A Tale of Two Rules
There was a lot in the media lately about General Petraeus.
The General was thought to be a great military man, having what many think, to have done a good job as leader of the Western alliance forces in Afghanistan.
On retiring from the military General Petraeus was made head of the CIA.
At the time this was probably a good choice.
None of this though is the reason as to why he, of late, has been so news worthy.
What made the news was that he had resigned, sighting the fact that he had had an affair.
The news media were then discussing as to whether he had made the right choice to resign. Some said that he should not have resigned as he was too good a man. Others said that he had no choice because he was an honorable man.
Whilst the General was serving in the military, he knew that to have an affair was illegal. There are those that say though, there is no such rule in the CIA and so it was only because of honor that he resigned.
What seems to have been lost by the media though, is as to why it is an offense to have an affair whilst serving in the military.
It may come as a surprise to many but it is not for ethical reasons.
The reason is that having an affair opens you up to the possibility of blackmail.
If somebody is having an affair, they may be blackmailed with threats of telling their spouse or their superiors. The payment the blackmailer wants is not money but information.
Therefore to be having an affair, you are considered to have become a security risk and probably susceptible to similar status in the future.
Now given that this is the reason for it being an offense in the military, it seems unbelievable that it is not an offense in the CIA, one of the most secretive organizations in the world.
- CNN Biased
Why would the CNN disregard and ignore an expert they themselves brought in? What is the truth? What effect does it have on the International community?
The media then say, well at least he did the honorable thing. Did he?
The honorable thing would have to resigned at the outset of the affair, not wait until he realized that he had been caught, was under investigation and had no way of stopping the incident from going “public”.
At least that way there would have been no question as to whether his intelligence investigation on the Libyan Embassy killings was compromised; he would not have leaded it.
The media also say: a good man should not be punished for one mistake.
Where is the media’s pity for the poor enlisted man?
Under General Petraeus command, many low ranking soldiers would have been dishonorably discharged for having an affair. They would not have received any pensions or other benefits for their otherwise brave service. Instead of pity, the media would say that these deprived men and women could have put thousands of lives at stake and deserve what they got – nothing.
I do not here wish to take anything from General Petraeus’s brave and good service in the military, in which he served honorably and deserves his benefits.
However, why is it that a supposedly unbiased media have two standards: One for those with power and influence and one for those with out?
Perhaps in this case we should not be surprised considering that according to the Huffington Post, both the head of Fox News, Roger Ailes and the media mogul Rupert Murdock tried to coax and fund Petraeus into being a Presidential candidate.
- Problems with the Western Press
Most of us expect that politicians are often frugal with the truth but having a supposedly free and unbiased media, we expect them to add reality to the so called facts. Are we being misled by the media though? Are they even trying to whittle out the
- Capitalism and Propaganda
Is capitalism really what it seems or is it only propaganda? Do the wealthy need us to believe in capitalism for them to remain wealthy? Is capitalism a myth?