General relieved of command for relationship

There's gotta be more to this than we've been told, Osso. A sexual indiscretion is hardly the sort of thing that gets a 4-star flag officer relieved of command. We haven't been told with whom he had this 'inappropriate relationship.' He may have stepped on some toes that outrank his toes. Just a guess, of course.

Maybe it was one of those "don't ask , don't tell " kind of affairs...

Hmm. I didn't take it that way, Lion, not that I see that as a different matter, but I suppose they do. I'll go back and reread the link, which for those who haven't checked it out, was from this morning's Washington Post. That did say he'd had a marriage separation since something like mid 2004.

It seemed to have more info than a similar but different article in the NYTimes.

I reread and I suppose that's a possibility, Lion. But then again, maybe not.

I'll be the first to admit I am perplexed by the military ways, sometimes, if not all, daughter of a colonel that I am, but my family association was long ago. Thirty six years and you don't get to have an affair? The rigidity, heh, seems leftover from Spy in the Cold days....

There is something a bit hinky about all of this .

Could just be the new world order or something.

Yeah, I thought of the homosexual possibility as well, LionTamer. But even if it's hetero, if he was having a fling with, say, a powerful Senator's wife, that could put a serious crimp in his career, especially of the Senator was on a committee that has some clout in the Pentagon. Of course, this is all speculation. They're not going to tell the press anything that they don't wish to be general knowledge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11general.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

Well, the relationship was with a woman, and he has told friends it began after separation from his wife (but before he filed for divorce). I suppose it is an ordinary story and that, as some people surmise, it was done to not discriminate between ranks when people don't follow the military rules.

Still doesn't add up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/politics/13general.html?th&emc=th

still too weird..
I'm not implying this is any different than it seems on the surface. But that he can't call her?

Somebody had it in for this guy. They found a perfect pretext in the adultery charge. It just has to be more than that.

Another thread on this subject, which goes more into the political aspects mentioned in the Washington Post article..
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1513261#1513261

General must have really caused some problems. This business is not common but it happens. I am familiar with two incidents and both got attention because they involved fraternization and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. Woman Lt. was a party girl and everything went fine until she started banging some NCOs. She was booted out. The other guy was a Col. Group Commander that flew a woman 2ndLt. with him everyplace he went. He had been warned more than once. He was forced to retire by the Wing CG with no official scandal or reprimand.