I believe that the Petraeus resignation would have made a big impact on foreign policy discussions. Historically, foreign policy has not been so overlooked by voters in wartime, but perhaps due to its longevity, people are just used to the conflict. Questions about Benghazi failed to change this. Many conservatives made presumptuous assertions that had no factual backing; surely it takes a substantial amount of (classified) evidence to prove malice on the part of the CIA, Military, State Department, Obama Administration, ect. Ironically, many of these presumptions turned out to be true. What was clear from the beginning, however, was that the Administration was entirely aware of the truth, regardless of their frequent denial. First, were the common sense indicators; (a random, violent protest on the anniversary of 9/11, really?), but more important was the knowledge that since 9/11, the CIA had revamped efforts to infiltrate key terrorist organizations, all of which is neatly summarized, analyzed, typed, and hand-delivered to Obama and his cabinet. While the details of these efforts are obviously classified, it was made clear to the public that this was happening. Doesn't it make sense that at least one of these highly trained operatives would have some knowledge that an attack was being planned? Again, these are questions. During the election, there was also nothing to go on but questions and suspicion about the events. A Petraeus resignation would make it appear as though there was disagreement and trouble within the upper echelons. Because of the classified nature of the incidents, many Americans would have accepted this as adequate evidence of wrongdoing, or at least cast enough doubt to fire up the debate. This is especially true because the Romney campaign did an effective job painting Obama as "weak" on foreign policy issues. A resignation from one of his key leaders (especially since people on both sides of the aisle seem slow to accept that the affair is the real issue for the resignation) may make it look as though Obama refused to act, and Petraeus got angry, or that they fired Petraeus to discredit him, or that there was just a disagreement on how to move forward. At the least, it would look as though Obama couldn't control his own subordinates. I'm not saying that the timing of the resignation would have changed the outcome of the election, but the debate that followed the resignation could have. Unfortunately, foreign policy was left so untouched by both candidates that it is hard to tell for sure. PS: conspiracy theories aside, does anyone else have a hard time believing that sexy gmails were the real cause for Petraeus' resignation? Considering the fact that the CIA covertly violates countless international laws as part of their daily activities, an affair seems pretty benign to me...
I believe that this affair, as Catherine stated, was held back to the public's knowledge until after the campaign. I do not believe however that if the affair was publicized during the election that it would have made a difference. I still believe that Obama would have won either way. Something that is more interesting to me though is how a CIA agent can be caught with these emails. You would think, at least I would, that a top end CIA agent would know how to cover his tracks if he was having an affair. Also the way they stumbled onto the information by accident seemed very strange to me. I'm not saying the whole story isn't true I just think that the whole way it happened was very strange. Another thing that kind of annoyed me was there was more attention played to this sex scandal than there was to the actual Benghazi attack. When this surfaced all people wanted to talk about was the scandal. I believe that this is part of our society in general, being more attentive to the interesting scandals then to politics or foreign affairs. If you want to read more there is a wonderful article on newsprintnow.net written by our own Tori Nobel! http://www.newsprintnow.net/news/2012/11/19/instant-message-or-instant-embarrassment-students-weigh-in-on-what-cia-director-david-petraeus-resignation-means-for-morality/
I think that Eric Holder withheld the information about the Petraeus affair because he knew the effect that it could potentially have on the election. Since it was well known that Petraeus and Obama differed about what really happened in Libya, the fact that Petraeus' moral character was being called into question because of the news of his affair could have caused people to question his stance on what really happened in Libya. Republicans could also have called into question the ability of Obama to appoint capable leaders, turning the Petraeus affair scandal into some flaw in President Obama's leadership. I do not necessarily think that the news was withheld to overshadow his testimony in regards to Libya the week after he resigned, I think it mostly had to do with getting through the election without a scandal in the Obama administration. Since this happened so close to election day, Menand voters could have heard the news of Petraeus' affair and used this to help sway their vote. It is somewhat disappointing that such an accomplished man and military General had to end his career in such disgrace, leaving behind a legacy of scandal and affair. Although I think that our military personnel and holders of public office should be held to a high standard, forced resignation because of a personal affair seems a bit harsh. There can be difference between what people do in their personal life and what they do in the professional life, as long as the two do not intermix. One of the questions being raised about the whole Petraeus affair was whether or not General Petraeus was allowing Paula Broadwell access to classified emails and CIA intelligence. If this was found to have and legitimacy, then a forced resignation is absolutely called for, and possibly even stronger action.
While I agree with Isabelle that the affair may have been concealed until after the election because of fear of how it could affect the outcome of the election, I don't agree on the outcome it could have had. I think that Republicans would have tried to use it to sway undecided voters, but I don't think that it would have worked. When I heard about the scandal, I, like most of the people I have talked to about it, did not immediately jump to blaming Obama for the scandal or think that he may have made bad leadership choices. An employee's personal life is not a reflection on the employer, unless it affects the employee's work. I completely agree with what Isabelle said about the way we hold public officials to higher standards. If Patraeus did not have such a high profile job, and extramarital affair would not be grounds for a forced resignation. That is, as Isabelle said, as long as he was not sharing classified information, as he has been accused of doing. I have not heard any reports as to the legitimacy of these claims, but if they are true, he could be charged with treason. I think that the lack of legal action against him at this point suggests that it is not true, in which case, his resignation was wrong.
Catherine certainly poses some interesting yet pertinent questions at the end of this vlog. In order to answer her initial question regarding how long it took for the affair to "leak" to the public, we must examine not only what Petrause's role was in Obama's cabinet, but the way by which the investigation was discovered. In order to have been assigned the position in the first place, General Petrayus had to have been extremely competent in his field. Any truly successful governmental agent, extremely publicized or not, will tell you that they didn't get there the "easy way".
However, there comes a time when we all must consider, when does the path for recognition trump morality? This internal moral conflict is not only important for us to consider, but for us to look at our leaders. As we have been examining in AP European history class, early westernized civilization has been plagued with, by some standards, superfluous wars as a result of moral misconduct. One could make the argument that a man as intelligent as Petraus should be able to recognize the error of previous leaders ways and ensure that he does not make the same "mistakes" as others. Again, I'm going to leave off on the same "note" as the other two comments.... General Petraus was the HEAD of the Central Intelligence Agency (no pun intended), and he made the simple gaffe of discussing "personal matters" with a biographer/mistress via email?
I believe that the Petraeus affair was kept hidden, as Catherine stated, willingly by the Obama administration until after the election, only too not interfere with the current election. Though, I do not believe that if this affair was revealed during the election, it would not make much of a difference, but to withhold information from the American people on the basis of influence on the election is not constitutional. Most definitely, Petraeus’s moral character would make people re- think his stance on what had actually occurred in Libya, but President Obama would have still won the election. I believe that the affair has actually more importance and “newsworthy” now, rather than revealed during the election. As Catherine stated that conservatives believed that the news was made public during this period because people would think of it unnewsworthy and not interesting, but actually I think that is has more importance now because the election is over and this is a new subject and it has do with an affair. It’s interesting and as Kristen stated, there was more attention played to the sex scandal than to the actual Benghazi attack. People are questioning General Petraeus’s moral character and re-questioning himself as a whole. I do think it is valid to ask a top-notch leader to resign if he is having behind the scenes affairs because it is unmoral and raises questions about his certainty of the Benghazi attacks. We can relate this to Bill Clinton’s impeachment with the Lewinsky scandal -Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky’s affair. If the PRESIDENT was impeached, I think it is acceptable to ask a CIA agent to resign. What is surprising to me as well as the other girls, that a CIA agent could not hide his personal matters and is caught through the emails? It seems very absurd.
First, the Petraeus scandal could have affected the election, depending on timing of the release. If the story broke in August or September when some evidence was first found, it could have had a major impact. However, if it broke in October or early November, it may not have had enough time to sink into minds of voters. As we have seen, a substantial amount of voters had already voted by mid October. The scandal must have been strategically placed, as a result. Even if the scandal was given enough time to marinate in the minds of the voters, it could be seen as irrelevant compared to the other issues that the United States was facing at the time. The economy was the central issue in the campaign and also the issue that the most Americans cared about in the election. The economy personally affects a voter, whereas issues of foreign policy seem more distant and less urgent. As Payas stated, the Bill Clinton analogy does have some relevance. Clinton may have had some questionable morals, but he was arguably one of the highest rated presidents of the last decade. I do not think that it was necessary for Petraeus to resign, if solely based on his actions as a Cabinet member. However, it seems like today’s societal standards still do not accept infidelity in government leaders, even if it does not affect their public actions. As a result, it was probably a smart idea for him to resign. His occupation becomes more of an issue when it affects classified information regarding national security. If the accusations about him revealing CIA secrets to his mistress are true, then resignation is necessary, due to the possible consequences. Tori’s point about the true reason for resignation is an interesting perspective. Many government leaders have affairs and, even after their infidelity is revealed, they do not resign. They usually issue a public apology and ride out the storm, in order to see how badly this will affect their approval rating before deciding to resign. Petraeus does not even have to deal directly with the constituents or approval rating, due to his appointed position, so it seems fairly odd that he would immediately resign. Not many people follow the lives of every Cabinet member, so this affair would be minor compared to others. The abrupt resignation causes some speculation about the “whole” story, regarding the true reasons of his resignation and the conflict in Libya’s possible influence. It is still too early to tell how the events will unfold, but if questions about Libya do not fade, Petraeus’ career and life will be put under an even bigger microscope, running the risk of more of the story to be revealed.
Although I don't know all the details about the Petraeus affair scandal, I do think it was probably covered up to some degree and that it might of had an impact on the election if it had been revealed before voting was over. I believe it was probably covered up at first because those in charge had to have a little bit of time to digest what happened and get most of the facts straight. When the head of the CIA does something as shocking as this, its not something that would be wise to go telling the general public if you did not have all the facts. It was also probably covered up to some degree because I'm sure people don't want to go around defaming the head of the CIA. However if this scandal had been released earlier, it probably would have had some sort of impact on the election, even a very small one. There are some people out there who would have voted in response to the scandal. However I think a majority of the people would have voted without really taking this particular scandal into consideration.
I think that the chance of this scandal having a very large effect on the whole election is very unlikely, though some effect definitely seems possible. I agree that his immediate resignation is suspicious. The story was definitely covered up and even though it is technically out to the American people now, it still seems like there's stuff we don't know, which wouldn't be surprising. I think that as some more time goes on, we will probably find out more about this scandal.
Obama could have disagreed with Petraeus for a few reasons. Either he had bad information and really did believe that the attack in Lybia was sparked by the movie. Another theory is that he claimed that it was the movie, when it actually was a terrorist attack, because he didn't want to look bad. It would be hard for him to be reelected if there had been a terrorist attack during his first term, that had some level of preventability.
Eric Holder withheld the information of the affair because it would have made Obama look bad, and it would affect the election. Obama and Petraeus fought over whether or not the attack on Lybia was caused by the video or was a terrorist attack. Petraeus revealed that he had information proving that it was a terrorist attack and was going to testify. Before doing so, the news broke about the affair, which discredited
I believe that the Petraeus Scandal could have had an affect on the election, had the information been leaked when Eric Holder found out about the affair. I think that Obama could have lost the election had the information been leaked sooner. It is hard to say, but, if it was leaked around when Hurricane Sandy hit i think that the election would have been even closer. Obama would both be applauded for his support during the hurricane, but looked down upon because of the scandal. It is hard to say just how people would react if they happened with in a close time frame, but it is interesting to think about how that might have affected the race.
I don't think someone should necessarily be required to resign. I think it depends on how big of a scandal it is, but i believe that they should be asked to resign. If it is critical that they resign, I think they can then be removed from the armed forces, or what ever position they hold. Having an affair as a politician, rather than in a different career, is more unacceptable because success as a politician is heavily tied to the person's image, morality, and choices.
The reasons behind the timing of the announcement of General Patraeus' affair and subsequent resignation seem divided amongst party lines. In my opinion, I do not believe that had this information been out before the election that it would have made any difference in the election's outcome. I think it was proven that the driving force behind the election was much more about the economy than foreign policy. I could care less about Patraeus having an affair because what goes on behind closed doors is his personal business provided that he did his job well and effectively. I don't think an affair should cause public servants to resign as long as it does not impede on their ability to perform their job. Other thousands of Americans make that very same mistake and aren't fired or do not resign because of it. I mean you can't be CIA Director and have an affair but you can be President of the United States.
I disagree with Madeline when for saying that Obama could have had faulty information about what happened. I disagree with this because the information the president and his cabinet gets usually comes directly from the CIA itself. Actually, according to the CIA recruitment website, one of the most prominent jobs that a CIA analyst can preform is briefing the president (one example they used was about a man who repeatedly got to brief Obama while flying on Air Force 1). I think it's clear that the president had the information and willingly lying to the American public.
I also agree with Logan that high-level public servants should not have to resign so long as their affair does not interfere with their work. Several CIA directors have had affairs, and considering the temptations to someone in that position, it makes sense. Compared with the other sins of the CIA, I think that most would weight the affair as less egregious.
That being said, I do not think the AFFAIR is what forced him to resign. Assuming that Libya, or another factor about which the public is not aware, did not play a role, I think that the reason for his resignation had to do more with the ridiculously bad coverup itself. It is important that Americans can reasonably trust their leaders, and the secret emails do compromise that trust--not because of their content, but because of the fact that they were so insecure. The fact that the director of the CIA sent private, presumably secret emails over a gmail account to a woman who was herself being investigated by the FBI calls Petraeus's judgement into serious question. First of all, what was the director of the CIA doing using one of the most insecure email servers available, for anything? One of the biggest concerns of the CIA right now is cyber security...and he chooses to do that.
Gabriella made a very valid point with regard to the placing of the scandal and the effects it could have had depending on the time it was released. Like she mentioned, I agree that even if such a scandal had come out a couple weeks prior to November 6th many Americans had already cast their ballots. Although there was still a large amount of the electorate that did not vote absentee, I do not think this scandal would have swayed enough 'Menand' voters that Tori mentioned to result in a Romney victory. I also disagree with Tori's statement about Romney & Co painting Obama as weak on foreign policy issues. Perhaps a Petraeus resignation would have given Romney more ground to stand on in the 3rd debate, but if anything, the 3rd debate showed the overall public approval with Obama's handling of our affairs abroad (with the exception of Jews, which make up a very small portion of the electorate). Romney's real success came with portraying President Obama as incompetent domestically, a president that failed to do anything substantial about our ticking debt bomb. This showed in his rise in the polls after Denver--the debate "that mattered." Considering the Romney bid for the presidency is now often described as BD (Before Denver) and AD (After Denver), this definitely showed televised debates still have relevance in our political system.
I agree with everyone that Petraeus resigning solely because of the affair is somewhat suspicious. I think that as Director of the CIA, a person has to be somewhat good at being able to keep things secret, especially something as simple as email. I do not think that it had something to do with Libya, however. The American people will never get the full story about something when it comes to the CIA. CIA affairs have notoriously been kept secret, so the true story behind the resignation (if there actually is a different reason than the extramarital affair)will most likely never be revealed to the public. Are we all really expected the CIA to be 100% honest with us about their affairs, especially those of their director? I also agree with others that he should not have had to resign solely on the ground of an affair. If anything, more people would be able to relate to him because a LOT of Americans have extramarital affairs (that was a joke haha). More seriously, he was effective at his job, and in the end I think that is what Americans care about the most. Most Americans do not want to concern themselves with the affairs of the CIA, and some people probably like it better that way. Like Tori said, compared with the other sins of the CIA, an extramarital affair of its director seems like the lesser of their evils. However I do not think that the resignation had much to do with Libya either. The President and Petraeus might have disagreed at first, but once more information was released the President DID change his administration's statement to it being a terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta came out saying that it was indeed an act of terrorism. So unlike the Gen. McChrystal situation, I do not think that Petraeus was forced to resign because of his position on Libya and the fact that the President and him at first disagreed. When President Obama received all of the information on Libya and whether he himself received information about Petraeus before the election are question still unanswered.
In my understanding, the General Petraeus scandal wasn’t "put off" until after the election - it was actually under investigation as a criminal act; meaning since the investigation was incomplete prior to the election information was not allowed to be released on the matter. I don’t think it was this huge cover up on Obama's part. Also, I don’t think that General Petraeus having a scandal had anything to do at all with Preident Obama or his reelection. It's not like it's the Presidents job to get all up in everyone's grill about who they can and cannot have sex with. Also, personally, I think it's really sad that a good general (I don’t know much about General Petraeus or whether or not he's a good general but I'm just assuming) would have to resign because of something so stupid. If it wasn't a threat to National Security (which it wasn't) then it shouldn’t matter -their personal lives should be kept separate from their jobs. Although maybe this is an uncommon opinion because I've never really been into celebrity drama and I'm certainly not into government official drama.
Although I agree with Tori on some of the claims that she made with respect to the reason why Patreus resigned, I was appalled by her almost justification for the immoral actions of General Patreus "considering the temptations to someone in that position" has and how it would "make sense" for him to arguably destroy his family life. All humans are faced with temptations to some extent. Take for example, the powerful business executive (or campaign official) in his late fifties who is aided by their fresh out of college intern, who is willing to do anything and everything for him in order to receive a high regard, and potentially a letter of recommendation. Would it be justifiable to say that he can simply abuse her because of her ignorance to the unwritten rules of business (i.e. keeping work and private life separate)?
The same argument can be made for this situation. The "laws" for international intelligence are relatively subjective as technology within these fields are growing exponentially. Perhaps this is why international legislation put in place by bodies such as the United Nations or the League of Nations have been seen as superfluous...)That being said, to restate my main argument of my initial post, we should not only our representatives to present themselves in a way indicative of the populous, but also those who are appointed by our representatives.
For the most recent election, I would have to agree with Katie in that the release of this information really only could have "mattered" on the national level depending on what time the information about the scandal was released. As Mr. Baker has mentioned numerous times in class, the media got particularly interested in the "horse race" in the election PD (Post Denver). Although this issue may have been another talking point for Romney during the foreign policy debate, I do not think that he would have been able to sway enough votes to get the nomination, especially because of the strong focus on the economy. http://mitsloan.mit.edu/alumni/pdf/alummag-fall05.pdf
I think it is pretty obvious that the information about the Petraeus affair was withheld from the American public in order to ensure an Obama victory. By itself, I do not believe this news would have sunk Obama's campaign, but it would have been another black mark on Obama's foreign policy record during his first term. I also believe that the timing of the release was not accidental but was deliberately announced in order to either prevent Petraeus' testimony or diminish his credibility since he was going to testify in opposition to the Obama administration's claims with regards to what happened in Benghazi.
The reason that Obama refuses to acknowledge that terrorists attacked our embassy in Benghazi is because he continually stated throughout his campaign that Al Qaeda was "on the run." This attack was in direct conflict with this campaign theme and it would have been detrimental to Obama right before the election.
With regards to the question of whether an affair should disqualify a high-ranking government or military official, I believe that it should be a disqualifying event because people in these positions are particularly susceptible to blackmail claims that could interfere with them performing their jobs. This was particularly true in Petraeus' case, as he was the head of our primary foreign intelligence agency.
One aspect of the Petraeus affair scandal that concerns me is the seemingly forced resignation of General Petraeus. Although I'm sure most everyone agrees, cheating is wrong I do not believe that an aspect of General Petraues' personal life should have this large of an impact on his work life. Although it was a social blunder, as long as no laws were broken or crimes committed during this affair, in my opinion news of the affair did not need to be publicized. As long as his affair did not impede on his ability to do his job to the best of his ability, I believe his personal matters should stay personal. And I don't think he should be forced to resign because of any personal issue, if that was for certain the true reason behind his resignation.
Like many of my classmates, I am slightly suspicious of the motives for Petraeus's resignation. Arguably an extramarital affair--part of the General's personal social sphere--seems irrelevant as long as National Security is not jeopardized. But I also acknowledge (like Isabel) that the CIA will probably NEVER enlighten us with the entire story, if such a story exists. On the other hand, for Patraeus, the social blunder had probably violated his own code of honor. He may have felt obligated to resign. Although I wish President Obama had refused his resignation, especially in light of his years of public service,we have to acknowledge that perhaps there was more going on than met the eye.
After re-reading everyone's comments, I still think that it was constitutional to force the resignation of General Petraeus. Though, I do agree with Alexandra, that his personal life should not interfere with his work life, therefore the affair should have never been publicized. But, his personal life did interfere with his work life, and if a president can be impeached, a CIA agent who has a very high reputable position who work behind the scenes can be asked to resign.
The affair was definitely waited upon to be publicized until after the election, so it would be a definite Obama victory. I agree with Margaret that the release was deliberately announced so that Petraeus' testimony was prevented or to diminish his credibility because he was going to testify in opposition to the Obama administration's claims with regards to what happened in Benghazi. " But if it was publicized during the election, I still think that Obama would have won the election.
I agree with Gabriela that if this scandal had been publicized couple weeks prior from the election, many Americans had already cast their ballots. I also agree with Katie that the scandal would not have swayed enough "Menand" voters that would result in a Romney victory.
I don't think that that it would have been right or logical for Patraeus to be forced to resign simply due to a scandalous public affair. While this proves his questionable personal character, it does not have much to do with his ability to perform his duties as head of the CIA. I agree that it is possible that he felt personally obligated to resign, like it was his duty. I still think that this whole situation is somewhat suspicious and his resignation could be due more to reasons that we're not fully aware of.
Although I would love to set government officials to the idealistic standards of faithfulness in marriage, I do not think that the actual affair should not be questioned, but what should be questioned is the way Petreaus handled the affair, pertaining to what information was possibly revealed. The CIA director cannot be casually telling his mistress about the classified information in the situation in Libya. Although it is unclear what conversations exactly took place in their affair, aside from the emails, it is not far-fetched to think that his daily job was a topic of conversation. This man was willing to violate society’s moral standards for his extramarital affair, so who is to say that he is not willing to violate the standards of national security? Also, I have to disagree with Payas’ rationale for Petraeus’ forced resignation. An extramarital affair is not grounds to impeach a president because having an affair is not illegal. Bill Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury, in reference to false statements made about his former affairs. As a result, it was not necessary for Petraeus to resign due to any moral issues. It had to be something more, and the answer, the American public may never know.
I do agree with the statements people made about Petraues resigning because of reasons other than an affair such as him compromising classified information that could be a threat to our national security. We are all speculating what may or may not have happened; however, if the Obama administration was purposely delaying the announcement of the scandal I think it will come out eventually or hopefully be proven one way or another with the ongoing investigation and media attention.
This affair should not be at the forefront of discussions. I think it is a distraction to the bigger picture of what happened in Benghazi. I do not believe that it is as big of a deal as people are making it. Like I said before our society loves scandal and are more interested in that then politics. I am glad that General Petraeus gave his testimony, but most people did not pay attention to the details because they were so focused on the scandal. I hope this scandal is lost to the more important things that are going on.
I believe that the Petraeus resignation would have made a big impact on foreign policy discussions. Historically, foreign policy has not been so overlooked by voters in wartime, but perhaps due to its longevity, people are just used to the conflict. Questions about Benghazi failed to change this. Many conservatives made presumptuous assertions that had no factual backing; surely it takes a substantial amount of (classified) evidence to prove malice on the part of the CIA, Military, State Department, Obama Administration, ect. Ironically, many of these presumptions turned out to be true. What was clear from the beginning, however, was that the Administration was entirely aware of the truth, regardless of their frequent denial. First, were the common sense indicators; (a random, violent protest on the anniversary of 9/11, really?), but more important was the knowledge that since 9/11, the CIA had revamped efforts to infiltrate key terrorist organizations, all of which is neatly summarized, analyzed, typed, and hand-delivered to Obama and his cabinet. While the details of these efforts are obviously classified, it was made clear to the public that this was happening. Doesn't it make sense that at least one of these highly trained operatives would have some knowledge that an attack was being planned? Again, these are questions. During the election, there was also nothing to go on but questions and suspicion about the events. A Petraeus resignation would make it appear as though there was disagreement and trouble within the upper echelons. Because of the classified nature of the incidents, many Americans would have accepted this as adequate evidence of wrongdoing, or at least cast enough doubt to fire up the debate. This is especially true because the Romney campaign did an effective job painting Obama as "weak" on foreign policy issues. A resignation from one of his key leaders (especially since people on both sides of the aisle seem slow to accept that the affair is the real issue for the resignation) may make it look as though Obama refused to act, and Petraeus got angry, or that they fired Petraeus to discredit him, or that there was just a disagreement on how to move forward. At the least, it would look as though Obama couldn't control his own subordinates. I'm not saying that the timing of the resignation would have changed the outcome of the election, but the debate that followed the resignation could have. Unfortunately, foreign policy was left so untouched by both candidates that it is hard to tell for sure.
ReplyDeletePS: conspiracy theories aside, does anyone else have a hard time believing that sexy gmails were the real cause for Petraeus' resignation? Considering the fact that the CIA covertly violates countless international laws as part of their daily activities, an affair seems pretty benign to me...
I believe that this affair, as Catherine stated, was held back to the public's knowledge until after the campaign. I do not believe however that if the affair was publicized during the election that it would have made a difference. I still believe that Obama would have won either way. Something that is more interesting to me though is how a CIA agent can be caught with these emails. You would think, at least I would, that a top end CIA agent would know how to cover his tracks if he was having an affair. Also the way they stumbled onto the information by accident seemed very strange to me. I'm not saying the whole story isn't true I just think that the whole way it happened was very strange. Another thing that kind of annoyed me was there was more attention played to this sex scandal than there was to the actual Benghazi attack. When this surfaced all people wanted to talk about was the scandal. I believe that this is part of our society in general, being more attentive to the interesting scandals then to politics or foreign affairs.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to read more there is a wonderful article on newsprintnow.net written by our own Tori Nobel!
http://www.newsprintnow.net/news/2012/11/19/instant-message-or-instant-embarrassment-students-weigh-in-on-what-cia-director-david-petraeus-resignation-means-for-morality/
I think that Eric Holder withheld the information about the Petraeus affair because he knew the effect that it could potentially have on the election. Since it was well known that Petraeus and Obama differed about what really happened in Libya, the fact that Petraeus' moral character was being called into question because of the news of his affair could have caused people to question his stance on what really happened in Libya. Republicans could also have called into question the ability of Obama to appoint capable leaders, turning the Petraeus affair scandal into some flaw in President Obama's leadership. I do not necessarily think that the news was withheld to overshadow his testimony in regards to Libya the week after he resigned, I think it mostly had to do with getting through the election without a scandal in the Obama administration. Since this happened so close to election day, Menand voters could have heard the news of Petraeus' affair and used this to help sway their vote. It is somewhat disappointing that such an accomplished man and military General had to end his career in such disgrace, leaving behind a legacy of scandal and affair. Although I think that our military personnel and holders of public office should be held to a high standard, forced resignation because of a personal affair seems a bit harsh. There can be difference between what people do in their personal life and what they do in the professional life, as long as the two do not intermix. One of the questions being raised about the whole Petraeus affair was whether or not General Petraeus was allowing Paula Broadwell access to classified emails and CIA intelligence. If this was found to have and legitimacy, then a forced resignation is absolutely called for, and possibly even stronger action.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Isabelle that the affair may have been concealed until after the election because of fear of how it could affect the outcome of the election, I don't agree on the outcome it could have had. I think that Republicans would have tried to use it to sway undecided voters, but I don't think that it would have worked. When I heard about the scandal, I, like most of the people I have talked to about it, did not immediately jump to blaming Obama for the scandal or think that he may have made bad leadership choices. An employee's personal life is not a reflection on the employer, unless it affects the employee's work. I completely agree with what Isabelle said about the way we hold public officials to higher standards. If Patraeus did not have such a high profile job, and extramarital affair would not be grounds for a forced resignation. That is, as Isabelle said, as long as he was not sharing classified information, as he has been accused of doing. I have not heard any reports as to the legitimacy of these claims, but if they are true, he could be charged with treason. I think that the lack of legal action against him at this point suggests that it is not true, in which case, his resignation was wrong.
DeleteCatherine certainly poses some interesting yet pertinent questions at the end of this vlog. In order to answer her initial question regarding how long it took for the affair to "leak" to the public, we must examine not only what Petrause's role was in Obama's cabinet, but the way by which the investigation was discovered. In order to have been assigned the position in the first place, General Petrayus had to have been extremely competent in his field. Any truly successful governmental agent, extremely publicized or not, will tell you that they didn't get there the "easy way".
ReplyDeleteHowever, there comes a time when we all must consider, when does the path for recognition trump morality? This internal moral conflict is not only important for us to consider, but for us to look at our leaders. As we have been examining in AP European history class, early westernized civilization has been plagued with, by some standards, superfluous wars as a result of moral misconduct. One could make the argument that a man as intelligent as Petraus should be able to recognize the error of previous leaders ways and ensure that he does not make the same "mistakes" as others.
Again, I'm going to leave off on the same "note" as the other two comments.... General Petraus was the HEAD of the Central Intelligence Agency (no pun intended), and he made the simple gaffe of discussing "personal matters" with a biographer/mistress via email?
I believe that the Petraeus affair was kept hidden, as Catherine stated, willingly by the Obama administration until after the election, only too not interfere with the current election. Though, I do not believe that if this affair was revealed during the election, it would not make much of a difference, but to withhold information from the American people on the basis of influence on the election is not constitutional. Most definitely, Petraeus’s moral character would make people re- think his stance on what had actually occurred in Libya, but President Obama would have still won the election. I believe that the affair has actually more importance and “newsworthy” now, rather than revealed during the election. As Catherine stated that conservatives believed that the news was made public during this period because people would think of it unnewsworthy and not interesting, but actually I think that is has more importance now because the election is over and this is a new subject and it has do with an affair. It’s interesting and as Kristen stated, there was more attention played to the sex scandal than to the actual Benghazi attack. People are questioning General Petraeus’s moral character and re-questioning himself as a whole. I do think it is valid to ask a top-notch leader to resign if he is having behind the scenes affairs because it is unmoral and raises questions about his certainty of the Benghazi attacks. We can relate this to Bill Clinton’s impeachment with the Lewinsky scandal -Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky’s affair. If the PRESIDENT was impeached, I think it is acceptable to ask a CIA agent to resign. What is surprising to me as well as the other girls, that a CIA agent could not hide his personal matters and is caught through the emails? It seems very absurd.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Petraeus scandal could have affected the election, depending on timing of the release. If the story broke in August or September when some evidence was first found, it could have had a major impact. However, if it broke in October or early November, it may not have had enough time to sink into minds of voters. As we have seen, a substantial amount of voters had already voted by mid October. The scandal must have been strategically placed, as a result. Even if the scandal was given enough time to marinate in the minds of the voters, it could be seen as irrelevant compared to the other issues that the United States was facing at the time. The economy was the central issue in the campaign and also the issue that the most Americans cared about in the election. The economy personally affects a voter, whereas issues of foreign policy seem more distant and less urgent.
ReplyDeleteAs Payas stated, the Bill Clinton analogy does have some relevance. Clinton may have had some questionable morals, but he was arguably one of the highest rated presidents of the last decade. I do not think that it was necessary for Petraeus to resign, if solely based on his actions as a Cabinet member. However, it seems like today’s societal standards still do not accept infidelity in government leaders, even if it does not affect their public actions. As a result, it was probably a smart idea for him to resign. His occupation becomes more of an issue when it affects classified information regarding national security. If the accusations about him revealing CIA secrets to his mistress are true, then resignation is necessary, due to the possible consequences.
Tori’s point about the true reason for resignation is an interesting perspective. Many government leaders have affairs and, even after their infidelity is revealed, they do not resign. They usually issue a public apology and ride out the storm, in order to see how badly this will affect their approval rating before deciding to resign. Petraeus does not even have to deal directly with the constituents or approval rating, due to his appointed position, so it seems fairly odd that he would immediately resign. Not many people follow the lives of every Cabinet member, so this affair would be minor compared to others. The abrupt resignation causes some speculation about the “whole” story, regarding the true reasons of his resignation and the conflict in Libya’s possible influence. It is still too early to tell how the events will unfold, but if questions about Libya do not fade, Petraeus’ career and life will be put under an even bigger microscope, running the risk of more of the story to be revealed.
Although I don't know all the details about the Petraeus affair scandal, I do think it was probably covered up to some degree and that it might of had an impact on the election if it had been revealed before voting was over. I believe it was probably covered up at first because those in charge had to have a little bit of time to digest what happened and get most of the facts straight. When the head of the CIA does something as shocking as this, its not something that would be wise to go telling the general public if you did not have all the facts. It was also probably covered up to some degree because I'm sure people don't want to go around defaming the head of the CIA. However if this scandal had been released earlier, it probably would have had some sort of impact on the election, even a very small one. There are some people out there who would have voted in response to the scandal. However I think a majority of the people would have voted without really taking this particular scandal into consideration.
ReplyDeleteI think that the chance of this scandal having a very large effect on the whole election is very unlikely, though some effect definitely seems possible. I agree that his immediate resignation is suspicious. The story was definitely covered up and even though it is technically out to the American people now, it still seems like there's stuff we don't know, which wouldn't be surprising. I think that as some more time goes on, we will probably find out more about this scandal.
ReplyDeleteObama could have disagreed with Petraeus for a few reasons. Either he had bad information and really did believe that the attack in Lybia was sparked by the movie. Another theory is that he claimed that it was the movie, when it actually was a terrorist attack, because he didn't want to look bad. It would be hard for him to be reelected if there had been a terrorist attack during his first term, that had some level of preventability.
ReplyDeleteEric Holder withheld the information of the affair because it would have made Obama look bad, and it would affect the election. Obama and Petraeus fought over whether or not the attack on Lybia was caused by the video or was a terrorist attack. Petraeus revealed that he had information proving that it was a terrorist attack and was going to testify. Before doing so, the news broke about the affair, which discredited
I believe that the Petraeus Scandal could have had an affect on the election, had the information been leaked when Eric Holder found out about the affair. I think that Obama could have lost the election had the information been leaked sooner. It is hard to say, but, if it was leaked around when Hurricane Sandy hit i think that the election would have been even closer. Obama would both be applauded for his support during the hurricane, but looked down upon because of the scandal. It is hard to say just how people would react if they happened with in a close time frame, but it is interesting to think about how that might have affected the race.
I don't think someone should necessarily be required to resign. I think it depends on how big of a scandal it is, but i believe that they should be asked to resign. If it is critical that they resign, I think they can then be removed from the armed forces, or what ever position they hold. Having an affair as a politician, rather than in a different career, is more unacceptable because success as a politician is heavily tied to the person's image, morality, and choices.
The reasons behind the timing of the announcement of General Patraeus' affair and subsequent resignation seem divided amongst party lines. In my opinion, I do not believe that had this information been out before the election that it would have made any difference in the election's outcome. I think it was proven that the driving force behind the election was much more about the economy than foreign policy. I could care less about Patraeus having an affair because what goes on behind closed doors is his personal business provided that he did his job well and effectively. I don't think an affair should cause public servants to resign as long as it does not impede on their ability to perform their job. Other thousands of Americans make that very same mistake and aren't fired or do not resign because of it. I mean you can't be CIA Director and have an affair but you can be President of the United States.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Madeline when for saying that Obama could have had faulty information about what happened. I disagree with this because the information the president and his cabinet gets usually comes directly from the CIA itself. Actually, according to the CIA recruitment website, one of the most prominent jobs that a CIA analyst can preform is briefing the president (one example they used was about a man who repeatedly got to brief Obama while flying on Air Force 1). I think it's clear that the president had the information and willingly lying to the American public.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Logan that high-level public servants should not have to resign so long as their affair does not interfere with their work. Several CIA directors have had affairs, and considering the temptations to someone in that position, it makes sense. Compared with the other sins of the CIA, I think that most would weight the affair as less egregious.
That being said, I do not think the AFFAIR is what forced him to resign. Assuming that Libya, or another factor about which the public is not aware, did not play a role, I think that the reason for his resignation had to do more with the ridiculously bad coverup itself. It is important that Americans can reasonably trust their leaders, and the secret emails do compromise that trust--not because of their content, but because of the fact that they were so insecure. The fact that the director of the CIA sent private, presumably secret emails over a gmail account to a woman who was herself being investigated by the FBI calls Petraeus's judgement into serious question. First of all, what was the director of the CIA doing using one of the most insecure email servers available, for anything? One of the biggest concerns of the CIA right now is cyber security...and he chooses to do that.
Gabriella made a very valid point with regard to the placing of the scandal and the effects it could have had depending on the time it was released. Like she mentioned, I agree that even if such a scandal had come out a couple weeks prior to November 6th many Americans had already cast their ballots. Although there was still a large amount of the electorate that did not vote absentee, I do not think this scandal would have swayed enough 'Menand' voters that Tori mentioned to result in a Romney victory.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Tori's statement about Romney & Co painting Obama as weak on foreign policy issues. Perhaps a Petraeus resignation would have given Romney more ground to stand on in the 3rd debate, but if anything, the 3rd debate showed the overall public approval with Obama's handling of our affairs abroad (with the exception of Jews, which make up a very small portion of the electorate). Romney's real success came with portraying President Obama as incompetent domestically, a president that failed to do anything substantial about our ticking debt bomb. This showed in his rise in the polls after Denver--the debate "that mattered." Considering the Romney bid for the presidency is now often described as BD (Before Denver) and AD (After Denver), this definitely showed televised debates still have relevance in our political system.
I agree with everyone that Petraeus resigning solely because of the affair is somewhat suspicious. I think that as Director of the CIA, a person has to be somewhat good at being able to keep things secret, especially something as simple as email. I do not think that it had something to do with Libya, however. The American people will never get the full story about something when it comes to the CIA. CIA affairs have notoriously been kept secret, so the true story behind the resignation (if there actually is a different reason than the extramarital affair)will most likely never be revealed to the public. Are we all really expected the CIA to be 100% honest with us about their affairs, especially those of their director?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with others that he should not have had to resign solely on the ground of an affair. If anything, more people would be able to relate to him because a LOT of Americans have extramarital affairs (that was a joke haha). More seriously, he was effective at his job, and in the end I think that is what Americans care about the most. Most Americans do not want to concern themselves with the affairs of the CIA, and some people probably like it better that way. Like Tori said, compared with the other sins of the CIA, an extramarital affair of its director seems like the lesser of their evils.
However I do not think that the resignation had much to do with Libya either. The President and Petraeus might have disagreed at first, but once more information was released the President DID change his administration's statement to it being a terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta came out saying that it was indeed an act of terrorism. So unlike the Gen. McChrystal situation, I do not think that Petraeus was forced to resign because of his position on Libya and the fact that the President and him at first disagreed. When President Obama received all of the information on Libya and whether he himself received information about Petraeus before the election are question still unanswered.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html
In my understanding, the General Petraeus scandal wasn’t "put off" until after the election - it was actually under investigation as a criminal act; meaning since the investigation was incomplete prior to the election information was not allowed to be released on the matter. I don’t think it was this huge cover up on Obama's part. Also, I don’t think that General Petraeus having a scandal had anything to do at all with Preident Obama or his reelection. It's not like it's the Presidents job to get all up in everyone's grill about who they can and cannot have sex with. Also, personally, I think it's really sad that a good general (I don’t know much about General Petraeus or whether or not he's a good general but I'm just assuming) would have to resign because of something so stupid. If it wasn't a threat to National Security (which it wasn't) then it shouldn’t matter -their personal lives should be kept separate from their jobs. Although maybe this is an uncommon opinion because I've never really been into celebrity drama and I'm certainly not into government official drama.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with Tori on some of the claims that she made with respect to the reason why Patreus resigned, I was appalled by her almost justification for the immoral actions of General Patreus "considering the temptations to someone in that position" has and how it would "make sense" for him to arguably destroy his family life. All humans are faced with temptations to some extent. Take for example, the powerful business executive (or campaign official) in his late fifties who is aided by their fresh out of college intern, who is willing to do anything and everything for him in order to receive a high regard, and potentially a letter of recommendation. Would it be justifiable to say that he can simply abuse her because of her ignorance to the unwritten rules of business (i.e. keeping work and private life separate)?
ReplyDeleteThe same argument can be made for this situation. The "laws" for international intelligence are relatively subjective as technology within these fields are growing exponentially. Perhaps this is why international legislation put in place by bodies such as the United Nations or the League of Nations have been seen as superfluous...)That being said, to restate my main argument of my initial post, we should not only our representatives to present themselves in a way indicative of the populous, but also those who are appointed by our representatives.
For the most recent election, I would have to agree with Katie in that the release of this information really only could have "mattered" on the national level depending on what time the information about the scandal was released. As Mr. Baker has mentioned numerous times in class, the media got particularly interested in the "horse race" in the election PD (Post Denver). Although this issue may have been another talking point for Romney during the foreign policy debate, I do not think that he would have been able to sway enough votes to get the nomination, especially because of the strong focus on the economy.
http://mitsloan.mit.edu/alumni/pdf/alummag-fall05.pdf
I think it is pretty obvious that the information about the Petraeus affair was withheld from the American public in order to ensure an Obama victory. By itself, I do not believe this news would have sunk Obama's campaign, but it would have been another black mark on Obama's foreign policy record during his first term. I also believe that the timing of the release was not accidental but was deliberately announced in order to either prevent Petraeus' testimony or diminish his credibility since he was going to testify in opposition to the Obama administration's claims with regards to what happened in Benghazi.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that Obama refuses to acknowledge that terrorists attacked our embassy in Benghazi is because he continually stated throughout his campaign that Al Qaeda was "on the run." This attack was in direct conflict with this campaign theme and it would have been detrimental to Obama right before the election.
With regards to the question of whether an affair should disqualify a high-ranking government or military official, I believe that it should be a disqualifying event because people in these positions are particularly susceptible to blackmail claims that could interfere with them performing their jobs. This was particularly true in Petraeus' case, as he was the head of our primary foreign intelligence agency.
One aspect of the Petraeus affair scandal that concerns me is the seemingly forced resignation of General Petraeus. Although I'm sure most everyone agrees, cheating is wrong I do not believe that an aspect of General Petraues' personal life should have this large of an impact on his work life. Although it was a social blunder, as long as no laws were broken or crimes committed during this affair, in my opinion news of the affair did not need to be publicized. As long as his affair did not impede on his ability to do his job to the best of his ability, I believe his personal matters should stay personal. And I don't think he should be forced to resign because of any personal issue, if that was for certain the true reason behind his resignation.
ReplyDeleteLike many of my classmates, I am slightly suspicious of the motives for Petraeus's resignation. Arguably an extramarital affair--part of the General's personal social sphere--seems irrelevant as long as National Security is not jeopardized. But I also acknowledge (like Isabel) that the CIA will probably NEVER enlighten us with the entire story, if such a story exists.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, for Patraeus, the social blunder had probably violated his own code of honor. He may have felt obligated to resign. Although I wish President Obama had refused his resignation, especially in light of his years of public service,we have to acknowledge that perhaps there was more going on than met the eye.
After re-reading everyone's comments, I still think that it was constitutional to force the resignation of General Petraeus. Though, I do agree with Alexandra, that his personal life should not interfere with his work life, therefore the affair should have never been publicized. But, his personal life did interfere with his work life, and if a president can be impeached, a CIA agent who has a very high reputable position who work behind the scenes can be asked to resign.
ReplyDeleteThe affair was definitely waited upon to be publicized until after the election, so it would be a definite Obama victory. I agree with Margaret that the release was deliberately announced so that Petraeus' testimony was prevented or to diminish his credibility because he was going to testify in opposition to the Obama administration's claims with regards to what happened in Benghazi. " But if it was publicized during the election, I still think that Obama would have won the election.
I agree with Gabriela that if this scandal had been publicized couple weeks prior from the election, many Americans had already cast their ballots. I also agree with Katie that the scandal would not have swayed enough "Menand" voters that would result in a Romney victory.
I don't think that that it would have been right or logical for Patraeus to be forced to resign simply due to a scandalous public affair. While this proves his questionable personal character, it does not have much to do with his ability to perform his duties as head of the CIA. I agree that it is possible that he felt personally obligated to resign, like it was his duty. I still think that this whole situation is somewhat suspicious and his resignation could be due more to reasons that we're not fully aware of.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would love to set government officials to the idealistic standards of faithfulness in marriage, I do not think that the actual affair should not be questioned, but what should be questioned is the way Petreaus handled the affair, pertaining to what information was possibly revealed. The CIA director cannot be casually telling his mistress about the classified information in the situation in Libya. Although it is unclear what conversations exactly took place in their affair, aside from the emails, it is not far-fetched to think that his daily job was a topic of conversation. This man was willing to violate society’s moral standards for his extramarital affair, so who is to say that he is not willing to violate the standards of national security?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have to disagree with Payas’ rationale for Petraeus’ forced resignation. An extramarital affair is not grounds to impeach a president because having an affair is not illegal. Bill Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury, in reference to false statements made about his former affairs. As a result, it was not necessary for Petraeus to resign due to any moral issues. It had to be something more, and the answer, the American public may never know.
I do agree with the statements people made about Petraues resigning because of reasons other than an affair such as him compromising classified information that could be a threat to our national security. We are all speculating what may or may not have happened; however, if the Obama administration was purposely delaying the announcement of the scandal I think it will come out eventually or hopefully be proven one way or another with the ongoing investigation and media attention.
ReplyDeleteThis affair should not be at the forefront of discussions. I think it is a distraction to the bigger picture of what happened in Benghazi. I do not believe that it is as big of a deal as people are making it. Like I said before our society loves scandal and are more interested in that then politics. I am glad that General Petraeus gave his testimony, but most people did not pay attention to the details because they were so focused on the scandal. I hope this scandal is lost to the more important things that are going on.
ReplyDelete