Unless I missed it, he never apologized for cheating on his wife, but for having an affair. The two are mutually exclusive. No one knows what may be kosher in another couple's marriage.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Et Tu, Petraeus?
- Thread starter STOVLer
- Start date
A few completely separate issues here.
One, it was a bad call for someone in his position because of the security implications. That's the pragmatic reason, and really the only reason he should be gone.
Two, as Fumes said, if he was gettin' some in theater with this woman, he was violating CENTCOM G.O. #1. Quite a bit hypocritical, admittedly. I know of Marines who've gotten NJP'd for exactly that.
Three, the adultery/morality question. No one knows what was in his heart, in his marriage, or in his soul. As Tolstoy said,"All happy families are alike. All unhappy families are unhappy in their own way." It's really easy to throw stones at some guy, but you have no idea what he was dealing with. Everyone's a fucking sinner. Yours might not be adultery, but everyone's got their cross to bear, uh, so to speak.
Big time players have big time egos and big time problems. All this stuff does not diminish the fact that he was one of the few generals of recent times that's been actually successful and he deserves accolades for it. At the same time, this event shows poor judgment, and there's no way he could continue, especially at CIA, where personal secret affairs like this aren't tolerated.
One, it was a bad call for someone in his position because of the security implications. That's the pragmatic reason, and really the only reason he should be gone.
Two, as Fumes said, if he was gettin' some in theater with this woman, he was violating CENTCOM G.O. #1. Quite a bit hypocritical, admittedly. I know of Marines who've gotten NJP'd for exactly that.
Three, the adultery/morality question. No one knows what was in his heart, in his marriage, or in his soul. As Tolstoy said,"All happy families are alike. All unhappy families are unhappy in their own way." It's really easy to throw stones at some guy, but you have no idea what he was dealing with. Everyone's a fucking sinner. Yours might not be adultery, but everyone's got their cross to bear, uh, so to speak.
Big time players have big time egos and big time problems. All this stuff does not diminish the fact that he was one of the few generals of recent times that's been actually successful and he deserves accolades for it. At the same time, this event shows poor judgment, and there's no way he could continue, especially at CIA, where personal secret affairs like this aren't tolerated.
Lighten up, francis.
... but we already knew that.
Obviously, but I suspect for a different reason. My calculus is the election result clarified his options. I doubt breaking the story before the election would have had any impact on the election, but it did offer the General with different options.
While smallelr minds dwell on the sexual aspect, sex sells, this is high political drama. More to the point in my mind is another round of testimony before congress. The two key players, Secretary of State and DCI. One responsible for security of the Consulate and the other responsible to provide intelligence. Two of the those killed in the attack were DOS personnel, two were CIA personnel, albeit the CIA folks were deep cover posing as DOS personnel.
Those two personalities have met before, under different circumstance, in the ring of Congressional Hearings. Senator Hillary once said to General Petraeus "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief. And she slammed him and Ambassador Crocker as "de facto spokesmen for a failed policy," pointedly refusing to criticize the Move On ad - which called Petraeus a liar who would "betray" his country. Defacto agreement with Move On.
Fast forward to Benghazi and we find that under oath General Petraeus followed the party line and said one thing and Secretary Hillary blamed her response on what General Petraeus had told her.
Quiting your job does not immunize you from appearing at Congressional hearings.
Point being that there is more here than meets the eye.