HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Army Reserve revokes prom...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:41 PM

Army Reserve revokes promotion of Petraeus' one-time mistress

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Army Reserve has at least temporarily revoked a promotion it awarded last year to Paula Broadwell, the biographer whose affair with General David Petraeus led to Petraeus' resignation as Central Intelligence Agency director last year.

link

9 replies, 683 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

Response to yortsed snacilbuper (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:42 PM

1. I was wondering what happened to her...am I the only one

who thinks this story got dropped awful quickly...I mean, it was hot news, now nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:45 PM

3. You know I was wondering why neither one of them got demoted over this. Both

 

should have as unbecoming an officer. I'm suprised she still in the military. She should go ahead and get out because this will be on her records. If you don't get promoted by a certain time then your out anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:47 PM

4. Seems to me some people were told to just stop talking about it...

Not trying to sound all tin-foily, but I bet the whole thing would have proved to be an embarrassment if more information came out, so they decided to clam up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:50 PM

6. I agree with you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yortsed snacilbuper (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:44 PM

2. she was never his mistress. she was not being kept or paid. she was a married woman

having an affair with a married man. he was not more her mistress, than she was his.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:47 PM

5. In the military it is considered an offense. She will not be promoted again. She will

 

sooner or later been forced out. The general at least had the smarts to retire. He should have lost a star over it. Am suprised he didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yortsed snacilbuper (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:30 PM

7. Personally I think that's a matter that should be restricted to a person and his or her SO.

 

I'm tired of this "imposing my belief system on you" approach to everything. Adults are capable of making their own decisions, passing their own judgment, arguing if need be, and forgiving if warranted. Everyone deserves to be allowed to take on whatever SO they want and nobody but said SO should be able to pass judgment on them as long as the activities are legal (as in "no child rape", well, or rape in any case, but especially child). But hey, they impeached Clinton over a blow job. That should never have even gotten the attention of Congress.

It took me over 15 minutes to explain to my mother this morning that yes, one of my daughter's friends showed up here with her girlfriend. Not just a girl friend, but her girlfriend, and they're committed to each other. Both very fine young ladies I must add.

This particular young lady isn't comfortable even taking her girlfriend to her own parents' house, much less revealing her bisexuality, but she was completely comfortable bringing her here and introducing her as her girlfriend. I don't see any problem involved with that. We welcome all of our daughters' friends and they know that - both genders, any sexual orientation, any race, any religion, it just doesn't matter and frankly shouldn't matter to anyone.

As for infidelity, the actual subject of this thread, why should that be any different? Hillary stuck with Bill. Some people chose not to, male and female, gay and straight. It's a personal matter not fit for public consumption. If it is against military regulations, that needs to change. Let the SO decide, not the CO. We're human. Sometimes humans give into temptation and have transgressions. That's a matter of their personal relationships, not the government, not their employer, or anyone else for that matter.

The morality police can go back to the 17th century and just stay there. That's where they live anyway.

End of rant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:49 PM

8. It is conduct unbecoming

and a potential threat to national security for officers to have affairs. The easiest way to blackmail someone is through money or through sex.

It is what it is. If you don't want to get into trouble for not keeping your commitments to a person, don't make commitments and there is no problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:05 PM

9. I don't see it that way. I've made commitments and I keep them. It's a personal matter.

 

Infidelity in the military (dating back to the beginning of militaries) is pretty rampant. I've got a MAJOR problem with military rape, but consentual is fine. If there's a SO infidelity matter, the offender and SO need to work that out in whatever manner "works out". Blackmail is easy even without proof - you just need an allegation. I don't think that's the business of employers, including the military. We're only barely squeeking past the openly gay gate. Women were just recently allowed on the front lines. The military has a long way to go to achieve equality, and US businesses aren't even close.

On another note, private businesses are far behind even the military on such issues. "Conduct unbecoming" also means lying about intelligence to start a war. That didn't stop us from sending our troops to their deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, and Cambodia (among other places). Sexual conduct has nothing to do with it. Indescriminant bombing of children is far more of "misconduct" in my mind.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread