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.
Allen Dulles, the guy who more or less created the CIA as we know it today, had literally hundreds of affairs. He had sex with everyone from people working for the Agency to people in the Greek royal family. He makes James Bond look like a chaste monk.
I'm just saying.
That said, a GMail account, seriously? If he'd handled the affair with half the security one uses to handle a special access program he'd still be in office.
It's by no means a guarantee that a person is unfit for access but the government has plenty of room to be picky in this area.
Also standards of decades past vs now etc.
The modern news media's fascination with sex scandals is literally the only reason why this became a career-ending issue.
Like that article posted earlier said, if we start down the road of purging everyone who has an affair, you lose Clinton, Kennedy, and Roosevelt but get to keep Nixon and Coolidge. It's not that "an affair doesn't necessarily mean that the person is unfit" but rather that it doesn't even really imply it.
I think there's some of the converse as well. That it was a career-ending issue, increases the news media's fascination. If it had just come out that he had an affair, but that he kept his job, and everything else was just going along as normal, it wouldn't be as big of a story.
Resigning as a result of a scandal, seems to make the scandal larger, and more well-known, than it would have been otherwise.
The news media is swarming over this scandal because its the first muscle flexing they've done in a long while. The media is hopped up on the realization that, even in its diminished state, it can still bring down a big one. Doesn't hurt that it keeps drawing red meat.
The good general was being set up to run for the presidency and seemed to have taken to the idea, so this scandal was always coming sometime. Might as well not have to deal with it in an election year.
Phillishere on
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.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered 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.
Harry Dresden on
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,
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.
He also opened himself up to someone rifling through his files while he was in a sex coma or simply leading him on pillow talk (which it looks like she may have done for her book), so he
1) Showed the poor judgement of opening himself up for blackmail
2) Showed the poor judgement of opening himself up for intelligence gathering
3) Showed the poor judgement of blowing up his home life
4) most likely showed the poor judgement of committing a federal crime (adultery while in the armed forces).
Two of those (intelligence gathering and homelife) would still be the case if he were single and simply dating her, so I don't think you can use them. Are you going to tear down President Shephard, too?
Two of those (intelligence gathering and homelife) would still be the case if he were single and simply dating her, so I don't think you can use them. Are you going to tear down President Shephard, too?
Daughter from previous marriage meets dad's new girlfriend.
Not the same, but I really don't think you can use "made a bad decision for his family" or "vulnerable during pillow talk" as real evidence for poor character. Vulnerable to blackmail and committing a federal crime, yes.
Personally, I think alcohol abuse is a greater liability for an information leak than a sex coma, but if you want to remove everyone who abuses alcohol, then you've just eliminated the foreign service and half the intelligence community.
Jibba on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I fail to see how "blowing up his home life" is relevant.
Daughter from previous marriage meets dad's new girlfriend.
Not the same, but I really don't think you can use "made a bad decision for his family" or "vulnerable during pillow talk" as real evidence for poor character. Vulnerable to blackmail and committing a federal crime, yes.
Personally, I think alcohol abuse is a greater liability for an information leak than a sex coma, but if you want to remove everyone who abuses alcohol, then you've just eliminated the foreign service and half the intelligence community.
No, it isn't in the same ballpark. One can be made into a romantic comedy, the other can be used for blackmail. It's also worse since Patraeus was not only a general in the armed forces, he was the director of the CIA.
Daughter from previous marriage meets dad's new girlfriend.
Not the same, but I really don't think you can use "made a bad decision for his family" or "vulnerable during pillow talk" as real evidence for poor character. Vulnerable to blackmail and committing a federal crime, yes.
Personally, I think alcohol abuse is a greater liability for an information leak than a sex coma, but if you want to remove everyone who abuses alcohol, then you've just eliminated the foreign service and half the intelligence community.
No, it isn't in the same ballpark. One can be made into a romantic comedy, the other can be used for blackmail. It's also worse since Patraeus was not only a general in the armed forces, he was the director of the CIA.
Ok, so do you believe those four points show Patraeus is unfit for duty? Lost all credibility or incompetent?
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?
Not in the interest of the CIA to employ liars.
Counter intuitive to the job field I know but personal honesty and integrity are vital parts of working in it.
Wait I thought he came out and admitted it immediately? Did I miss something.
After being caught, right?
That's not really a hallmark of honesty.
Why would you expect anyone to admit it before there is any reason to? Surely someone who sends an e-mail around the day after the affair begins is far less suitable for the job?
I wouldn't expect a liar to admit to anything. The problem isn't the sex with someone, it's that he lied to do it.
Daughter from previous marriage meets dad's new girlfriend.
Not the same, but I really don't think you can use "made a bad decision for his family" or "vulnerable during pillow talk" as real evidence for poor character. Vulnerable to blackmail and committing a federal crime, yes.
Personally, I think alcohol abuse is a greater liability for an information leak than a sex coma, but if you want to remove everyone who abuses alcohol, then you've just eliminated the foreign service and half the intelligence community.
No, it isn't in the same ballpark. One can be made into a romantic comedy, the other can be used for blackmail. It's also worse since Patraeus was not only a general in the armed forces, he was the director of the CIA.
Ok, so do you believe those four points show Patraeus is unfit for duty?
He compromised himself badly. He was lucky she wasn't a spy or did blackmail him. As others have discussed in the thread the spy community and military loathe cheaters (it's a crime with the latter), showing he isn't competent enough in his job to keep from compromising himself when given massive responsibilities.
I fail to see how "blowing up his home life" is relevant.
It shows that he's stupid.
I don't think you can characterize engaging in an affair as stupid within the context of competence in a job. It was stupid for the purposes of keeping a stable home life, yes, but we can't blame people for being people. Surely you don't suggest that if his purpose was to destroy his home life that this shows an increase in competence for his job?
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.
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.
I fail to see how "blowing up his home life" is relevant.
It shows that he's stupid.
I don't think you can characterize engaging in an affair as stupid within the context of competence in a job. It was stupid for the purposes of keeping a stable home life, yes, but we can't blame people for being people. Surely you don't suggest that if his purpose was to destroy his home life that this shows an increase in competence for his job?
It would definitely show an increase in his insanity. High points for effectiveness, though.
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.
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.
And as far as I'm concerned if the public chooses to elect a repeatedly failed businessman who wrecks the economy and shows incompetence at every turn, well, that's not up to them. But I have no problem letting the rest of the government organizations hold a higher standard than what the constitution dictates for president.
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.
If, due to your professional life, you're expected to be trust worthy and a high target for blackmail, sure.
It'snot like there's a dearth of candidates to pick from to replace him with. It was an unnecessary risk that brings in to question whether or not he should be eligible to hold a clearance and the organization he works in actually has the power to do something about it.
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.
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.
Beyond that, he had a preexisting reputation that neutralized the blackmail and familial risk and kept his affairs short (the only confirmed example was a single case of midday head, correct?), thereby lessening the intelligence vulnerabilities.
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.
EDIT!!: also, what evidence do you have for those plenty of people not having affairs? Isn't it more dangerous to risk putting a new person who might have an affair in charge than putting the person who you already know had an affair and can thus not be blackmailed about such an eventuality in charge?
Hell, a new recruit to the military with no training beyond boot camp runs the risk of getting kicked out nowadays for cheating on their spouse. It's bad business that can cost the government more money in the long run.
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.
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?
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.
It's not any secret at all. It's any secret that can be reasonably expected to be used for black mail.
Also, again, the concern of a person willing to lie to their loved ones for personal gain.
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.
Beyond that, he had a preexisting reputation that neutralized the blackmail and familial risk and kept his affairs short (the only confirmed example was a single case of midday head, correct?), thereby lessening the intelligence vulnerabilities.
This is a lot of gymnastics to clear him from your ethical view. If you're going with it, at least stick with it for both situations like Irond Will. Don't try to unevenly minimize the potential damage Clinton could've done.
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.
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.
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.
Posts
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.
Resigning as a result of a scandal, seems to make the scandal larger, and more well-known, than it would have been otherwise.
The good general was being set up to run for the presidency and seemed to have taken to the idea, so this scandal was always coming sometime. Might as well not have to deal with it in an election year.
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,
He also opened himself up to someone rifling through his files while he was in a sex coma or simply leading him on pillow talk (which it looks like she may have done for her book), so he
1) Showed the poor judgement of opening himself up for blackmail
2) Showed the poor judgement of opening himself up for intelligence gathering
3) Showed the poor judgement of blowing up his home life
4) most likely showed the poor judgement of committing a federal crime (adultery while in the armed forces).
This isn't promising for his competence.
Not the same, but I really don't think you can use "made a bad decision for his family" or "vulnerable during pillow talk" as real evidence for poor character. Vulnerable to blackmail and committing a federal crime, yes.
Personally, I think alcohol abuse is a greater liability for an information leak than a sex coma, but if you want to remove everyone who abuses alcohol, then you've just eliminated the foreign service and half the intelligence community.
It shows that he's stupid.
1) a great man brought low
2) because of a young, beautiful lady
3) who was fucking bonkers
Also, no hard math or policy to understand.
No, it isn't in the same ballpark. One can be made into a romantic comedy, the other can be used for blackmail. It's also worse since Patraeus was not only a general in the armed forces, he was the director of the CIA.
I wouldn't expect a liar to admit to anything. The problem isn't the sex with someone, it's that he lied to do it.
He compromised himself badly. He was lucky she wasn't a spy or did blackmail him. As others have discussed in the thread the spy community and military loathe cheaters (it's a crime with the latter), showing he isn't competent enough in his job to keep from compromising himself when given massive responsibilities.
It doesn't need to be especially strong. The various agencies can afford to be much pickier over who they have working for them.
@Daedalus Elected office is also a different beast than most government jobs.
1) important person
2) involved in something stupid
3) that just keeps growing in new and bizarre ways.
I don't think you can characterize engaging in an affair as stupid within the context of competence in a job. It was stupid for the purposes of keeping a stable home life, yes, but we can't blame people for being people. Surely you don't suggest that if his purpose was to destroy his home life that this shows an increase in competence for his job?
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. Also applies.
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.
It would definitely show an increase in his insanity. High points for effectiveness, though.
Yes, Clinton was an idiot for cheating.
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.
If, due to your professional life, you're expected to be trust worthy and a high target for blackmail, sure.
It'snot like there's a dearth of candidates to pick from to replace him with. It was an unnecessary risk that brings in to question whether or not he should be eligible to hold a clearance and the organization he works in actually has the power to do something about it.
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.
Beyond that, he had a preexisting reputation that neutralized the blackmail and familial risk and kept his affairs short (the only confirmed example was a single case of midday head, correct?), thereby lessening the intelligence vulnerabilities.
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.
EDIT!!: also, what evidence do you have for those plenty of people not having affairs? Isn't it more dangerous to risk putting a new person who might have an affair in charge than putting the person who you already know had an affair and can thus not be blackmailed about such an eventuality in charge?
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.
The standard for the President is lower than for the CIA director? Path for removal is certainly much harder, but standard of integrity?
It's not any secret at all. It's any secret that can be reasonably expected to be used for black mail.
Also, again, the concern of a person willing to lie to their loved ones for personal gain.
This is a lot of gymnastics to clear him from your ethical view. If you're going with it, at least stick with it for both situations like Irond Will. Don't try to unevenly minimize the potential damage Clinton could've done.
Yeah, actually. The standard is what's in the constitution and whatever the public feels is important.
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.