
http://www.washingto...ry.html?hpid=z2

Quote

Since Petraeus’s resignation, many have strained to understand how such a celebrated general could have behaved so badly. Some have speculated that an exhausting decade of war impaired his judgment. Others wondered if Petraeus was never the Boy Scout he appeared to be. But Gates, who still possesses a modest Kansan’s bemusement at Washington excess, has floated another theory.

“There is something about a sense of entitlement and of having great power that skews people’s judgment,” Gates said last week.

During the sixties the military was greatly maligned. A mistake. But mindless praise is also a mistake. My experience, definitely limited, has not led me to believe that military people are significantly more trustworthy than non-military people. Not less, either. But the gap between their PR and reality may be larger than for the rest of us.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2012-November-18, 14:51, said:

He did not resign when he "failed to live up to a code that was important to him." He resigned when the word got out.

As to the blackmail angle, I doubt very much if Petraeus could have been blackmailed for a little affair like that: So far as we know, no force was involved. Unless someone has married for money and stands to lose a lot if an affair is revealed, why would anyone submit to blackmail over an affair these days? Doesn't make sense.

I really think that he should have told Clapper, "Pound sand!" and rode out the turbulence, if he really cared about his duty to his country. Unless there's a lot more still hidden...

so what is your point?

that he failed to live up to the standards he set for himself and then tried to?

frankly your first sentence really misunderstands the man in full.

[kenberg]

The sequence of events, as I understand it, is that Petraeus was interviewed about the affair sometime back. In time, it became clear that it was going to become public knowledge. At that point DNI Clapper told him he should resign. Certainly until then he had no intention of resigning. Details are murky, but I have read that he still did not wish to resign. There were and are many people who did not feel he needed to resign. That response Ignatius passed on from an Arab intelligence officer reflects the views of many. I would have much preferred it never came to this, but once it did I suppose he probably had to go. I think that is roughly what I said at the beginning.

What we have here is a policy that requires a resignation if an affair becomes public knowledge. Maybe this is a good policy, maybe, quite possibly, it is a bad policy, but it's a policy. An honor code it is not.

I have lived too long to take any pleasure art all in seeing an accomplished and good person brought down by personal failures such as this. It is greatly to be regretted that this could not have been contained. But we are speaking here of a personal failure and a government policy. Honor has very little to do with it.