The Petraeus Affair

[BoMac]

All information and discussion in this fast-evolving scandal can be done here.

It's been 10 minutes. Surely something new has, er, come up.

 

[BoMac]

In an ironic twist, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 was released today featuring a cameo by...David Petraeus as Secretary of Defense.

 

[trojanchick99]

Because it deserves to be reposted:

An ABC Affiliate in Denver accidentally ran a story featuring a fake cover for the biography.

ABC Affiliate Ran Phony Cover of Broadwell Book | The Weekly Standard

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Never heard of that. I am so out of the loop. Maybe I can use that for my affair with Daniel Craig



The AP reports:

Petraeus and Broadwell apparently used a trick, known to terrorists and teenagers alike, to conceal their email traffic, one of the law enforcement officials said.

Rather than transmitting emails to the other's inbox, they composed at least some messages and instead of transmitting them, left them in a draft folder or in an electronic "dropbox," the official said. Then the other person could log onto the same account and read the draft emails there. This avoids creating an email trail that is easier for outsiders to intercept or trace.

 

[Pearl]

Someone had to deliberately do use that fake book cover on air, or they just weren't doing their job right.

 

[trojanchick99]

I can easily imagine they just searched google images for a picture and didn't pay attention to the details.

 

[deep]

Denver

what do you expect

 

[Pearl]

Here's an opinion piece similar to the NYTimes.com:

There they go again -- powerful men having illicit affairs while their apologists blame the women. Didn't we just vote to reject these Mad Men mores in last week's election? Apparently not everyone got the message.
These are the facts: Generals David Petraeus and John Allen exchanged torrents of emails with women not their wives. Petraeus had a relationship with his biographer and Allen exchanged voluminous emails with his female friend while both generals were supposed to be waging war and defending our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and around the world. The FBI, CIA, Pentagon, House and Senate are all looking into the chain of events to see whether and how national security was breached and military codes of conduct violated.
Both men will pay with their jobs. Both men will be cautionary tales. But what is the moral of their stories? That smart people do stupid things? Yes. That some secret keepers can't keep secrets? Yes. That the "e" in email stands for evidence? Yes. That there is no such thing as a private email on the "world wide web?" Yes. That human beings being human make lamentable mistakes? Yes. That the generals are victims of the women? Absolutely not.
Generals Allen and Petraeus are many things -- but victims they are not. There are victims here -- starting with the spouses and children and the children of the four consenting adults. There may be other victims as well -- such as service members and security personnel sacrificing their lives under the command of men who were not 100% focused on the task at hand. But the generals are not the victims and their enablers need to stop blaming the women.
Young folks call it "slut shaming" -- and Mother Jones reporter Kate Shappard has a pretty nasty compilation of the verbiage directed at Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell: "Got her claws into him" "dressed in tight clothes" and "shared a story about women wanting to be sexually dominated" to name a few. And we now have General Allen's friend depicted as "flirtatious" and "salacious." Sigh. As if two of the most powerful men in the world were hapless victims to female sexuality. Please.
Didn't we just have this discussion at the 2012 ballot box? Didn't we just reject "binders full of women" and victim shaming in favor of women making our own decisions about our bodies, our families, and our futures? Didn't a majority of voters just elect powerful women to work side by side along men to make the critical decisions about security and economic power? Apparently not everyone got the memo -- because the minute this sex scandal was reported, people regressed without a second thought.
Enough with the Mad Men mores -- the generals are not the victims. If you just voted to defend women's rights, then don't participate in blaming these women for what they and the men did -- hold all four consenting adults Petraeus, Broadwell, Allen, and Kelley equally accountable for the facts. If you just finished thinking, "gee the Republican party needs to modernize its views of women" make sure yours are modernized too.
The larger point here is that Generals Allen and Petraeus held American blood and treasure in their hands. They decided the fate of hundreds of thousands of American service members and security personnel. Were the liaisons deadly distractions that put troops in harm's way or prevented us from doing better in Afghanistan? The public deserves to know -- and deserves new leaders who can give 100 percent focus to bringing our troops home safely honorably and soon.
This is 2012 not 1962. Here's a thought -- David Petraeus and John Allen ought to stand up and make clear that they the generals are not the victims here and that anyone suggesting otherwise should stand down.

Christine Pelosi: Enough With the Mad Men Mores: The Generals Are Not the Victims

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I do blame the women for having affairs and flirtations with married men. The generals, however, are not victims. Victims of their own egos and power trips and inability to resist- yes. That kind of victim, yes.

 

[nathan1977]

I do blame the women for having affairs and flirtations with married men. The generals, however, are not victims. Victims of their own egos and power trips and inability to resist- yes. That kind of victim, yes.

This.

 

[deep]

just part of our American Culture

'to the victor goes the spoils'

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Resist wasn't really the right word to use, that implies some sort of temptress thing. Resist a temptation to have an affair, yes. More like inability to stay faithful to your wife. Even if the woman is the " aggressor" well you're not a victim unless she's forcing or blackmailing you somehow. That dichotomy does end up looking laughable, that these powerful men are powerless in that way. Let alone the implications for your job, your agency, national security, and your country.

I don't make any excuses for the women involved either.

 

[deep]

this Kelley woman has a strange effect on men

Petraeus affair: 'Shirtless' FBI agent under investigation

In yet another bizarre twist to the David Petraeus scandal, reports say the FBI agent who originally investigated Jill Kelley's complaint that she'd received harassing emails had sent her pictures of himself shirtless.

or women with breasts make men act like idiots.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

or women with breasts make men act like idiots.

Seriously? Guess that's why I don't have to deal with that. Breasts aren't the issue, even breasts can't do that to this extent. Even dreadsox would tell you that. On second thought...

The shirtless thing, old news. He was removed from the case so he went to the Congressman, who went to Eric Cantor. She's married too. Apparently both generals even wrote letters on behalf of Jill Kelley ' s sister in a custody dispute. You can't make this crap up.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Definitely agreed with the sentiments about targeting the women here. If they know a guy's married and go after him anyway, yeah, that's a stupid move.

But please, let's stop already with the "men are weak in the presence of these aggressive women/addicted to sex" BS that always floats around. You think you're man enough to have any woman you please, be man enough to accept responsiblity for your actions, too.

That there is no such thing as a private email on the "world wide web?" Yes.

This is the other thing that always kills me about these stories. I know these people like to think they won't be caught, but for cripes sake, people, come on, wise up and look at the technological and media-oriented world we live in nowadays. Facebook, Twitter, TMZ, etc. EVERYTHING is out in the open. It's not a matter of "if" you get caught, it's a matter of when.

And if they know they could get caught and don't care regardless, well, then, you want to take that risk, fine, but again I say, be prepared to own up to your own stupid actions when people find out.

 

[corianderstem]

I do blame the women for having affairs and flirtations with married men. The generals, however, are not victims. Victims of their own egos and power trips and inability to resist- yes. That kind of victim, yes.

Why can't we blame both parties? It takes two to tango. I know you're blaming the men for not being able to resist, but why even differentiate? Why not blame the women for getting involved with a married man, and blaming the men for stepping outside their marriages?

Edit: I see you did clarify, so never mind ... but it bears repeating in general.

This whole thing is just embarrassing for all involved. Hope you had fun with your sexy shenanigans, because you sure look like a bunch of idiots now.

 

[deep]

assigning the right proportion of blame is difficult

if it is 80 - 20, whoever is at 20 had the ability to stop it completely by not participating

if these men are serial cheaters, then I put them at the more responsible part, if these women are serial flirts, and groupie types, that puts a higher proportion on them

regardless, the entrapment defense, does not come into play if one walks away from the entrapment. Both of these men, to whatever extent they crossed the line are resposible for their own actions. I don't see either of these women as victims, they seem to be in control of their own actions and were not pressured in any way.

Of course if more information comes out, I may revise these opinions.





I'm not as old as these gentlemen, but if these women twisted my
arm, it wood be hard to stop them.

 

[corianderstem]

Percentages of blame for cheating? Really?

 

[deep]

each willing participant is 100% at fault for their own actions

the point was who initiated it, or tempted the other party, not that that should matter.

 

[anitram]

I always find it fascinating for the men in these situations (because typically it is a high-powered, influential man who is involved in the scandal and the woman is not on the same socio-economic level). You have a guy like Petraeus who is by all accounts intelligent, eloquent, very accomplished and generally respected as a leader and he gives all that up for a few romps in the sack? I mean we are not talking about a 20-year affair where he fell in love with someone and carried on a real and meaningful relationship on the side. We are talking about a fling.

I know that sex is not at all a rational thing, but if he had just stepped back and committed 5 minutes of thought to the potential consequences, would he still have done the same thing? Was the sex worth all this trouble and public humiliation for his family? How stupid.

 

[Pearl]

This takes a look at why some men do this:

What is unclear is why. Is sex so fundamentally different for each gender that men see it as exerting their influence, while women somehow succumb to it? Have we simply not reached the point where there are enough women in positions of power, a critical mass that will make cheating an equal opportunity perk of office -- men do this because they can, and women don't because they can't...yet? Or are women just more moral than men?
The answer is probably all of the above, none of the above, and it is much more complicated than that. If -- when -- the scales balance (the last election was a good start) we will likely learn that it isn't just sex that means different things to men and women, but also power.
Until then, the parade of cheating men will inevitably march on.

Lisa Belkin: Why Petraeus And Other Powerful Men Cheat

I've heard that being in a position of power makes some men think they need to have a woman who is like a sycophant and worships their egos, because their wives aren't doing that. I've also heard having a mistress is another way to further prove their power after they've achieved so much.

 

[Irvine511]

Percentages of blame for cheating? Really?

i'd like to see that algorithm.

 

[Irvine511]

I know that sex is not at all a rational thing, but if he had just stepped back and committed 5 minutes of thought to the potential consequences, would he still have done the same thing? Was the sex worth all this trouble and public humiliation for his family? How stupid.

we should ask this guy:

i think the thing is that no one thinks they're going to get caught.

 

[anitram]

Yeah, for sure that is part of it. You'd think the head of the CIA could at least not get caught.

 

[corianderstem]

Speaking of the CIA ... nice new avatar, Irvine. Ha!

 

[Irvine511]

Claire's cry-face gets funnier every time I see it.

And I thought Homeland was really overrated.

 

[corianderstem]

You're off my Christmas gift list.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I've heard that being in a position of power makes some men think they need to have a woman who is like a sycophant and worships their egos, because their wives aren't doing that. I've also heard having a mistress is another way to further prove their power after they've achieved so much.

And if that is true (which I'm inclined to believe it is), to that I simply say this: Get over yourselves, guys.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I blame both parties equally, just to make that clear.

I think the fact that she's 20 years younger is a major factor too. That's part of the ego trip.

 

[purpleoscar]

Petraeus and the Rise of Narcissistic Leaders - Jeffrey Pfeffer - Harvard Business Review

What to make of the confluence of General Petraeus resigning as head of the CIA and Christopher Kubasik, vice chairman, president, and COO of Lockheed also resigning — both for having affairs — within days of each other? Certainly not the first men to be brought down by an inability to control their impulses — these recent examples join a long list including John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and Harry Stonecipher of Boeing.

There is a simple power story often told about such behavior: research shows that people with more power tend to pay less attention to others. They are more action-oriented, pursue their own goals, and exhibit disinhibited behavior in part because they believe that rules don't apply to them; they are special and invulnerable.

All of this is true, but nonetheless leaves at least a couple of questions unanswered. First, as my friend Bob Sutton noted in a conversation, these behaviors seem to be confined mostly to men. We seldom hear of powerful women who can't control their urges. Second, it at least feels as if this sort of behavior and the career consequences that result seem to be occurring more frequently now. Maybe that is because of more public scrutiny and the operation of social media. But maybe something else is going on — namely we are choosing more narcissistic leaders and the misbehavior is not just the consequence of power but also of excessive narcissism.

First, a definition: narcissistic leaders, as research by Stanford colleague Charles O'Reilly and colleagues notes, are characterized by the traits of dominance, self-confidence, a sense of entitlement, grandiosity, and low empathy. As Michael Maccoby pointed out in The Productive Narcissist, many well-known, even iconic leaders such as Martha Stewart, Jack Welch, and Bill Gates are almost certainly narcissistic personalities, and narcissism is useful for attaining leadership positions, maintaining power, and even stimulating creativity and innovation. O'Reilly's research on narcissism among Silicon Valley executives shows that narcissistic CEOs earn more, last in their jobs longer, and also have a larger gap between their pay and the pay of their senior team.

Evidence from surveys of college students shows that the level of narcissism has been rising over time — a possible answer for why leaders today are getting into more trouble than in the past. And examinations of the structure of narcissism and how narcissistic behavior differs between men and women helps explain the gender imbalance: "Past research suggests that exploitive tendencies and open displays of feelings of entitlement will be less integral to narcissism for females than for males" simply because women face more social constraints and social sanctions for grandiosity and self-aggrandizement than do men.

And while narcissism and the associated behaviors may indeed help people ascend into leadership roles, as recent experience suggests, narcissistic individuals also contain the seeds of their own (self)-destruction. And leaders' downfalls are costly — Lockheed now has to find another person to assume the CEO role, and President Obama must find someone to take over the CIA. So while indeed there are productive narcissists, narcissistic behavior can be very unproductive for both the work organizations and the people who experience it.