Some people I greatly respect are quite upset at General Petraeus for having sex with a woman other than his wife. I just left the following comment for someone who sees cheating on a spouse as indicating a general lack of trustworthiness:
What he did was wrong. No argument there. I don’t see why personal sexual infidelity to a spouse should translate over into whether someone is worthy of general public trust, though. After all, we are not marrying the man, and most of us will never have sex with him.
As we all know, there are some people who cannot keep their fly zipped. That might be unfortunate for them and their spouses, but does it rise to the level of public dishonesty? I don’t think so.
I’m more concerned with the timing of the allegations than the allegations themselves, and in that respect I agree with what Ralph Peters said:
The timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration. Just as the administration claimed it was purely coincidence that our Benghazi consulate was attacked on the anniversary of September 11th. Now it’s purely coincidence that this affair — extra-marital affair — surfaces right after the election, not before, but right after, but before the intelligence chiefs go to Capitol Hill to get grilled. As an old intelligence analyst, Neil, the way I read this — I could be totally wrong, this is my interpretation — is that the administration was unhappy with Petraeus not playing ball 100% on their party-line story. I think it’s getting cold feet about testifying under oath on their party-line story. And I suspect that these tough Chicago guys knew about this affair for a while, held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card.
I don’t like conspiracy theories, I may be totally wrong, but the timing of this, again, right after the election and right before Petraeus is supposed to get grilled on Capitol Hill, it’s really smells.
It does not pass my smell test either. But the sexual nature of Petraeus’s misdeeds guarantees he will have few defenders on the right.
There’s a lot of talk about sexual immorality, but I don’t think cheating on spouses is anything new. I think there was just as much cheating on spouses during the era in which I grew up. The difference was that men got away with it then, and they don’t get away with it now.
Especially if they are inconvenient for the left.
Comments
15 responses to “So we cannot trust Petraeus not to keep his fly zipped… And therefore?”
I’ve been wondering why the resignation changes anything and prevents his testifying. Perhaps, as a former employee of the CIA, Petreaus is under restrictions on what he may and may not discuss. Pushing him out, after the election to avoid inconvenient questions at a bad time, might have effectively taken some topics off the table even if he does go to Congress.
Dunno – but I will note there are calls to subpoena whether he’s gone or not. And I think they will work.
And if they don’t – well. We have plenty of cases in the private sector that say… “erm. excuse me? Quitting does not get you out of testifying”
I don’t know about public sector – not my field- but I suspect the same could be successfully argued.
The real Right abandoned him months ago. Petraeus was one of those who stood against Rev. Terry Jones.
Umm- and, no – I don’t think zipped pants/or not had anything to do with it. AND I don’t think that sort of thing is the press’s or our business. We SERIOUSLY need to re-institute privacy in this country. NO ONE dare’s run anymore unless they are are totally chaste and celibate – and then they can’t get elected because they are.
Private/Public. There’s a diffrence. Press USED to respect it (just how much did we hear about Marilyn Monroe and JFK back when?)
As far as sex scandals in general…IMO, we’d be in a lot better shape today if the MSM hadn’t doubled down on (yeah, I know he’s a Democraaaaaaaaaaaat-eek) Clinton.
He was doing a LOT of the right things But the MSM-led “SEX SCANDAL” seriously hindered him.
I’d say it was his initial BS testimony to Congress – where he clung to the Obama party line that it was caused by a video – that cost him any support among conservatives. Why fight for someone who is clearly not on your side to begin with?
It is inescapably obvious that his infidelity cost him his job. Which only confirms that such behavior – in a sensitive position such as his – is inherently wrong. If only because it means he is, or can be compromised with threats of exposure, thus not being safe or effective in that role.
Don’t get hung up on the moralistic concerns. A philanderer cannot do that job any more than a Parkinson’s patient can be a tightrope walker.
Had reality been different, and he been able to stay on in the face of the revelations, the acts lose their compromising nature, and therefore become less problematic if not outright irrelevant/acceptable.
Mores, norms, and nature, having their own way of operating regardless of our desires to the contrary.
Thomas,
Yes mores, and norms, have a way of operating. And the way the Rs do it they lose elections. Because no one wants the scrutiny of the sin police backed by government guns.
A wise man is reputed to have said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Nice to know the Republicans are so free of sin. The rest of us are not and the idea of sin police is not an attractive one. I thought parties were supposed to attract votes. But I could be mistaken.
Hate to say this but sex in the line of duty is often required of spies. (See: Mata Hari -but same applies to males.) Could become a habit.
Ooops – meant to say @ ThomasD. Not FROM. Sorry! That was me, not him.
I’m of the mind that if you can’t be trusted to uphold the commitment you made to your spouse, I’m not sure I’d trust you to uphold other commitments either. And I’d therefore prefer not to associate with you, etc. And if circumstances forced me to and it worked out badly, it’d definitely be a case of ‘you knew I was a snake when you picked me up’.
YMMV
So you cannot see that someone who will betray their closest friend will betray anyone else?
Could you help me understand your reasoning?
So you cannot see that someone who will betray their closest friend will betray anyone else?
Could you help me understand your reasoning?
Betrayal is a very strong word, meaning to give someone up treacherously. It is analogous to treason. Had Petraeus done something like ratted on his wife to the cops, I could see the point. But having sex outside of marriage is not the same thing at all. Men who hire prostitutes are not betraying anyone. They are getting their rocks off, and the wrong lies in the fact that they didn’t live up to the expectations of their spouses. I think it is up to the spouses to decide their level of guilt.
It’s a betrayal if the man falls in love with the Other Woman. Some of these accounts said that Petraeus was “obsessed”.
Women need a provider – especially 60 year old women, like Mrs Petraeus. She loses him, she loses everything.
(It’s also a betrayal if the man picks up a disease, but I’ll assume that he took precautions.)
I think the man needs to be stoned. He is making all of us men look bad. Even a symbolic stoning will do.
The standards of UCMJ artcle 134 for a punishable offense of adultery include:
That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. Discredit includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem.
Some of the points that would need to be assessed before court martial:
The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces;
The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct;
The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency;
Broadwell’s possessive e-mails as well as some public statements seem to clearly meet the standards.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161964#.UKCUf4eHKSp
Resignation may preserve his retirement pay for Mrs. Petraeus.
Eric,
Now it’s turning out that the mistress had classified documents on her personal computer and had given a talk at which she spilled some classified beans about a CIA holding cell/prison in Libya.
So, the next time you choose to waddle about, claiming that poor choices of sex partner means nothing vis a vis national security, hopefully you’ll remember the taste of crow in the back of your oh-so sophisticated pallet.
Bit on the sour side, isn’t it?
Paul, there is no logical connection between adultery in the general sense and stealing classified documents. A secretary could steal classified documents, and so could a wife.