Here We Go Again

[sr71plt]

Hells bells, Hilary was trying to get Bill impeached so he could run for another term. That's about as TOLERANT as you can get. He would have won too.

Hmmm. Never heard that version before. But it was Hillary I was thinking about as the counter to Bashful's posting. I can't think of a political spouse who tolerated it any more obviously than Hillary did. But then they were both getting out of the marriage what they'd gone into it to get. And that was a political something.

The question is who does the background checks on the higher ranking covert operations people in the CIA. Cloak and dagger, hiding things is their game. It's like having the fox check out the hen house guard dog.

Only a few CIA directors have been home grown. Those already had their vetting. Most of the others came from areas where they hadn't a clue they eventually were going to be tapped as CIA director.

 

[TxRad]

Hmmm. Never heard that version before. But it was Hillary I was thinking about as the counter to Bashful's posting. I can't think of a political spouse who tolerated it any more obviously than Hillary did. But then they were both getting out of the marriage what they'd gone into it to get. And that was a political something.



Only a few CIA directors have been home grown. Those already had their vetting. Most of the others came from areas where they hadn't a clue they eventually were going to be tapped as CIA director.

Hilary and Bill's marriage was a marriage of political convenience for both of them and both their families. I grew up just across the Louisiana line from Hope, Arkansas so I knew members of both families. Hilary was the more ambitious of the two and knew she couldn't get where she wanted to go on her own so Bill was groomed to be her pony in the race. I don't think he ever cared much for the idea. He would have been happier just running the family farms and businesses.

I had dealings with the CIA in Nam and Cambodia but never paid the main bunch much attention. I just found Bashful's question funny from a cloak and dagger point of view.

 

[TimothyM]

what's the big deal ?

I know things are different for each country - and that it very much depends on how intolerant and repressed and prudish people are in relation to sexual matters. And this is of course often related to religion or culture or a mixture.

I often have the feeling that it's mainly driven by the media and the public loving these things for the delicious gossip value or delight of pointing fingers or being morally indignant. But maybe I'm being judgemental here.

Apart from the US, Britain comes to mind as one of the places where politicians and civil servants get into most trouble by this sort of thing. And it always makes me shake my head in bafflement - even knowing the Victorian baggage of moral standards they are dragging around.

Though we did have a case in Denmark recently where a young politician had his career put on hold because he slept with a young girl (16 I think) even though it was definitely consensual and she was of age for sex. But the issue was actually mostly whether he had shown bad judgement in giving in to her advances due to the circumstances in which they met - though a lot of moralists had a field day condemning him for being a bad boy.

In my mind there's only two cases, where politicians or civil servants should get into trouble for this (and I'm not talking of what they deserve from their spouses, that's private). Nor are we dealing with illegal stuff either, just the plain infidelity or being promiscuous.

1: double standards: i.e. if they as politicians or public figures advocate 'family values' and don't live up to their own teachings
(so I love it when Tories or Republicans or Catholic priests get exposed)

2: if the affairs or the handling of the consequences reveal that they are incompetent or incapable of acting intelligently (mind over matter here)
(so I'm more upset with stupidity, lying, misuse of a position of power, possible blackmail or favoritism, etc than the fact that they had sex)

So I'm with Txrad and Bramblethorn here - but I'm waiting for the spouses to stand up and say to the media and the public: "None of your business - if I can accept or forgive, then you can just shut up." I would actually think that the humiliation of having it made public is much worse than the actual fact that your husband or wife had an affair. Noone wants to be ridiculed or pitied as the cuckolded husband or cheated wife. (is there a better term for the female spouse i.e. the equivalent of cuckold ?)

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think your number 2 hits the most important reason hard enough, Timothy. And that case--which is the kicker for someone like Petraeus--is if the desire to hide the affair puts the official handling sensitive matters in the position of doing damage to the country through blackmail or favoritism. You mention it, sort of, but I don't get the impression you realize it's the elephant in the corner on this issue. According to today's paper, the affair was uncovered by the FBI--he didn't just one day decide it compromised him and he shouldn't keep it secret--and himself vulnerable to doing the country harm.

 

[TimothyM]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I actually started out writing 'three cases' and that was the third example I had in mind. But I couldn't really work out how to phrase it, so I just thought 'what the hell' and went for two major reasons and figured no 2 would cover the security issue as well.

On the other hand, if someone becomes a security risk, then it has to be dealt with in the same way, no matter the reason. It wouldn't have to be sexual, it could be fraud or having an addition (drugs or alcohol). In any case, it's a matter of having secrets that makes them vulnerable. and I can't see why an affair would be more wrong than the other reasons. But somehow the way it's dealt with by the media makes it come across that way. And that's what I cannot understand.

 

[njlauren]

It was uncovered because the FBI was investigating a potential security breach into computers and they checked his as well (they weren't looking into him at all) and stumbled across evidence of the affair, and reputedly he decided to resign and bite the bullet when confronted with it.

The reason it is a big deal is because he is head of a spook service and they are afraid of blackmail with anything that can be used against someone. Same thing would happen if someone had huge gambling debts or other problems, or if they had a large amount of debt.

Reading the profile of the woman he is accused of having the affair with, she sounds like a movie made version of a military high achiever to want to have an affair with, younger, ex military, driven, in fantastic shape, competitive, intelligent and from the picture I have seen, attractive (she sort of looks like the woman who played the director on NCIS for a number of years). I could just see them saluting each other before going to bed.

In the case of Petraeus I don't particularly have any reason to gloat over it, at this point it is up to his wife and himself and for the woman, her husband and herself, as to what the fallout is. I agree with another poster, I generally don't care about things like this, to me it is a private matter of the husband and wife when this happens (if it wasn't already known, wouldn't surprise me if Petraeus and his wife didn't have some sort of understanding, given the amount of time I am sure he spent separate from his wife, on both sides) or given the nature of the woman he had an affair with, after reading far too many stories, that it was a cuckold relationship...... Seriously, the only problem I have is when it is the family values types that get caught with this kind of thing, the generally GOP candidates and such proclaiming their moral superiority, Clinton was bit of a moron, for many reasons (I have to love Italy, where papers associated with the Christian right excoriated him, not over having an affair, but doing it with a schlub like Monica Lewinsky, basically they said he could have had affairs with any number of intelligent, beautiful women as president who would keep their mouths shut and that is what they would expect from leaders of the free world), but Clinton never pretended to be holier then thou.

And yeah, Europe, outside of Britain which is still caught in the Victorian prudishness (and hypocrisy, the old saying it is okay as long as it doesn't scare the children and horses comes to mind), they kind of expect it. When Mitterand died, his wife invited his mistress and the child he had with her to the funeral and they sat next to her. As Woody Allen said about the socialite couple who had a radio program in "Radio Days" and reputedly ended up in a threesome with her lover, it is different in other places, where such things are looked upon differently....

 

[sr71plt]

On the other hand, if someone becomes a security risk, then it has to be dealt with in the same way, no matter the reason. It wouldn't have to be sexual, it could be fraud or having an addition (drugs or alcohol). In any case, it's a matter of having secrets that makes them vulnerable. and I can't see why an affair would be more wrong than the other reasons. But somehow the way it's dealt with by the media makes it come across that way. And that's what I cannot understand.

Those are handled the same way. This one just happened to be a sexual affair.

I still have certain habits in life based on what got some cases in the past set off. For instance, I pay cash for groceries because at one time (in the way past) people were identified as in bad financial condition--and thus open to being compromised into trading secrets for cash and then blackmailed to get in deeper--when they charged groceries in the store. Way past that now, of course, but some investigations were started based on this in the early 70s and it's stuck. For the same reason I rarely use the telephone. Either side could be listening working at putting a puzzle together.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Petraeus' leaving has nothing to do with the excuse being given.

D.

 

[sr71plt]

Petraeus' leaving has nothing to do with the excuse being given.

D.

So you think the affair story is completely made up? Because that quite definitely is a reason to be chucked out and therefore it DOES have something to do with him leaving. I mentioned earlier that the fact that it's come out might be because someone wanted him moved out (the old CIA civilian hands certainly wanted him moved out), but that doesn't mean that the affair had NOTHING to with it.

Or should we be fitting you for your tinfoil hat, Desire?

 

[sr71plt]

Here, I think, as reported in an AP item, is the crux of where he was off the reservation professionally (Of course, why it was more unsettling that Broadwell was in his CIA office than that Angelina Jolie was is beyond me ). But, not really. The woman writes books.

(http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20121110/405066ae-95b8-4fea-b7f2-8aaf8c280162)


“CIA officers long had expressed concern about Broadwell's unprecedented access to the director. She frequently visited the spy agency's headquarters in Langley, Va., to meet Petraeus in his office, accompanied him on his punishing morning runs around the CIA grounds and often attended public functions as his guest, according to two former intelligence officials.

“As a military intelligence officer in the Army Reserve, Broadwell had a high security clearance, which she mentioned at public events as one of the reasons she was well-suited to write Petraeus's story.

“But her access was unsettling to members of the secretive and compartmentalized intelligence agency, where husbands and wives often work in different divisions, but share nothing with each other when they come home because they don't "need to know."

“In one incident that caught the CIA staff by surprise, Broadwell posted a photograph on her Facebook page of Petraeus with actress Angelina Jolie, taken in his 7th floor office where only the official CIA photographer is permitted to take photos. Petraeus had apparently given Broadwell the photo just hours after it was taken.”

 

[elfin_odalisque]

CIA Director David Petraeus's career has just bitten the dust on the basis of an extramarital affair. Yet another plot bunny that I've played with in a couple of stories. It still hasn't come out whether it was a woman or a man--or both, and I'm watching in great interest. (I had heard rumors.) The timng of the announcement is interesting. Especially interesting now, as well, as the Republicans have been doing a little dance around him as possible presidential/vice presidential timber--as they did with Colin Powell in trecent past.

It was a woman, but 'so what' ? Life happens, get over it sr,you are really a bottom-feeder.

 

[jomar]

Those are handled the same way. This one just happened to be a sexual affair.

I still have certain habits in life based on what got some cases in the past set off. For instance, I pay cash for groceries because at one time (in the way past) people were identified as in bad financial condition--and thus open to being compromised into trading secrets for cash and then blackmailed to get in deeper--when they charged groceries in the store. Way past that now, of course, but some investigations were started based on this in the early 70s and it's stuck. For the same reason I rarely use the telephone. Either side could be listening working at putting a puzzle together.

You run your online activities through an anonymizer?

 

[sr71plt]

You run your online activities through an anonymizer?

Something like that, yes. Also, I didn't go on line until after I retired.

(And I rarely go into a grocery store, either.)