The resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus over an extramarital affair has raised and will continue to raise a number of questions.
First among them (OK, maybe not first, national security being more important, but stay with me) is: Why should he have resigned? I am always amused when journalists use the words "sex scandal" when writing about such things. Having abandoned most standards for what used to be called "upright behavior," culture now "tsk-tsks" when someone is caught in a compromising position.
Bill Clinton didn't have to resign after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He lied about their assignations under oath, for which he was later impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. His liaisons in public office were legion, stretching back at least to his time as governor of Arkansas. Petraeus' dalliance appears to have been a one-off. Is there a different standard, and if so, based on what?
The late Sen. Edward Kennedy's sexual liberalism was well-known, and he wasn't forced to resign. In fact, he repeatedly won re-election, despite his predilections. The sexual practices of numerous Republican and Democratic members of Congress over many years have forced some to quit. Others lost elections, but some are still in Congress and have survived whatever wrath remains for such things.
In our anything-goes culture, what are the rules for public officials? Avoiding the potential for blackmail is certainly one, which is a crucial issue in the Petraeus matter. So is the question of whether Paula Broadwell, his biographer and lover, was given access to classified CIA information. In his resignation letter, Petraeus cited "poor judgment" as a major reason for quitting. If poor judgment is the standard, rush-hour traffic in Washington would be a lot easier, because there would be fewer government officials around clogging up the roads. ...
READ MORE>>> [3]
