Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Someone Explain to Me...


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
30 replies to this topic

#1 davos

davos

    €∞€∞€∞€

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,271
  • Reputation: 2,274
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:17 AM

Why do the Petraeus and Allen situations discredit them as top officials?

How does having an affair effect their ability to do their jobs?

Why should this have any effect on their careers? and why should we care?

Because I sure as hell don't give two sh*ts

#2 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 25,717
  • Reputation: 6,839
Moderators

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:20 AM

What if she threatened to come forward with the affair in exchange for the launch codes so she could give them to the Mayans.

#3 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,329
  • Reputation: 1,582
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:23 AM

Because...

If you cannot contain the simplest of human emotions/actions in your own life (there is a way of getting out of a marriage without cheating on your spouse) then you have no business being close to things that can have an effect on millions and millions of people...

#4 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,160
  • Reputation: 516
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:54 AM

It's about abuse of power, loss of trust, potential leaking of classified information... Things like that... If the reports I heard were accurate, he had her on site with him in Afghanistan for a year, which calls into question him using his command to harbor a mistress, while at the same time giving her access to Top Secret areas and inforamtion... The question of 'did she sleep her way into that information and access?' is a fair one to ask... Also, affairs are punishable under the UCMJ, but rarely cost careers... However, in this case Patraeus is in a very high profile, very sensitive position (also no longer subject to the UCMJ, but hence the investigation)... The timing of this is all a bit curious, particularly given his testimony that was set to take place, so there will be plenty of coverup theories... All in all, this is one big mess, from what should have been one of the most trusted individuals in the country... When you hold a position that important, you're held to a higher standard...

#5 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • Joined: 24-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,522
  • Reputation: 895
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:41 AM

so he can no longer testify

#6 davos

davos

    €∞€∞€∞€

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,271
  • Reputation: 2,274
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:46 AM

It's about abuse of power, loss of trust, potential leaking of classified information... Things like that... If the reports I heard were accurate, he had her on site with him in Afghanistan for a year, which calls into question him using his command to harbor a mistress, while at the same time giving her access to Top Secret areas and inforamtion... The question of 'did she sleep her way into that information and access?' is a fair one to ask... Also, affairs are punishable under the UCMJ, but rarely cost careers... However, in this case Patraeus is in a very high profile, very sensitive position (also no longer subject to the UCMJ, but hence the investigation)... The timing of this is all a bit curious, particularly given his testimony that was set to take place, so there will be plenty of coverup theories... All in all, this is one big mess, from what should have been one of the most trusted individuals in the country... When you hold a position that important, you're held to a higher standard...


well put

#7 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,160
  • Reputation: 516
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:49 AM

so he can no longer testify


He can, but now he'll have to be subpoenaed, and I'm sure the 'rules' will be different for what he'll be able to (or required to) answer...

#8 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,180
  • Reputation: 5,313
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:32 PM

I don't think it does, honestly. If cheating disqualified you from office, Obama is one of the only Presidents out of the past 30 years still qualified.

#9 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,184
  • Reputation: 51
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:41 PM

I'm having a difficult time following who was boning who.

#10 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,027
  • Reputation: 442
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:47 PM

I don't think it does, honestly. If cheating disqualified you from office, Obama is one of the only Presidents out of the past 30 years still qualified.


director of the CIA publicly sleeping with a journalist/author is a f*cking "no-no."

#11 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 16-May 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 954
  • Reputation: 79
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:51 PM

At least this time the mistresses are attractive.

#12 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,329
  • Reputation: 1,582
HUDDLER

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:53 PM

...hello misogyny