Lost in the Weeds--Benghazi

Suddenly, two other related issues have stolen the headlines from the Benghazi situation. Our CIA Director placed himself in a compromising position by having an affair. That is bad enough, but there is also the possibility that his lover was given access to secret information. Then another high-ranking officer, that man's deputy in the past, is revealed to have sent 20,000-30,000 emails to yet another lady; the content is said to resemble phone sex.

Both men deserve, based on the information revealed to date, to lose their jobs. They shouldn't lose our high regard for their service and we should thank them both on the way out the door. One has resigned; I applaud that action but question the timing. The other is currently in a bit of limbo with the nomination to a higher position on hold. He should submit his request for retirement from active service.

I am a bit tired of the people who say that they should stay in their current positions--their behavior is unacceptable and they left themselves in compromising positions.

Lost in all this is the truth about Benghazi. The most transparent administration in history appears to have made some mistakes in the information they provided about the attack. An ambassador was lost and a possible nominee for a higher position (Susan Rice has been mentioned for a higher post) obviously lied about the circumstances. The position of the administration was politically expedient in an election year--it was the video!!--but it was a lie from the start. CBS even has footage, conveniently held from distribution, of the President alluding to terrorism.

I hope that we remain focused on getting the truth out. The whole truth behind what happened and what we could have done to better protect our ambassador. Yes, I am suspect of the timing of the release of all of the stories and information. Skepticism is a good thing. I am not claiming a grand conspiracy or anything of the sort...I just think we need to find out what happened, who knew what and when, and make sure other ambassadors and their staffs are not left in danger.

Is that too much to ask?

Quote: RonC

Is that too much to ask?

Probably, considering the short attention span of the average American.

Um, what were we talking about?

If they actually compromised any actual information, then they should face the death penalty for treason, by the book. However, if all they did was have a couple of extra-marital affairs, then that has no impact on their ability to do their respective jobs and resignation is unnecessary, in my opinion. If some guy works at a bank and runs around on his wife, is he suddenly incapable of approving/declining business loans correctly?

This is coming from someone who would never commit infidelity and personally shuns those who do, by the way.

Quote: Mission146

If they actually compromised any actual information, then they should face the death penalty for treason, by the book. However, if all they did was have a couple of extra-marital affairs, then that has no impact on their ability to do their respective jobs and resignation is unnecessary, in my opinion. If some guy works at a bank and runs around on his wife, is he suddenly incapable of approving/declining business loans correctly?

This is coming from someone who would never commit infidelity and personally shuns those who do, by the way.

The fellow at the bank has placed himself in a compromising position--he could be blackmailed by someone (including his lover) into doing something or providing some information that he would otherwise keep confidential. The scale goes WAY up from there to the CIA Diirector. This gentleman is privvy to most, if not all, of our Top Secret information and any possible compromise of his position is unacceptable. There is no way that he should be allowed to continue to serve in that position. I realize the affair is out in the open now, but there still could be details of it that he does not want released which means he could be the subject of blackmail.

The Marine General supposedly sent 20,000-30,000 emails to his "friend"...these emails being supposedly sexually suggestive and to a person not his wife, he has also compromised his position. He needs to request retirement.

Of course, if these allegations are untrue, then all bets are off. It seems that there is truth to them because there are no real denials to this point. Otherwise, I would be on the side of waiting until we get all the information.

I'm not saying that one can never have an affair and be placed in a leadership position. I am all for forgiveness. The point is that these two were doing things in current positions that are unacceptable to people currently in those jobs.

I've heard others say they should be allowed to continue because these are "just affairs, they have nothing to do with their work"...I say that is wrong. We have a right to demand that people in sensitive positions be above reproach.

Quote: Mission146

However, if all they did was have a couple of extra-marital affairs, then that has no impact on their ability to do their respective jobs and resignation is unnecessary, in my opinion.

The CIA doesn't share this opinion. Even having a bankruptcy in your past will keep you out of the CIA. The reason? If you were irresponsible for money to the point that you had to file for bankruptcy then you're susceptible to being compromised. Even having a lot of debt or many debts can be a dis qualifier. Having an affair means that you can't be trusted to keep your word and that you can be lead astray by sex.

And these aren't solely CIA guidelines they're basic security clearance stuff, i.e. same would apply to the FBI or other jobs requiring security clearance. I honestly don't know how Clinton kept his job in light of his shenanigans, maybe if you're high enough up you're considered untouchable.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

I honestly don't know how Clinton kept his job in light of his shenanigans, maybe if you're high enough up you're considered untouchable.

It might seem ironic that higher standards are held for security agencies than President, but that's how it works. As long as he/she meets the Constitutional requirements, and takes the oath, that's all that's required.

Quote: rxwine

It might seem ironic that higher standards are held for security agencies than President, but that's how it works. As long as he/she meets the Constitutional requirements, and takes the oath, that's all that's required.

I think all of us hope that the President will hold themselves to the highest standards but they often fall far short of that.

It is pretty obvious now that the President's folks sent out an Ambassador with talking points that were, at best, inaccurate. Why did they do that? Why was it so important to the administration--and I am not specifically saying the President--that the attack be blamed on a video instead of a terrorist attack? Was it because someone felt that it would be a negative in the campaign?

I hope that there is a full investigation of this entire incident.

""No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points," he said."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/petraeus-to-testify-knew-libya-was-terrorism-from-start-source-says/#ixzz2CPGEyj7x

A somewhat different explanation

Quote:

Democrats said the former CIA director made clear the change was made for intelligence, not political reasons.

"The general was adamant there was no politicisation of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Representative Adam Schiff. "He completely debunked that idea."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20362941

Unfortunately no transcript of the hearing is being released,

So, believe what you will.

The intelligence reason given:

Quote:

During two appearances on Capitol Hill on Friday he said the public explanation had been edited to prevent alerting groups under suspicion.