CIA director Petraeus quit his job after an affair came to light and a Lockheed Martin executive was fired after having an affair with a subordinate. In the second case, that’s a clear abuse of power and being fired at least makes some sense. But in the case of David Petraeus, his affair was with his biographer.
I really don’t understand what having an affair with your biographer has to do with running the CIA. It’s such a random connection. You may as well declare that ‘Oh, I had an affair—I guess that means I can’t go to Starbucks anymore.’ That seems as logical to me as ‘Oh, I had an affair—I guess I had better quit my job.’ I didn’t read the whole story, so maybe I’m missing something.