I was never a David Petreaus hater. I saw him as a highly effective general who performed extremely well in a difficult and ignoble cause in Iraq. I didn’t chafe at the way he seemed to work the refs in Congress and the media, seeing it as mainly more evidence of his high degree of competence.
Even when my country embarks on ill-considered and poorly planned foreign adventures, I do expect and desire that our military officers will perform well. Many of them did not. Petraeus stood out from the beginning to the end as an exception.
Nonetheless, I saw his appointment as CIA director as a savvy and somewhat ruthless ploy by the president to eliminate a potent threat to his reelection. And I wasn’t a bit surprised to see the word that Petraeus would be sacked come across the wire within an hour of the Election Day exit polls being released that confirmed that President Obama would get a second term. His usefulness to the administration ended the moment his reelection was assured.
That the administration is now recommending that he be prosecuted and imprisoned is surprising not because the allegations don’t warrant a stiff penalty but because the general rule in Washington is that most high-ranking officials play by their own set of rules and are usually beyond accountability.
In the rare cases where someone does get held accountable, they tend to be fall guys who take a bullet for a superior (see: Scooter Libby). But there were no superiors to Petraeus at the CIA.
In a more cosmic sense, I am not sure Petraeus is even the most deserving former DCI to face justice. I suspect that Porter Goss and George Tenet have more serious things to answer for, mainly concerning gross human rights violations and obstruction of justice.
Still, one of the most dispiriting recent trends in Washington has been the way that high officials have skated despite the worst kind of malfeasance and incompetence. Holding anyone to the same standards we hold regular folks to would have to be considered a turn in the right direction.
If you want to restore some faith in government, you have to demonstrate that we’re capable, at least occasionally, of acting like there is one set of rules that applies to everyone equally.
Tossing Petraeus in prison would definitely send that message.
Having said that, I think his crime is significant but ultimately not that serious. His punishment should be commensurate with his offense.
So, what the message?
‘Don’t share e-mails with your biographer/mistress or you’ll get prosecuted.
But go ahead and torture all you want, and we’ll leave you alone to do the Sunday talk shows!’
Good message.
NOT!!!
Agreed. People at the CIA richly deserve to be prosecuted. Petraeus would not be near the top of that list.
The whole thing reminds me of the Martha Stewart prosecution. It’s a show trial to nail someone famous for a venial and undoubtedly common bit of malfeasance. Really, if Petraeus had an affair with one woman and leaked information to another, would we even be talking about this?
In other words, it’s the only kind of prosecution of someone powerful that our media will tolerate. Going after truly evil acts is not something they are interested in. (Except Madoff, but only because he stole from the rich)
And, of course, it’s a CIA scalp without going after the Obama loyalist who lied to Congress. So it’s a win for Obama and for the media. It’s just a loss for America.
…oh, and of course it’s like the Great Clinton Snark Hunt, because sexytime. That will keep all the great minds of the punditocracy furiously wanking. It’s their highest level of intellectualism and seriousness.
The idea that there’s an example of accountability being set is ridiculous.
Working the “refs,” including public opinion, isn’t evidence of competence at one’s primary job, but a propaganda smokescreen. Nothing difficult about paying off enemies not to shoot at us. In fact, it’s the first question that should be asked before engaging in any war.
Why did he give Broadwell such access? Because she could be trusted to use it to make Petraeus look great and his enemies/opponents to look like fools or idiots. He was a highly ambitious little weasel.
Tag onto this that he didn’t just leak information to his mistress, he leaked information to his mistress who was/is a journalist who then used it, while in a war zone.
If John Kiriakou deserves jail time for what he did, Petraeus deserves jail time for what he did, precedent and cynicism notwithstanding.
Can I guess from the tone of your post that a potential Petraeus presidential candidacy is not dead and that someone wants to spike a zombie?
His dismissal was not about what he did but the relationship he got into that put the CIA Director office at risk of blackmail.
On the specific crime he should get at least as much jail time and harassment as John Kiriakou has received.
For putting himself in a compromising situation as CIA Director, he should receive as much time as Chelsea Manning has been sentenced to.
Moreover, there should be more investigation into the actions of Ms. Broadwell. It looks like a honeypot sting in the style of what took down John Edwards.
I’m not yet convinced that anyone in DC wants to restore faith in government now that voters have become irrelevant.
Ouch, that last little bit about the irrelevancy of voters really stings badly and there’s no remedy against the toxin known to ‘We the people’. So there you are, take it or leave it. One way or the other it comes down to the same thing: oppression.
If come November 2016 “voters” are given a choice between Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush how many will get that sense that they are irrelevant? The the winner was predetermined and only the loser was kept in the dark?
John Edwards’ affair and “love child” was a “honeypot sting?”
Nothing in l’affaire Petraeus looks to me like a honeypot sting either. Three ambitious and/or avaricious, Republican/military aligned women seeking to feather their own nests. All three should be exhaustively investigation. Not that I expect that it would uncover any criminal activity by them or associates, but better to confirm that they were lone she-wolves and not merely assume that.
There is more to l’affaire Petraeus than meets the eye; accepting Ms Broadwell’s relationship was the opportunity and the FBI was the agency, what was the motive?
There’s always more to everything than the public ever knows. Doubt that anyone could read the unfolding sequence of events in the discovery of l’affaire Petraeus and not be struck by how screwy it seemed. Yet, nobody to date has disputed the events that all looked as if it were fights within a GOP/military family. What instigated the discovery was Broadwell’s harassing e-mails to Kelly. Why did she send those communications?
Agreed that this was typical alphabet-soup wars but this is the Director of the CIA we’re talking about. Who tipped off the FBI you mean? Wasn’t the story that they inadvertently stumbled on the emails? I’ll bet.
Frederick W. Humphries II, the FBI agent who started the investigation, was a friend of Jill Kelley. Humphries had pursued Kelley’s cyberstalking complaint after he had reported it, even though he was not assigned to the case. He was admonished by supervisors …
… friends and acquaintances had also received the shirtless photo of himself, posing with dummies at a shooting range, in a “joking” email sent in the fall of 2010, soon after Humphries had transferred to Tampa from Guantánamo Bay.
Kelly and Humphries were clueless as to the source of the threatening e-mails. Although considering who Humphries contacted when his FBI associates didn’t aggressively pursue the case suggests that he and Kelly suspected a Democratic/liberal plot against the cozy, CentCom officer social clique and Kelly and her twin sister. As Kelly and her sister were guests at the wedding of Petraeus’ daughter, Kelly was probably horrified that turning over those e-mail to her FBI “friend” let to Petraeus’ firing.
Why did Broadwell suspect Kelly was a competitor for Petraeus’ affections? Enough of one to send her threatening e-mails. No way is Broadwell other than who she was presenting herself to be — Republican, pro-military, and huge supporter of Petraeus.
You most likely are correct. But emails can be spoofed. What were Broadwell’s comments about the emails? Did she resignedly own up to doing something stupid? Deny them? Or remain silent?
The problem with postulating that those emails were fake is that the odds of sending them off to Kelly would lead to Petraeus’ downfall were incredibly low. Seriously, who could have predicted or arranged that Kelly would turn them over to an FBI acquaintance and he in turn wouldn’t let the matter drop?
Yeah, my thoughts, too. 2016 insurance.
There is some precedent. Consider that odious toad, Sandy Berger, who as former National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton, stole some copies of classified information from the National Archives. They must have been quite an embarassment for him to risk this.
As it was, he got a slap on the wrist: “In April 2005, Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington. According to the lead prosecutor in the case, Berger only took copies of classified information and no original material was destroyed. Berger was sentenced to a fine and a three-year suspension of his security clearance.” See above link.
Petraeus should get at least this.
I don’t share Booman’s regard for Petraeus. He did some things right, but was a classic Army careerist and grotesque egotist. It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that with his ego, he couldn’t resist porking his official biographer, to the professional ruin of both of them.
In my book any military man who prances around with this many medals and do-dads on his chest is immediately suspect. Compare George C. Marshall, who was ten times the General Patraeus ever was.
Yeah, that chestful of medals and do-dads with no obvious connection to what a layperson thinks military medals and ribbons should be awarded for makes not only Petraeus but the whole damn US military high command look suspiciously like a gang of poppycocks.
The contrasting modesty of George C. Marshall speaks volumes.
Our modern military elites look like banana republic officers; then again maybe today we are what they look like.
C’mon, it’s the sex.
At heart many Americans are puritans.they don’t like others having the sexy time. Yet they love a sexy story. Of course the FBI wants to go after a leaker with a sex angle. It’s what the FBI lives for.
To get to the administration reason, that is the matter of Petreaus betraying Obama. Yes, I agree the appointment was political, and anyone doubting Obama’s political ruthlessness just needs to look at this appointment. I can almost gaurantee that every single appointee in this administration gets asked about any potential sex scandal, and when asked Petreaus lied to the POTUS. But sometime in the fourth year of this administration Obama found out about the affair. Yet because of the campaign he could not fire him.
He put the second term in danger by the lie. And the FBI loves a sex case.
It’s as simple as that.
nalbar
I never liked General Betray Us, but he had talent in a system where competence and patience lead to advancement, not raw talent and I respected that. That this guy who had at least some redeeming value might get prosecuted where as pure scum like Cheney escape is really dispiriting.
Petraeus had the same talents that William Westmoreland had. And the same results.
Wonder if those that consciously lived through the dethroning of Westmoreland were better able to see through those like Powell and Petraeus.
Westmoreland wasn’t really dethroned until he tried to run for governor of South Carolina. He was still being nationally hyped and his run was seen as a stepping stone to something larger. I think he was swapped out because Rusk and LBJ an McNamara felt that for all the happy numbers he was not delivering the results. And he was becoming too friendly with Congress, presenting a political danger of popular insubordination like MacArthur (and Stanley McChrystal).
“consciously lived through” — by sometime in 1967 even LBJ knew that Westmoreland had to go — would be those that opposed the Vietnam War and saw through the lies.
Oh yes. Although of the three Powell was smoother in his relations with the public.
As for consciously lived through, I met Westmoreland several times when he was Gov. McNair’s aide before he ran for governor. I was struck by how short he was and how completely uninformed despite having his aide (a major) take notes about everything. Note that after his retirement and working for the Governor, he still had an aide.
Petraeus receives $220,000/year as his army pension.
The hedge fund job likely pays for his staff.
I don’t know — did the public really care when Westy was nudged aside (promoted to Army Chf of Staff) in early 68 when by then they were increasingly getting sick and tired of the war, especially after Tet. I don’t recall any substantial public upwelling of sympathy for him, certainly as compared w McArthur during Korea.
I think he had to go because he wasn’t as you say delivering the right results (except in easily manipulated numbers of dead and wounded) and because Lyndon wanted to show the public a fresh approach, something different than war by attrition, as his reelection approached. Domestic politics and Lyndon staying in power by trying to bamboozle the public that victory was more achievable with a new military leader had more to do with it.
Btw, by late 67 McNamara was halfway out the door as DefSec and was no longer favored by Johnson, who probably began to consider McN as disloyal. And LBJ, no military genius but no moron either, didn’t need McN or Rusk or any aide to tell him the obvious, that Westmoreland’s strategy was not producing victory.
Something is better than nothing; maybe the sex means it will go somewhere rather than nowhere as in torture. and going somewhere is a start.
Woefully uninformed about how serious the intelligence community takes compromises of THEIR security, ours is completely expendable.
Consider the case of John Deutch.
Precedent, recent at that, tells us how this plays out.
http://www.salon.com/2000/02/03/cia_3/
Petreus would still be a problem for the Dems in 2016, so this seems to be a different approach to fixing the same problem. Even if they don’t go all the way through with the prosecution, the lingering effect will still make it difficult for him to run in 2016.