He had an affair and then stepped down, apparently because of said affair. It seems the woman he had an affair with, his biographer, may have had access to his email. That’s definitely a major mistake on his part but I’ve never heard of someone stepping down for such a reason and in any case, what I keep hearing is that he stepped down because of the affair, not the breach of security measures.
I can see why an elected politician would step down after an affair if the voters very much dislike that. I can see why a staff member in a very religious organization (lobby, church, university etc) would step down after an affair.
But why would a high ranking civil servant have to step down because of an affair? What’s the rationale behind it? Do all high ranking civil servants in the US have to only have sex within marriage on pain of losing their post?
Obama just won his second term so it’s not like he has to be afraid of being painted as anti-marriage.
Could this just be a pretext for him getting out or getting fired?
IIRC, blackmail has always been a reason to relieve any officer who handles sensitive intelligence. If you have (or may develop) some embarrassing personal secret or compulsion, then you might be willing to trade a national secret or two to keep it quiet.
Yes but once it becomes known, it is not longer a secret and you cannot be blackmailed over it. I never understood why out-of-the-closet gays were always (and probably still are) considered security risks.
Interestingly, there is an idea that the husband wrote to the NY Times Ethicist, and unless its made up, it looks pretty on the mark.
I’m a huge fan of Chuck Klosterman, the current Ethicist, but I can’t find his response right now. It would be great if he gave good advice and is celebrated, if only because I think he should be world famous.
He ends his advice by saying: “I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either.”
Then why print the question at all? Just don’t respond to it.
One reason might be because the attention paid to the scandal would distract him from his job. I suspect that, when it comes to organizations like the CIA, any publicity is bad publicity. And the part about letting her see his e-mail, if true, is a lot more major than adultery.
I wonder why he didn’t wait until after he was done with his gig with the CIA before letting anyone write his biography. I would like my spy agencies headed by people who don’t say nothing to nobody who doesn’t need to know. I know Petraeus was a major public servant, with a huge amount to be proud of, but let’s not hear about it until after he is done dealing with secrets.
The project started while Petraeus was still stationed in Afghanistan. Presumably he didn’t know he’d be offered the CIA directorship at the time.
(also, while I don’t there has been much actual evidence that he wanted a career in politics, if he did it would probably help to have a biography already on the shelves writen by an …err… sympathetic author.)
Because what’s come to light is not merely the fact that you’ve concealed something; it’s that you’re the sort of chap who conceals things. What else might you be hiding?
I think in the days when the policy first emerged, ‘out-of-the-closet’ gays applying to intelligence jobs were probably rare to nonexistent. If that policy hasn’t changed already, someone ought to be taking a very critical look at it. But still: you say you’re out-of-the-closet. Do we know you’ve told every single last person in the world? Even your shut-in, rich, elderly, generous uncle who it would just give him a stroke and cause you to be cut from his will if he knew? I’m not excusing it, just playing a bit of devil’s advocate. Gambling is also perfectly legal and socially acceptable, yet I understand they exclude you from service if you seem a bit too fond of it (likely to incur gambling debt).
My husband said something I thought was a good point. The director of the CIA couldn’t keep his secret affair a secret. How good can he possibly be at his job?
