HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Did Petraeus have to resi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:24 AM

Did Petraeus have to resign?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/09/did-petraeus-have-to-resign/



***SNIP

n Business Insider, former servicemen Robert Johnson and Geoffrey Ingersoll explain why an extramarital relationship might be a fire-able offense for an individual with the highest level of security clearance:

Anyone applying for a Top Secret for Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TSSCI) clearance would be denied for simply having any outstanding debt. Something as simple as a DUI or alcohol problem can endanger passing a Secret Clearance review, which is one lower than TSSCI (also referred to as a ‘need-to-know’).

Had a foreign agent found out Petraeus was involved in an extramarital affair, the resulting leverage could have been astounding.

32 replies, 2239 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Did Petraeus have to resign? (Original post)
xchrom Nov 2012 OP
Tippy Nov 2012 #1
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #8
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #2
aquart Nov 2012 #28
RKP5637 Nov 2012 #3
southernyankeebelle Nov 2012 #4
justiceischeap Nov 2012 #5
sandyshoes17 Nov 2012 #9
HipChick Nov 2012 #6
oldhippie Nov 2012 #16
upi402 Nov 2012 #26
HipChick Nov 2012 #18
AnnieBW Nov 2012 #22
unhappycamper Nov 2012 #7
shrdlu Nov 2012 #10
morningfog Nov 2012 #11
Zen Democrat Nov 2012 #12
morningfog Nov 2012 #13
upi402 Nov 2012 #27
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #14
Barack_America Nov 2012 #15
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #17
OldDem2012 Nov 2012 #20
MADem Nov 2012 #31
The Second Stone Nov 2012 #19
AnnieBW Nov 2012 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #23
Sarah Ibarruri Nov 2012 #24
MrScorpio Nov 2012 #25
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #29
MADem Nov 2012 #30
ellisonz Nov 2012 #32

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:28 AM

1. Yes...he had to go. That woman had acces to his computer

That alone was reason enough, I just hope and pray she did not sell the info she found..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tippy (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:45 AM

8. That's not clear yet. The FBI is investigating about possible attempts by her to gain access.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:30 AM

2. He had to OFFER his resignation. Obama didn't have to accept it

But Obama made the right call. This guy was a very bad fit at the CIA, and the old-timers there did him in. But he brought the problem upon himself.

But the General got off easy. When the CIA doesn't like you, the outcomes are usually a bit more, how shall I say, severe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:54 PM

28. If he was dumb enough to date a bunny boiler, what else was he dumb about?

This wasn't just poor judgment in having an affair, it was a blazing poor choice of partner. A WOMAN WHO WRITES BIOGRAPHIES???? Jesus H. Christ, talk about walking naked in Times Square.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:32 AM

3. One side of me says he did what a lot of people sometimes do, but the other side of

me sees quickly why he had to go. ... especially, "Had a foreign agent found out Petraeus was involved in an extramarital affair, the resulting leverage could have been astounding."

It's just not a job where one can F around, so to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:33 AM

4. He did the right thing. He was to set an example. If he breaks the rules then the people below

 

him can break rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:34 AM

5. Just the question alone answers itself.

If you have to ask whether the head of the CIA had to resign, then he had to resign. I know humans make mistakes but there are some positions, like the director of the CIA, that needs to be above reproach. You can't put yourself in a position where your trustworthiness can ever be questioned.

The whole reason this is happening is there have been leaks coming from within the WH admin. So Holder has had two attorney's investigating the leaks since June, I think. I'm guessing the investigation led to Patraeus' resignation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:47 AM

9. I feel the same

This is less about the affair and more about the FBI investigation. After a long career, he gets brought down by a beautiful women. The CIA is different than the army. Maybe she was just using him to get access to his computer. He should of been smart enough not to get into such a situation. Even if it is nothing but just looks bad. He's now losing his career over it, bad judgement is right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:36 AM

6. I disagree on the Security Clearance

I have had friends that kept their Secret or Top Secret Clearance even with a DUI, and as long as debts are current, or you have something in your file explaining if and why you fell behind. IIRC, I don't even recall a question about extra-martial affairs, just if you are in contact with folks who are foreign nationals...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HipChick (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:42 AM

16. I'm with you .....

I held a TS/SCI for many years, and worked with many others that held it. You can have debt, convictions, affairs, and most other human issues, as long as you fully disclose them to your SSO. Woe be onto you if you try to hide something. (I even married a Nationalist Chinese national and kept my clearance, after she and her family passed the complete background investigation.)

And TS/SCI does not mean "need to know." The Top Secret is a level of classification. Sensitive Compartmented Information is more of a catgory of access, though you must have a need to know to get access to the various compartments. Wiki has a good article on SCI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:13 PM

26. ^ Very helpful

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HipChick (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:06 AM

18. Exactly..plus most access to miitary laptops

requires use of CAC, I wonder if she had access to this too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HipChick (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 04:19 PM

22. My friend's ex-husband held a pretty high-level clearance

He was a cryptologist with NSA, who has since retired. When he was married to my friend, her health problems became steadily worse to the point where sex became difficult for her. So, he found his jollies elsewhere - namely, on the Internet. Yep, he cheated on his wife with a woman that he met on-line. Then, about two days after he moved out (and giving her a Dear Jane Letter), the security guy came to do his 5-year reinvestigation. Boy, did THAT investigator get an earful! The upshot was that she said that, yeah, he was a lying douchebag, but he was really good at keeping secrets because he kept his affair from her for six months.

Lying douchebag retained his clearance for another five years, up until the time he retired from NSA, moved his Internet honey (now wife) out of state, and is basically doing nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 09:05 AM

10. An attempt to maintain some control of his fate...He's clever

See Col. Pat Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannus.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 09:17 AM

11. I am curious about the nature of this criminal investigation.

Maybe he had to resign, but maybe it wasn't because of the affair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 09:18 AM

12. You betcha he did. Stay tuned - FBI was closing in because internal CIA asked FBI to investigate.

They were closing in on his biographer/paramour and when it was detected that she was attempting to access his email without authorization ... that was the ballgame.

There's probably much more from the media teases I've heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:08 AM

13. FOund elsewhere:

Extramarital affair = public resignation, name dragged through mud
War crimes = promotion, pat on back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:30 PM

27. CID committing war crimes gets a medal

but boning ass is a career-ender?

Agree.

This guy was a Ranger. Got company?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:14 AM

14. There's more to this story than what we're hearing in the MSM...tip of the iceberg. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:23 AM

15. Agree. I have a feeling she received access to classified information.

Either provided by the General, or taken from him via the inappropriate access he gave her. Why did the FBI hone in on his gmail account? What was this "irregular activity" they were concerned abot?

Otherwise, there's not a clear cause for resignation once the affair is made public (i.e. the affair is no longer fodder for blackmailers). Unless, of course, it's just the fact of who he had the affair with (a woman he had allowed privileged access for many years). The questions of what he may have told her over the years would have lingered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:59 AM

17. There may be other women he'd had an affair with, too, that we

just haven't heard about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 04:00 PM

20. Or, there may be other issues uncovered by the FBI, and Patraeus is using the affair as....

...damage control hoping that the MSM will be thrown off whatever the real story may be, if any.

Just seems to be a very strange situation to me....too many questions, and very few answers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:08 PM

31. Apparently, the biographer was harrassing ANOTHER woman who was close to the General.

The FBI, in the context of investigating that matter, came across emails that were incriminating.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/10/us/petraeus-cia-resignation/index.html

(CNN) -- The affair that brought an end to David Petraeus' tenure as CIA director came to light during an FBI investigation into a complaint that his biographer Paula Broadwell was sending harassing e-mails to another woman close to him, a U.S. official said Saturday.
During the investigation, other communications surfaced between Petraeus and Broadwell, a married mother of two, according to the official.
The official did not identify the woman who made the initial complaint and did not know the nature of her relationship with Petraeus.


Who was the "woman close to him?" A co-worker? Another paramour? His WIFE, maybe? Who knows?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:23 AM

19. Resign or be fired.

That is not a job where you can have an affair and expose yourself even to petty blackmail. Of course, it is the same with army general. He had to make an example of himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 04:13 PM

21. He would have already had as high a clearance as you could get

Just by being commanding General in Iraq, or at least CENTCOM. Not to mention CIA director. And, if the intelligence community fired everyone who'd cheated on their spouse, it would have nobody but the uber-nerds who never got laid to do the work. I'm betting that, as a journalist, she knew all kinds of dirt on him and was blackmailing him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 04:22 PM

23. Good riddance. But, it is for a rather silly reason.

America's adolescent and schizophrenic obsession with the sexual antics of celebrities leads to these sort of things. Bill Clinton's, and JFK's, affairs were far more dangerous under the rubric of "Screwing around could lead to blackmail by the bogeymen".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:00 PM

24. Why isn't he in prison? Hasn't he compromised our intelligence by allowing this mistress access to

his email? Merely resigning is absolutely not enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:05 PM

25. Pretty much, yes. He had to resign. It's an honor thing and he fucked up big time

He's just lucky that he's not a Prussian general, where they would have left him in an empty room with a bottle of schnapps and a luger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:00 PM

29. Certain issues will get your clearance pulled.

Simply having debt is not a deal breaker. Having loans outstanding to bookies and loan sharks is another matter. Having your brother-in-law sell some guns to people he thinks are the IRA but are actually the FBI is a much bigger no-no.

Basically, there are three levels of classified access: confidential, secret and top secret. Certain types of work require different types of access. Sensitive compartmented information generally deals with a specific topics or areas of the world. Certain data from the testing of classified devices or economic data may be in this category. Access to cryptographic and communications security data and devices has its own access restrictions.

Each site or unit (military or civilian) that handles classified data has a chief security officer. That person is charged with assuring compliance will all procedures related to the handling of classified information. The agency that does the investigation to clear the individual will generally review new information from time to time and revisit some aspects of the clearance process. There are different clearance processes as well. Single scope background investigation is required for those under consideration for top secret clearance. Those that work directly with the President will undergo the yankee white process.

For more particular info, look up executive order #12968 from President Clinton.

More likely than having clearance approval issues, the General's superiors will be concerned about his reliability, potential for causing embarassment and general trustworthiness. That could get anyone fired, even the cashier at McDonald's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:02 PM

30. I think so--there may have been more than one woman. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:44 PM

32. I'll just say

That maybe it's better he go down like this. I frankly have never been all that impressed with him - he struck me as an egomaniac. People like that are dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread