Fallout From The Resignation Of CIA Director David Petraeus
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-13/fallout-resignation-cia-director-david-petraeus
Fallout from the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus. Challenges for the Obama administration as it builds a new team.
Guests
Michael O'Hanlon
senior fellow and director of research of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution and co-author of "Bending History: Barack Obama's Foreign Policy."
Evan Perez
reporter at The Wall Street Journal.
Rachel Smolkin
White House editor for Politico.
Mark Jacobson
senior adviser at Truman National Security Project.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
mnemecek wrote:
"I couldn't care less who he had a relationship with as long as he does his job well and does not open himself up to blackmail from any source."
What is the matter with you people?! It is IMPOSSIBLE for Petraeus to put himself in this position and NOT be open to blackmail! Don't you get that?! And it is clear that Paula Broadwell was privy to information (about Benghazi) that she should not have had as it spilled out in a speech she gave in October - a month after the September 11th attack and LONG after the affair supposedly ended.
When people are caught in personally embarassing situations they will lie and they will rationalize all kinds of behavior. Again, look at the Clinton and the Nixon examples.
No, it doesn't "go without saying". That's the point.
A better idea would be to justify the statement.
We humans are still animals in our DNA.
Why is it so troubling that a person (man or woman) has an affair while still married?
Some people may be able to be on the straight and narrow (good for them); but we are still dominated by nature.
Why are personal relationships public news?!
I am often embarrassed to be an American where this type of information is such a big deal and creates such a lot of excitement from the media!
Each time, the media acts as if this is something new and not something that has always occurred in human history!!
Unless there is proof that a personal relationship interferes with his job legally, this information should not be of public interest!
I am not agreeing this behavior is ok, just that it is silly, when so many other IMPORTANT new is happening across the world!!
What is NPR wanting to gain listeners away from FOX news?
Agreed, this whole topic has been talked to death, meanwhile "the Afghan police force is ill-equipped to counter attacks conducted by heavily armed Taliban insurgents. Local police have repeatedly complained that their small arms and unarmored vehicles are no match for insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns, mortars, and deadly roadside bombs."
The US is unwilling to give the Afghans more powerful weapons, fearing that they would be used against NATO forces.
As a military spouse who knows what it's like to provide support to a service member through deployments and military moves, I am so disappointed in the example Gen Petraeus has set through his behavior. We have been stationed under Gen Petraeus in the past and were impressed with his leadership. Through this betrayal of his family, he has also nauseated every military spouse who has sent their soldier, sailor, or airman off deployment and supported their careers. My thoughts are with Mrs Petraeus. As far as newsworthiness, I am somewhat astonished that some of your posters don't think an affair by the head of the CIA along with all the other related questions that are coming out is not newsworthy.
Tom Deacon wrote:
"No security interests would appear to have been threatened by Petraeus jumping into bed with his biographer."
False. Read my previous email in this tread about her October speech. What else she knew, we'll never know. It's called "pillow talk", Tom.
"Moreover it would appear that it is also not a criminal offense to cheat on your wife."
Nope, sure isn't.
"Blackmail would ONLY be a risk if the world gives a damn about Petraeus and his paramours."
Apparently they do.
"Apparently this poster is fascinated by the sexual activities of others, something which has made endless money for The National Enquirer, of course. Whether it is a suitable subject for this programme or not is a matter of opinion."
This is just a guess, Tom, but I'm betting that you think the Clinton affair was just about the sex as well. This has nothing to do with the "sexual activities of others". It has to do with the fact that in doing so, as head of the most secretive security agency of the most powerful nation on earth, he opens himself up to blackmail and, as I said, rationalization of all sorts of behavior to cover up the affair. THAT is the problem. Why is this so difficult for the water carriers to grasp?
I am appalled by the thrilled excitement in Rachel Smolkin's voice (White House editor at Politico).
NPR is a quality source, not a place for eager reports enthusiastic to reveal personal truths!
Adultery in the US Military is a UCMJ offense (article 134). He should be court martialed. The usual court martial findings are reduction in rank to E1 & forfeiture of all pay & allowances for 1-2 months.
Petraeus :: Morality???
It takes two to tango--but the woman is going to get the brunt of the blame for all this. He's an overbite-talker--never trust an overbite talker:-)
Seriously, if a man can still get and maintain an erection with or without ED pills, and he's presented a fat, unhealthy and unfit frump like his wife Holly OR a fit, healthy-looking (fellow former officer no less) specimen like "Ms All In," no amount of morality or anything else is going to stop a man like Petraeus. This man has more than likely done this his entire career. He's also an opportunist.
I'm a middle-aged enlightened woman, but alas IT'S STILL A MAN's WORLD!
He couldn't help himself. It's biology, attraction, lust or just I want what I want and how can I pass this up. For her, it was an opportunist's head trip--oooh 30 years from now I can write a tell-all book about my affair with the greatest general in the known universe. URP!
Diane should have grown up by now--she doesn't seem to live under a rock to me. And the men on the panel play into her faux outrage by not explaining what they would have done under the circumstances.
Please! We are so archaic in our understanding of something as simple as sex, opportunity and action (or alternatively, control of one's impulses) upon strong, nearly unavoidable attraction.
No, it's not a sad story. It's expected--his wife of all people should have seen it coming. Long-term monogamy and fidelity are too much to ask of the human race.
Grow up Diane--we expect more from you than this!
What do you do when the countries "values" essentially have no value. That's the predicament the democrat party put the country in.
To Our Best Man on It: You blame the democrats? King David had and affair and he killed someone to cover it up. He was not a democrat. This sort of behaviour is a result of the fall, not the democrats, and it has been happening a long long time and will not end until the end of time. Please get an education and stop giving the right a bad name.
The affair itself may not be a matter of national security, but when the woman involved writes threatening emails to yet another woman it becomes a matter of national security. If she has that level of difficulty with boundaries who knows who else she might talk to to protect her relationship? I think this is where this is different from the matter with Clinton. Also, if the same thing had happened to the director of HEW, it may not have reached that level.
joycooke wrote: "You blame the democrats?'
100% "The New Deal" and "Great Society"
I like the Diane Rheem show but I cannot listen to the young woman who is excitedly salivating with glee at others problems and misery.
"Please get an education and stop giving the right a bad name"
A bad name? or what, they won't turn out like they should at a critical time in an election! To hell with them.
(1) senior officials having affairs DOES matter--any one of us who has lived through an
affair (or 2 or 3--and, either side) knows that affairs take up LOTS of time and
energy--and can lead any one of us to do really stupid things (like, leak info)--not
to mention hours of our lives sending personal emails.
I don't want my leaders to be spending their time in that way.
(2) The Petraeus affair did not start after he left Afghanistan--come on. And,
who in the world thought it was appropriate that anyone would be 'embedded'
with him, and his forces, for the purpose of writing a biography. Both he & his
woman friend think much too much of themselves. (The woman, is infact,
crazy.)`
(3) What's with these 'hotshot' leaders partying with the rich and beautiful???
And, at critical moments in history??
(4) My message to Holly Petraeus--be a strong woman, and GET OUT NOW.
I disagree. Let me explain. When I first heard the story that Petraeus had resigned because the FBI discovered he'd had an adulterous relationship with the woman who wrote his biography I thought it was a private matter, of concern only to the people involved, and for that to end Petraeus's career was a gross overreaction to what is, after all, a commonplace occurence. (I also wondered why the FBI was investigating the head of the CIA, but that's another matter.) However, as the story developed and the details became more and more bizarre (and more and more confusing), I began to question the judgment of Petraeus and the motivations of all the people involved, not only the principals but the investigators as well. In fact, especially the investigators, at least one of whom appeared to have a political motive, else why tell the story only to Republicans in Congress? So what started as a private matter that in a society less obsessed with the private lives of public figures would have remained private, has become a matter of public interest, not because of its prurient, tawdry aspect but because of what it appears to say about the judgment and the thinking process of the head of the CIA. The fact that it appeals to our own prurient interests is irrelevant though a happy bonus for the tabloids.
My comment was a reply to Tom Deacon, who wrote: "At a time when the USA is facing serious financial decisions, it is quite astonishing that the Diane Rehm Show is concerning itself with a tawdry affair involving a member of the Obama administration. What is interesting about this matter? It may appeal to the prurient interests of some people, but Diane Rehm's audience surely has other matters on its mind. Leave this to People magazine and the National Enquirer." Deacon's comment is what I disagreed with.
I guess we can say this is the first shot fired in the 2016 Presidential campaign. I would be very surprised if this doesn't get politicized in a big way.
Of course, I suspect that it is already politicized on this comment board. LOL
OMG--more news that the generals are involved with the socialites--now, news that Allen &
Petraeus were supporters of Jill's sister in a custody battle. How could these generals
have time for their official (taxpayor-supported) duties?
OMG--more news that the generals are involved with the socialites--now, news that Allen &
Petraeus were supporters of Jill's sister in a custody battle. How could these generals
have time for their official (taxpayer-supported) duties?
No one seems to have brought up a famous quote attributed to a British
Historian in 1887:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Sooooo.... with all of this cuckoldry going on.... who had time to pay attention to preventing the loss of lives in Benghazi? Too much smoke, too many mirrors and in the long run... the truth, the spouses and children and the nation is who suffers as a result.
I have only one Comment, and it's actually a question I've asked many times before:
Why do so many men seem unable to keep their putz in their pants?
Well, you answered your own question. It's because they are unable to do that.
And some women do make the effort to tempt them. So obviously some will give in.
Not really difficult to understand IMHO.
We do not know the truth yet, but people need to understand the rules within the Military to truly understand the potential threat. Although, his CIA position is not technically under Military rule, it still has the same potential for threats, if not more, such as blackmail.
This is very serious, folks.
gary k on November 13, 2012 @ 9:25 pm wrote: “Well, you answered your own question. It's because they are unable to do that.”
That’s no answer, merely a restatement of the fact they’re unable. I asked why!
By way of comparison, I’m male, and I have no such trouble. I don’t let my “little head” do the thinking for my brain.
P.S. - And your attempt to "blame the woman" doesn't wash. As the old saying goes: It takes two to tango. So we are back where we started. Why are there so many "guys who can't say 'No'?"
I hope the next time you have Michael O'Hanlon on as an expert on War you disclose who his "friends" are. And I would also suggest you do a show on the cult of Petraeus followers among the media.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"I have only one Comment, and it's actually a question I've asked many times before:
Why do so many men seem unable to keep their putz in their pants?"
"That’s no answer, merely a restatement of the fact they’re unable. I asked why!
By way of comparison, I’m male, and I have no such trouble. I don’t let my “little head” do the thinking for my brain."
Because people are different and not everybody is like you.