CIA Chief Petraeus resigns as result of extra-marital affair

This reminds me a good deal of old Slick Willy Clinton. A man in a position of power who thinks he can have it all, including some woman with whom he comes into close contact. There's an essentially selfish, childish attitude here. Which is precisely why the spouses and families suffer, because the guy involved is only thinking of himself. Ah for the good old days, when you could just drag a dairy maid into the castle when you were bored with your wife.

Such as Hamilton, Franklin, Roosevelt, Eisenhower Kennedy, Johnston and so on.

A large percent of the US total leadership from our founding to today had cheated on their wives.

If anything we need more such childish men as they seems to average far better leaders then the ones who as far as we know where pure of heart.

It may be "childish" to you, but many in high places have succumbed to their sexuality.

It's to be seen throughout history, not just here. Bill, as usual, is just making **** up as he goes along. We don't know that Kennedy, for example, was a good leader. He colluded in the assassination of Diem, which is about the only dramatic act he took. He did well in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but we expect no less from our President. He passed absolutely none of his legislative agenda. Not only did Johnson pass the civil rights and voting rights acts, i don't think anyone else could have done it. Johnson also pass social security disability--not Kennedy. If boyish charm and charisma is one's measure of leadership, John Boy had it in spades.

The comment about Franklin is hilarious. He never married. He did live with a married woman whose husband had fled debt with her dowry, and he did have an illegitimate child by a different woman. If that is what Bill means, that's pretty paltry. It does make a hypocrite of Franklin who always touted Puritan virtues he didn't follow. What bemuses me most, though, is just what kind of leadership he demonstrated. Was that while he was minister to France, or minister to Sweden--or was that when he was the Postmaster General?

You really shouldn't make **** up, Bill.

Certainly there was a time in western history when such sexual profligacy was so common as to elicit no comment. It hardly makes us progressive to just chuckle over it, much less come up with some idiotic claim that it makes for good leaders. What it makes is clear evidence that the person in question is untrustworthy.

How so? If that's what these men think, they're essentially correct. People in positions of power (or wealth, or fame) will meet plenty of willing sex partners. If we non-celebrities are usually monogamous or even celibate, the reason is more likely a dearth of opportunity than an abundance of virtue. What makes you think the rest of us is any less childish and selfish than generals, billionaires, and rock stars?

I agree; it's not limited to any group.

But they managed to do it more quietly, and discretely, than is really possible with the sort of scrutiny, and 24/7 media coverage, that goes on today. We, and the media, afforded these men in the past a much wider swath of personal privacy than exists now. As I recall, Women's Wear Daily (of all publications) was one of the few to publicly hint at what Kennedy was doing in NYC hotel rooms with women while he was President. His extra-marital activities were largely protected by the press.

Nelson Rockefeller died in the arms of his girlfriend--which is the only reason his dalliances became known.

I guess he wasn't covert enough. How can you work for the CIA (director of the whole operation at that) and get caught with your pants down? Not that I am condoning the behavior, but come on man!
Since Military likes to name their endeavors, it shall be named Broad Gate.

Straw man--i didn't say that the rest of us won't be as childish. That i have the opportunity, for example, to steal someone's change off the counter while he and the clerk look at something in a display case doesn't authorize me to do so, nor absolve me of turpitude if i do. What is amazing to me is that people don't seem to see the the issues of trust and betrayal involved here. If his wife trusted him, poor fool her. He certainly betrayed her.

so they're not responsible because they're weak-willed? that's not an argument in their favour.

I believe in personal loyalty and personal responsibility. Certainly i'm fallible, but i still consider those high values. I would not ridicule my friends or even my acquaintance in public. I would not betray the trust of those who consider me a friend.

There is a story, which my be apocryphal but certainly is illustrative. A man at his sentencing told the judge that he thought it was hard that he should be hanged for stealing a horse from a commons. The judge replied that he was to be hanged so that others would not steal horses from commons. I don't happen to believe in retributive justice as effective deterrence, but i agree with the principle that people be held to a standard of not doing what they would not want done to themselves. I would not steal Thomas' change from the counter both because i would not want it done to me, nor could i hold my head up as a principled man if behaved in that manner. I doubt that Thomas' Benthamite utilitarian principles actually do create for him a morality that lax. To be able to trust others, we have to be trustworthy ourselves. If ever i fail to live up to those standards, it is a reflection on me, not on the standards.

Did I say that? Reread my post.

Yes. That's what you said. Succumbed.

So "succumbed" is childish? I think it's rather "normal" for adults.

No, succumbed suggests that they are weak-willed. She didn't didn't say anything about childish.

But, meanwhile, back to Petraeus' resignation . . .

Reading all these reports, there is one thing has me puzzled: everyone is criticising the FBI (there's even a call for investigating the investigators) because it allegedly did not notify Congress in a timely manner. Is the FBI supposed to notify Congress every time it does what amounts to a routine investigation? Remember that originally the FBI was called in just to trace some crank e-mails to their source. Routine with a capital R. When they realized that this could become a security issue, that it involved someone of Gen. P's stature, a Congressman was notified. I fail to see where the FBI did anything wrong.

Apparently you agree with Pat Robertson

she was "throwing herself" at you. What could you do? You're only a man.


I don't think it's normal to cheat on your spouse, whether you're a man or a woman.

I think there are still some timeline questions.

No, I didn't say that, did I? However, both married men and women cheat on their spouses; that's because it's 'normal' in every sense of the word. It doesn't matter which culture, religion, or political leanings; it happens - probably every day someplace in the US alone.

I have plenty of opportunities to "cheat" on my wife, because she doesn't like to travel, but that's not me. I've walked alone in some countries where men would come up to me and ask if I want a girl. Even in Cuba, at a nightclub this year, since my friend and his girlfriend were sitting in front of the stage too loud for my ears, I sat in the back. A woman came to my table and asked if she could join me. I said, no, because I'm married. She responded, in Cuba everybody is single.

I cooked my oats plenty of time (ar0und the world) when I was single.

First, I don't know that they did anything wrong either. That's up to those who feel they should have been notified sooner than after Patraeus' resignation had been accepted to iron out. Your synopsis isn't exactly correct, however. "They" didn't realize that this could become a security issue and bring it to a Congressman. "He" (Agent No-Shirt, Friend of Jill Kelley) decided "They" weren't working hard enough, or fast enough, or something enough and took it to someone he knew in Congress.