The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Petraeus: Nation at Risk?||Date: 11/13/2012 2:40 PM|
|Author: TheDope1||Number: 1836324 of 1988172|
So we know he resigned. Is there anyone that thinks he should not have resigned?
If there is the potential for serious security leaks, should this perhaps not set a new precident?
Should the expectation going forward be that individuals in very sensitive positions (including POTUS) resign for the good of the country when they are caught in a situation that might compromise national security?
Should he have been fired if he refused to resign?
The single scariest part to me is that NONE of this came up during his vetting process to be CIA director. When he was in Afghanistan his staff supposedly warned him about some of his behavior...which means the CIA background check people should have found out about it.
Which means the following possibilities are in play:
1. They never found out about it and the vetting process blew it. This is scary. Who knows how many other potentially compromised people there are running around the government in sensitive positions? If they can't vet the CIA director, who can they vet?
2. They DID know about it and kept it quiet. That doesn't serve anybody well, and opens up a can of worms as to why they'd sit on that information.
Neither possibility points to anything good.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|