Ok, well why was Clinton fit to serve as President from 1998-2000?
1. He definitely opened himself up to blackmail
2. Blew up his home life
3. Opened himself for intelligence gathering
4. Came dangerously close to committing a federal crime (he was still penalized for giving false testimony to a grand jury.)
He had more decision making power and quite a lot of access to classified information, and it likely happened with more than one woman. Commander in chief, etc.
I fail to see how "blowing up his home life" is relevant.
It shows that he's stupid.
Also applies.
Yes, Clinton was an idiot for cheating.
And was unfit to serve the final two years of his presidency?
No one is arguing that Patraeus isn't an idiot in his personal life. There's no disputing that. We're talking about whether being an idiot in your personal life makes you incompetent in your professional life. I don't think either should've stepped down for grievances in their personal lives. And both positions deal with a lot of classified information and require a lot of keeping secrets.
there is a different standard for elected officials. clinton was stupid for his indiscretions and unquestionably compromised his ability to do his job. had he been an appointed CIA director instead of an elected president, would have resigned or been fired.
The standard for the President is lower than for the CIA director? Path for removal is certainly much harder, but standard of integrity?
Yeah, actually. The standard is what's in the constitution and whatever the public feels is important.
In being chosen (although Weber would have something to say about un-elected bureaucrats) but Petraeus wasn't fired, and we don't know if he would have been.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Ok, well why was Clinton fit to serve as President from 1998-2000?
1. He definitely opened himself up to blackmail
2. Blew up his home life
3. Opened himself for intelligence gathering
4. Came dangerously close to committing a federal crime (he was still penalized for giving false testimony to a grand jury.)
He had more decision making power and quite a lot of access to classified information, and it likely happened with more than one woman. Commander in chief, etc.
I fail to see how "blowing up his home life" is relevant.
It shows that he's stupid.
Also applies.
Yes, Clinton was an idiot for cheating.
And was unfit to serve the final two years of his presidency?
No one is arguing that Patraeus isn't an idiot in his personal life. There's no disputing that. We're talking about whether being an idiot in your personal life makes you incompetent in your professional life. I don't think either should've stepped down for grievances in their personal lives. And both positions deal with a lot of classified information and require a lot of keeping secrets.
there is a different standard for elected officials. clinton was stupid for his indiscretions and unquestionably compromised his ability to do his job. had he been an appointed CIA director instead of an elected president, would have resigned or been fired.
The standard for the President is lower than for the CIA director? Path for removal is certainly much harder, but standard of integrity?
the standard is different for an elected official. the standard of integrity for an elected official is whatever is demanded by the public. the standard of integrity for an appointee - especially one as sensitive as CIA director - is pretty carefully defined and enforced. since hoover, the government has been very very careful about their agency heads.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Generally I care very little about politicians screwing around and whatnot but this guy is head of the CIA. The possible security issues with an illicit affair are too risky for it to be acceptable.
Yeah, it's not even about whether or not she had clearance; it's that she had blackmail-grade leverage over him.
Well she doesn't any more, so why not give him his job back?
Because drunk driving isn't ok just because you made it home in one piece. There must be consequences for engaging in risky behavior irrespective of the outcome or there is no disincentive to not engage in risky behavior.
Except in this case the outcome determines whether or not something was risky behaviour. If the woman had tried to blackmail him and he had refused and just come clean to whomever, then there was never any risk in the first place. An affair does not tell you about someone's morality outside of the infidelity.
This is more like promising to be the designated driver, then drinking too much and then just calling a cab for everyone. Bit of a bother? Yes. Risky? No.
But that didn't happen. It was stopped before it could reach that level and now everything's in the open. It was still a risk to his career and his family that he stupidly took.
It's only a risk if he is the kind of person that you can blackmail. Which is a moral failing separate from having an affair. And it's a trait that would make him unfit for such a job anyway,
There is no way of knowing if he is that kind of person.
Fortunately the there are plenty of people willing to take over who show significantly better judgement than he does so we don't have to risk finding out.
Yes but if he was that kind of person and didn't have an affair he'd still be in his position.
I seriously doubt that there are plenty of people willing to take over who don't have anything in their lives they didn't want everyone to know. Given that we've proposed "any secret at all" as disqualifying you from taking the position.
Okay, show of hands, who here has cheated on a spouse (hell, let's go with SO) or done something similarly self destructive? The worst I can claim is procrastination or not noticing that the GF wanted me to throw her a pity party.
I haven't. I done some stupid shit in the romance/love thing, but never cheated. But it's not like I didn't cheat because I wanted to be trustworthy, or felt somehow more trustworthy when I declined the opportunity. It doesn't even affect my thinking about everything else.
Ok, well why was Clinton fit to serve as President from 1998-2000?
1. He definitely opened himself up to blackmail
2. Blew up his home life
3. Opened himself for intelligence gathering
4. Came dangerously close to committing a federal crime (he was still penalized for giving false testimony to a grand jury.)
He had more decision making power and quite a lot of access to classified information, and it likely happened with more than one woman. Commander in chief, etc.
I fail to see how "blowing up his home life" is relevant.
It shows that he's stupid.
Also applies.
Yes, Clinton was an idiot for cheating.
And was unfit to serve the final two years of his presidency?
No one is arguing that Patraeus isn't an idiot in his personal life. There's no disputing that. We're talking about whether being an idiot in your personal life makes you incompetent in your professional life. I don't think either should've stepped down for grievances in their personal lives. And both positions deal with a lot of classified information and require a lot of keeping secrets.
there is a different standard for elected officials. clinton was stupid for his indiscretions and unquestionably compromised his ability to do his job. had he been an appointed CIA director instead of an elected president, would have resigned or been fired.
The standard for the President is lower than for the CIA director? Path for removal is certainly much harder, but standard of integrity?
Yeah, actually. The standard is what's in the constitution and whatever the public feels is important.
In being chosen (although Weber would have something to say about un-elected bureaucrats) but Petraeus wasn't fired, and we don't know if he would have been.
Very, very few high ranking people are ever fired when they screw up.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Also, again, the concern of a person willing to lie to their loved ones for personal gain.
Which is some goddamn bullshit given history, life and all that jazz. Cheating and lying for personal gain are not the same fucking thing. There have been too many great people who showed indiscretions in their sexual life for that to a real concern. Having an affair does not make you a sociopath.
Cheating and lying are, in fact, the same thing.
Nor did I say it makes them a sociopath.
Please try to be civil.
'Cheating' and 'lying for personal gain' aren't the same thing though. One can cheat on their spouse with tons of hot babes and still be a moral and upstanding person in other aspects of their life.
Generally I care very little about politicians screwing around and whatnot but this guy is head of the CIA. The possible security issues with an illicit affair are too risky for it to be acceptable.
Yeah, it's not even about whether or not she had clearance; it's that she had blackmail-grade leverage over him.
Well she doesn't any more, so why not give him his job back?
Because drunk driving isn't ok just because you made it home in one piece. There must be consequences for engaging in risky behavior irrespective of the outcome or there is no disincentive to not engage in risky behavior.
Except in this case the outcome determines whether or not something was risky behaviour. If the woman had tried to blackmail him and he had refused and just come clean to whomever, then there was never any risk in the first place. An affair does not tell you about someone's morality outside of the infidelity.
This is more like promising to be the designated driver, then drinking too much and then just calling a cab for everyone. Bit of a bother? Yes. Risky? No.
But that didn't happen. It was stopped before it could reach that level and now everything's in the open. It was still a risk to his career and his family that he stupidly took.
It's only a risk if he is the kind of person that you can blackmail. Which is a moral failing separate from having an affair. And it's a trait that would make him unfit for such a job anyway,
There is no way of knowing if he is that kind of person.
Fortunately the there are plenty of people willing to take over who show significantly better judgement than he does so we don't have to risk finding out.
Yes but if he was that kind of person and didn't have an affair he'd still be in his position.
I seriously doubt that there are plenty of people willing to take over who don't have anything in their lives they didn't want everyone to know. Given that we've proposed "any secret at all" as disqualifying you from taking the position.
Okay, show of hands, who here has cheated on a spouse (hell, let's go with SO) or done something similarly self destructive? The worst I can claim is procrastination or not noticing that the GF wanted me to throw her a pity party.
I haven't. I done some stupid shit in the romance/love thing, but never cheated. But it's not like I didn't cheat because I wanted to be trustworthy, or felt somehow more trustworthy when I declined the opportunity. It doesn't even affect my thinking about everything else.
I avoid certain actions all the time because I desire to be trusted.
Also, again, the concern of a person willing to lie to their loved ones for personal gain.
Which is some goddamn bullshit given history, life and all that jazz. Cheating and lying for personal gain are not the same fucking thing. There have been too many great people who showed indiscretions in their sexual life for that to a real concern. Having an affair does not make you a sociopath.
Cheating and lying are, in fact, the same thing.
Nor did I say it makes them a sociopath.
Please try to be civil.
'Cheating' and 'lying for personal gain' aren't the same thing though. One can cheat on their spouse with tons of hot babes and still be a moral and upstanding person in other aspects of their life.
Cheating means lying to your SO so you can have sex with someone else. The gain is the sex. Being a moral and upstanding person in other parts of your life does not change the fact that a person who does so has a fundamentally different view of how honesty should work. Specifically that it's okay to lie for their own gain.
Does it mean they necessarily will in other areas of their lives? Of course not.
But there is by no way any requirement on the government's part to wait and find out.
+1
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
i'm with quid. i've maintained a security clearance off and on through my adult life. maintaining a security clearance in earnest precludes some things that you might otherwise do. petraeus absolutely understood this.
i'm with quid. i've maintained a security clearance off and on through my adult life. maintaining a security clearance in earnest precludes some things that you might otherwise do. petraeus absolutely understood this.
He's not a dude who really thought rules applied to him, based on things I've read.
I'm also biased, as I loathe him.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Ok, well why was Clinton fit to serve as President from 1998-2000?
1. He definitely opened himself up to blackmail
2. Blew up his home life
3. Opened himself for intelligence gathering
4. Came dangerously close to committing a federal crime (he was still penalized for giving false testimony to a grand jury.)
He had more decision making power and quite a lot of access to classified information, and it likely happened with more than one woman. Commander in chief, etc.
I fail to see how "blowing up his home life" is relevant.
It shows that he's stupid.
Also applies.
Yes, Clinton was an idiot for cheating.
And was unfit to serve the final two years of his presidency?
No one is arguing that Patraeus isn't an idiot in his personal life. There's no disputing that. We're talking about whether being an idiot in your personal life makes you incompetent in your professional life. I don't think either should've stepped down for grievances in their personal lives. And both positions deal with a lot of classified information and require a lot of keeping secrets.
there is a different standard for elected officials. clinton was stupid for his indiscretions and unquestionably compromised his ability to do his job. had he been an appointed CIA director instead of an elected president, would have resigned or been fired.
The standard for the President is lower than for the CIA director? Path for removal is certainly much harder, but standard of integrity?
the standard is different for an elected official. the standard of integrity for an elected official is whatever is demanded by the public. the standard of integrity for an appointee - especially one as sensitive as CIA director - is pretty carefully defined and enforced. since hoover, the government has been very very careful about their agency heads.
Neither case involves enforcement. My point is the only thing we're talking about here is a moral standpoint, therefore Petraeus's decision should've been the same as Clinton's, and vice versa.
The underlying point is that I don't think most people feel Clinton's cheating precluded him doing his job well. You obviously think so, so at least you're being consistent about it. Other people aren't, so I'm trying to draw the logic out for them. We're not going to change eachothers' mind on how personal grievances play into professional life.
Just so we're clear: affairs are not uncommon in the CIA. Amongst the "old guard", it's probably a badge of honor to cheat. Yes, it's bad for clearances but by no means a career-killer, especially if the situation provides no clear threat to security beyond the very general issues any affair would cause.
Now, they probably wouldn't let you in the door if they suspected you were having an affair or led a lifestyle where affairs were expected or acceptable. But once you are in they would be more likely to assess your case on the facts.
Yes, the intelligence community and some Federal LEAs ideally prefer upstanding patriots, and when they hire they're looking to both of those qualities (for example, your typical Mormon does quite well in the process). However, if you have to have a failing in one if those areas, they take a much more severe outlook towards the latter.
Ok, well why was Clinton fit to serve as President from 1998-2000?
1. He definitely opened himself up to blackmail
2. Blew up his home life
3. Opened himself for intelligence gathering
4. Came dangerously close to committing a federal crime (he was still penalized for giving false testimony to a grand jury.)
He had more decision making power and quite a lot of access to classified information, and it likely happened with more than one woman. Commander in chief, etc.
I fail to see how "blowing up his home life" is relevant.
It shows that he's stupid.
Also applies.
Yes, Clinton was an idiot for cheating.
And was unfit to serve the final two years of his presidency?
No one is arguing that Patraeus isn't an idiot in his personal life. There's no disputing that. We're talking about whether being an idiot in your personal life makes you incompetent in your professional life. I don't think either should've stepped down for grievances in their personal lives. And both positions deal with a lot of classified information and require a lot of keeping secrets.
there is a different standard for elected officials. clinton was stupid for his indiscretions and unquestionably compromised his ability to do his job. had he been an appointed CIA director instead of an elected president, would have resigned or been fired.
The standard for the President is lower than for the CIA director? Path for removal is certainly much harder, but standard of integrity?
the standard is different for an elected official. the standard of integrity for an elected official is whatever is demanded by the public. the standard of integrity for an appointee - especially one as sensitive as CIA director - is pretty carefully defined and enforced. since hoover, the government has been very very careful about their agency heads.
Neither case involves enforcement. My point is the only thing we're talking about here is a moral standpoint, therefore Petraeus's decision should've been the same as Clinton's, and vice versa.
The underlying point is that I don't think most people feel Clinton's cheating precluded him doing his job well. You obviously think so, so at least you're being consistent about it. Other people aren't, so I'm trying to draw the logic out for them. We're not going to change eachothers' mind on how personal grievances play into professional life.
I honestly don't think that cheating necessarily means a person can't hold a clearance. However, for the sake of security I don't have a problem with it being a standard requirement not to with people not selected by popular opinion.
Generally I care very little about politicians screwing around and whatnot but this guy is head of the CIA. The possible security issues with an illicit affair are too risky for it to be acceptable.
Yeah, it's not even about whether or not she had clearance; it's that she had blackmail-grade leverage over him.
Well she doesn't any more, so why not give him his job back?
Because drunk driving isn't ok just because you made it home in one piece. There must be consequences for engaging in risky behavior irrespective of the outcome or there is no disincentive to not engage in risky behavior.
Except in this case the outcome determines whether or not something was risky behaviour. If the woman had tried to blackmail him and he had refused and just come clean to whomever, then there was never any risk in the first place. An affair does not tell you about someone's morality outside of the infidelity.
This is more like promising to be the designated driver, then drinking too much and then just calling a cab for everyone. Bit of a bother? Yes. Risky? No.
If you drive drunk and don't hit anything or anyone then clearly it wasn't risky. I mean, there wasn't an accident how could anyone say that it was risky! The probability of an accident was zero because it didn't happen!
It's really a perfect analogy. There are people who can drive perfectly well with a .08 blood alcohol percentage. But that's immaterial to the standard we set.
I feel like the security-focused discussion so far leaves out Holly Petraeus. It's not an anonymous one-night stand you had in college that your girlfriend never found out about. It's a small community, and a lot of mostly female spouses went back to their long term spouses and said: "Hey, remember when we had dinner with the Petraeii and how nice Holly was? Remember all those times you were gone for 12 months and I took care of the kids and repaired the house and paid the bills and answered the phone and didn't cheat on you and generally kept the faith because that's what we do in the [insert service]? Now BURN HIM."
Separated from his wife.
Actually pursued an open relationship.
The second one is still kind of dicey but hardly unheard of and I personally would have no problem with it.
Yeah the rule of thumb for security clearances is never do something illegal, and never do something privately that you wouldn't be willing to do publicly. It is impossible to blackmail someone for infidelity if he goes around introducing his mistress as "the other woman."
On the other hand, if that same person goes to lengths to try and obfuscate his involvement, he is a security risk, and you have to burn him.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Also, again, the concern of a person willing to lie to their loved ones for personal gain.
Which is some goddamn bullshit given history, life and all that jazz. Cheating and lying for personal gain are not the same fucking thing. There have been too many great people who showed indiscretions in their sexual life for that to a real concern. Having an affair does not make you a sociopath.
Cheating and lying are, in fact, the same thing.
Nor did I say it makes them a sociopath.
Please try to be civil.
'Cheating' and 'lying for personal gain' aren't the same thing though. One can cheat on their spouse with tons of hot babes and still be a moral and upstanding person in other aspects of their life.
Cheating means lying to your SO so you can have sex with someone else. The gain is the sex. Being a moral and upstanding person in other parts of your life does not change the fact that a person who does so has a fundamentally different view of how honesty should work. Specifically that it's okay to lie for their own gain.
Does it mean they necessarily will in other areas of their lives? Of course not.
But there is by no way any requirement on the government's part to wait and find out.
I think this is a flawed way of viewing why people cheat. If Petraeus just wanted to have sex with someone else he wouldn't have bothered with forming a relationship. And even if he was doing it only for the sex (like Clinton) not all lies are equal. If he had lied to his wife about working late while he was actually in the bar with his buddies he would have lied for personal gain yet it seems absurd to suggest that such a thing reflects negatively on him enough that he can't hold a job such as this.
Did you really compare lying to your wife to hang out with your friends with lying to your wife so you can bang another woman?
It's both lying for personal gain, right?
And we should never trust anyone willing to lie for personal gain like that. Because who knows what else they might lie for. They'd probably sell all our secrets for a thousand dollars.
Or we could go the crazy route and suggest that lying for the purposes of cheating and lying for the purposes of going out with your buddies are not alike in any way. And neither is selling out state secrets. It's not lying about personal gain, but about something far more complicated and human.
First off: rock on, dueling Mal Reynoldses. If only Firefly had stayed on the air long enough that we got to watch a two-Mal episode in earnest.
Second off: you, personally, are absolutely free to sift through all the nuances and complications and human frailties with your fingers, Julius. Our news media is making that disgustingly easy for you to do, so you should have no shortage of detail. As far as the United States Government's interests go, however, the relationship between a public servant who works in national security and the government he serves is not a complicated matter, primarily because the morality of why a specific individual cheats is terribly inconsequential. The morality of any specific act isn't in question; rather, the question is whether an individual is or is not a security risk. And if a public servant working in national security makes an active effort to obfuscate details of his personal life from his family, friends, colleagues and employers, the public servant is demonstrating that he has a personal vulnerability which can potentially be exploited as well as a predisposition not to address any future vulnerabilities with his employers before they could potentially become problematic. For the purposes of safeguarding the operational integrity of the organization, the individual must be separated from it in these cases.
Did you really compare lying to your wife to hang out with your friends with lying to your wife so you can bang another woman?
It's both lying for personal gain, right?
And we should never trust anyone willing to lie for personal gain like that. Because who knows what else they might lie for. They'd probably sell all our secrets for a thousand dollars.
Or we could go the crazy route and suggest that lying for the purposes of cheating and lying for the purposes of going out with your buddies are not alike in any way. And neither is selling out state secrets. It's not lying about personal gain, but about something far more complicated and human.
They're not the same. Cheating can be blackmail material, all revealing to his wife that he'd been partying with friends would put him in the doghouse for a bit.
So when can we admit that Patraeus's amazing surge idea was a collosal failure in afganistan and cost american lives for zero gain? I mean I know he stuck his dick into some strange, but how long can we admit he wasn't that good of a general to begin with?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So when can we admit that Patraeus's amazing surge idea was a collosal failure in afganistan and cost american lives for zero gain? I mean I know he stuck his dick into some strange, but how long can we admit he wasn't that good of a general to begin with?
Has The Village ever admitted it was wrong or taken responsibility for its failures?
Obama might. Probably won't, but he might. That's about the best you can hope for.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Did you really compare lying to your wife to hang out with your friends with lying to your wife so you can bang another woman?
It's both lying for personal gain, right?
And we should never trust anyone willing to lie for personal gain like that. Because who knows what else they might lie for. They'd probably sell all our secrets for a thousand dollars.
Or we could go the crazy route and suggest that lying for the purposes of cheating and lying for the purposes of going out with your buddies are not alike in any way. And neither is selling out state secrets. It's not lying about personal gain, but about something far more complicated and human.
They're not the same. Cheating can be blackmail material, all revealing to his wife that he'd been partying with friends would put him in the doghouse for a bit.
So could the revelation that he'd been cheating. I know that I would never let myself be blackmailed over some bullshit affair. If the guy compromised his job to protect his personal life then he's unfit anyway, but what you're doing is acting like he would and then draw conclusions from it.
They are. They are also significantly different in their degree. Believe it or not the government is actually capable of non binary policies
Having an affair and selling out secrets are also different in their degree. It is goddamn bullshit that you get to lump in "cheating" and "compromising national security" and that I don't get to lump in "cheating" with "lying to your SO for any reason".
Yes, but that is besides the point. Secretly hanging out with his guy friends is not enough to get him blackmailed (unless they were doing something illegal or ethically compromising to his job or family). Being in the doghouse is preferable to that and being blackmailed by a third party and losing his job once it got leaked and losing credibility in military/spy circles and fucking over his potential president run*.
* for a few years at least
I know that I would never let myself be blackmailed over some bullshit affair. If the guy compromised his job to protect his personal life then he's unfit anyway, but what you're doing is acting like he would and then draw conclusions from it.
I'm forming opinions on what we know. He didn't need to do anything else to be compromised. Blackmailers could have had all they needed to force him into giving them secrets or sabotage the agency from within.
Having an affair and selling out secrets are also different in their degree. It is goddamn bullshit that you get to lump in "cheating" and "compromising national security" and that I don't get to lump in "cheating" with "lying to your SO for any reason".
Not really, no. Two of those involve a major betrayal of trust, behavior the government does not desire nor is required to accept. Lying is not a black or white matter. That you keep wanting it to be so doesn't make it the case. That you think lying to your SO hang out with your buddies and lying to your SO to have unprotected sex with a plethora of hookers should count the same is not a reasonable view by any means.
I get to be really smug about being 100% right about that asshole, right?
Not entirely, no. He gave friends access to top secret files through an entirely legal method, specifically getting them the necessary clearance:
They were given desks in the office of the Strategic Initiatives Group, the commander’s in-house think-tank, which typically is staffed with military officers and civilian government employees. The general’s staff helped upgrade their security clearances from “Secret” to “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, the highest-level of US government classification.
The article seems more concerned with the fact that they then may have misused that information for their own benefit, which looks shitty on him for choosing two shitty people as advisers but doesn't implicate him on anything extra unless
1. They were misusing the info
2. He knew about it
Posts
In being chosen (although Weber would have something to say about un-elected bureaucrats) but Petraeus wasn't fired, and we don't know if he would have been.
the standard is different for an elected official. the standard of integrity for an elected official is whatever is demanded by the public. the standard of integrity for an appointee - especially one as sensitive as CIA director - is pretty carefully defined and enforced. since hoover, the government has been very very careful about their agency heads.
I haven't. I done some stupid shit in the romance/love thing, but never cheated. But it's not like I didn't cheat because I wanted to be trustworthy, or felt somehow more trustworthy when I declined the opportunity. It doesn't even affect my thinking about everything else.
Very, very few high ranking people are ever fired when they screw up.
'Cheating' and 'lying for personal gain' aren't the same thing though. One can cheat on their spouse with tons of hot babes and still be a moral and upstanding person in other aspects of their life.
I avoid certain actions all the time because I desire to be trusted.
Cause my job requires it.
And that's okay.
Cheating means lying to your SO so you can have sex with someone else. The gain is the sex. Being a moral and upstanding person in other parts of your life does not change the fact that a person who does so has a fundamentally different view of how honesty should work. Specifically that it's okay to lie for their own gain.
Does it mean they necessarily will in other areas of their lives? Of course not.
But there is by no way any requirement on the government's part to wait and find out.
He's not a dude who really thought rules applied to him, based on things I've read.
I'm also biased, as I loathe him.
Separated from his wife.
Actually pursued an open relationship.
The second one is still kind of dicey but hardly unheard of and I personally would have no problem with it.
Neither case involves enforcement. My point is the only thing we're talking about here is a moral standpoint, therefore Petraeus's decision should've been the same as Clinton's, and vice versa.
The underlying point is that I don't think most people feel Clinton's cheating precluded him doing his job well. You obviously think so, so at least you're being consistent about it. Other people aren't, so I'm trying to draw the logic out for them. We're not going to change eachothers' mind on how personal grievances play into professional life.
Now, they probably wouldn't let you in the door if they suspected you were having an affair or led a lifestyle where affairs were expected or acceptable. But once you are in they would be more likely to assess your case on the facts.
Yes, the intelligence community and some Federal LEAs ideally prefer upstanding patriots, and when they hire they're looking to both of those qualities (for example, your typical Mormon does quite well in the process). However, if you have to have a failing in one if those areas, they take a much more severe outlook towards the latter.
If you drive drunk and don't hit anything or anyone then clearly it wasn't risky. I mean, there wasn't an accident how could anyone say that it was risky! The probability of an accident was zero because it didn't happen!
Yeah the rule of thumb for security clearances is never do something illegal, and never do something privately that you wouldn't be willing to do publicly. It is impossible to blackmail someone for infidelity if he goes around introducing his mistress as "the other woman."
On the other hand, if that same person goes to lengths to try and obfuscate his involvement, he is a security risk, and you have to burn him.
I think this is a flawed way of viewing why people cheat. If Petraeus just wanted to have sex with someone else he wouldn't have bothered with forming a relationship. And even if he was doing it only for the sex (like Clinton) not all lies are equal. If he had lied to his wife about working late while he was actually in the bar with his buddies he would have lied for personal gain yet it seems absurd to suggest that such a thing reflects negatively on him enough that he can't hold a job such as this.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And we should never trust anyone willing to lie for personal gain like that. Because who knows what else they might lie for. They'd probably sell all our secrets for a thousand dollars.
Or we could go the crazy route and suggest that lying for the purposes of cheating and lying for the purposes of going out with your buddies are not alike in any way. And neither is selling out state secrets. It's not lying about personal gain, but about something far more complicated and human.
Second off: you, personally, are absolutely free to sift through all the nuances and complications and human frailties with your fingers, Julius. Our news media is making that disgustingly easy for you to do, so you should have no shortage of detail. As far as the United States Government's interests go, however, the relationship between a public servant who works in national security and the government he serves is not a complicated matter, primarily because the morality of why a specific individual cheats is terribly inconsequential. The morality of any specific act isn't in question; rather, the question is whether an individual is or is not a security risk. And if a public servant working in national security makes an active effort to obfuscate details of his personal life from his family, friends, colleagues and employers, the public servant is demonstrating that he has a personal vulnerability which can potentially be exploited as well as a predisposition not to address any future vulnerabilities with his employers before they could potentially become problematic. For the purposes of safeguarding the operational integrity of the organization, the individual must be separated from it in these cases.
They are. They are also significantly different in their degree. Believe it or not the government is actually capable of non binary policies
They're not the same. Cheating can be blackmail material, all revealing to his wife that he'd been partying with friends would put him in the doghouse for a bit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Has The Village ever admitted it was wrong or taken responsibility for its failures?
Obama might. Probably won't, but he might. That's about the best you can hope for.
So could the revelation that he'd been cheating. I know that I would never let myself be blackmailed over some bullshit affair. If the guy compromised his job to protect his personal life then he's unfit anyway, but what you're doing is acting like he would and then draw conclusions from it.
Having an affair and selling out secrets are also different in their degree. It is goddamn bullshit that you get to lump in "cheating" and "compromising national security" and that I don't get to lump in "cheating" with "lying to your SO for any reason".
Yes, but that is besides the point. Secretly hanging out with his guy friends is not enough to get him blackmailed (unless they were doing something illegal or ethically compromising to his job or family). Being in the doghouse is preferable to that and being blackmailed by a third party and losing his job once it got leaked and losing credibility in military/spy circles and fucking over his potential president run*.
* for a few years at least
I'm forming opinions on what we know. He didn't need to do anything else to be compromised. Blackmailers could have had all they needed to force him into giving them secrets or sabotage the agency from within.
Not really, no. Two of those involve a major betrayal of trust, behavior the government does not desire nor is required to accept. Lying is not a black or white matter. That you keep wanting it to be so doesn't make it the case. That you think lying to your SO hang out with your buddies and lying to your SO to have unprotected sex with a plethora of hookers should count the same is not a reasonable view by any means.
Not entirely, no. He gave friends access to top secret files through an entirely legal method, specifically getting them the necessary clearance:
The article seems more concerned with the fact that they then may have misused that information for their own benefit, which looks shitty on him for choosing two shitty people as advisers but doesn't implicate him on anything extra unless
1. They were misusing the info
2. He knew about it
Then we will operate drones in the shade.
/kicks a demon down a well
Replace him with someone competent?