Pentagon looking at demoting Petraeus over handling of classified material

posted at 10:01 am on January 19, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

The troubles for David Petraeus for sharing classified information with his paramour/biographer may not be over. Despite an Army recommendation that his criminal prosecution suffice as punishment, The Daily Beast reports that Defense Secretary Ash Carter may take further action against the retired four-star general. A retroactive demotion would hit Petraeus in a spot where he’s already taking a beating — his wallet:

The Pentagon is considering retroactively demoting retired Gen. David Petraeusafter he admitted to giving classified information to his biographer and mistress while he was still in uniform, three people with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Beast.

The decision now rests with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who is said to be willing to consider overruling an earlier recommendation by the Army that Petraeus not have his rank reduced. Such a demotion could cost the storied general hundreds of thousands of dollars—and deal an additional blow to his once-pristine reputation.

“The secretary is considering going in a different direction” from the Army, a defense official told The Daily Beast, because he wants to be consistent in his treatment of senior officers who engage in misconduct and to send a message that even men of Petraeus’s fame and esteemed reputation are not immune to punishment.

That’s a fine lesson. We’ll get back to that in a moment.

Petraeus plea-bargained the case down to a misdemeanor, but it could have been much worse. Under 18 USC 1924, keeping classified information in his possession constitutes a felony; sharing them with unauthorized people is another felony under 18 USC 793. He then lied to investigators, which was yet another felony, before finally admitting to what he’d done. The Department of Justice gave Petraeus the option of pleading out, and he got two years of probation and a $100,000 fine.

That, however, was not the end of the matter. Petraeus lost his access to classified material, which stripped him of his most valuable retirement asset — his experience. He could have made a fortune as a consultant, both within government and the private sector, had he been able to keep his security clearances. In fact, some in Congress wanted them restored in order to allow them to consult with Petraeus on issues such as ISIS. However, as Nancy Youssef and Shane Harris report, last year the FBI apparently found more issues with Petraeus, which prompted the Army’s second recommendation to leave things as they are — which Carter now may override.

Petraeus claims he’s doing well on the speaking circuit and can withstand the financial hit from a demotion. However, there is little doubt that he has already lost a great deal in terms of potential revenue, and the demotion will be one more humiliation for a man whose heroics all but saved the US position in Iraq while crushing al-Qaeda in Iraq, before Barack Obama gave it away and allowed the group to metastasize into ISIS. It won’t break Petraeus, but it will damage him both financially and historically.

That brings us back to the fine lesson that Carter is considering. No one doubts that Petraeus broke the law, and did it for his own benefit. He’s admitted as much and has been held accountable for it, although perhaps not with the same vigor as might have been applied to a more junior and less-famous officer. At the same time, the Secretary of State operated her own secret e-mail server in order to evade legitimate Congressional oversight and FOIA laws, a system that transmitted and retained more than 1300 pieces of classified information, including Top Secret/Compartmented intel.

Are people of Hillary Clinton’s “fame and esteemed reputation” immune to punishment? Perhaps Ash Carter might want to provide Loretta Lynch with a lesson on ethics and accountability before taking a second bite out of David Petraeus — or maybe, just maybe, that’s Carter’s point.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Commie Democrats are the center of evil herein within.

No crime to low.

No lie to large.

No evil undone.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 19, 2016 at 10:05 AM

At this point lefties openly argue against the rule of law and actually argue that double and triple standards are moral and essential to society.

gwelf on January 19, 2016 at 10:07 AM

Are people of Hillary Clinton’s “fame and esteemed reputation” immune to punishment? Perhaps Ash Carter might want to provide Loretta Lynch with a lesson on ethics and accountability before taking a second bite out of David Petraeus — or maybe, just maybe, that’s Carter’s point.

Doubtful, this is just another Obama admin using any and every means to destroy a target who embarrassed them.

Rogue on January 19, 2016 at 10:07 AM

Only after Hillary Clinton is sentenced to Life for her more egregious security felonies.

Younggod on January 19, 2016 at 10:08 AM

Benedict Arnold was the first Democrat in American History.

ConstantineXI on January 19, 2016 at 10:08 AM

The Secretary of Defense is not acting in a vacuum here. There is no way Obama did not OK this before the press release.

Johnnyreb on January 19, 2016 at 10:09 AM

Bullcrap.

This is 4 years old, has been adjudicated and SHOULD be considered settled.

The Army did not recommend any further action past what was taken.

It’s political and CYA for Carter.

I think, Mr Morrisey, you’re showing a bit of anti military bias here.

Please correct me, if I am mistaken, sir.

irongrampa on January 19, 2016 at 10:11 AM

Doubtful, this is just another Obama admin using any and every means to destroy a target who embarrassed them.

Rogue on January 19, 2016 at 10:07 AM

This is first and foremost punishment for Petrayus daring to WIN the Iraq War which Obama said was impossible.

So he’s spent his presidency undoing the victory.

ConstantineXI on January 19, 2016 at 10:11 AM

I have no problem with charging Petraeus. Just be consistent.

jdpaz on January 19, 2016 at 10:12 AM

Bullcrap.

This is 4 years old, has been adjudicated and SHOULD be considered settled.

The Army did not recommend any further action past what was taken.

It’s political and CYA for Carter.

I think, Mr Morrisey, you’re showing a bit of anti military bias here.

Please correct me, if I am mistaken, sir.

irongrampa on January 19, 2016 at 10:11 AM

There is nothing stopping President Trump from pardoning him and promoting him to 5 star general.

ConstantineXI on January 19, 2016 at 10:12 AM

People get punished for mishandling classified material?

forest on January 19, 2016 at 10:13 AM

There is nothing stopping President Trump from pardoning him and promoting him to 5 star general.

ConstantineXI on January 19, 2016 at 10:12 AM

Only congress can make a Five Star General.

Johnnyreb on January 19, 2016 at 10:14 AM

So, for our whole lives we have been told,,,

“do not call the Democrats commies cause it is just to harsh, to inflaming, to right wing, it will be used against us, all that,,,,

Now they run a full blown commie Bernie Sanders and he goes full commie day after day, is winning the “COMMIE DEMOCRAT PRIMARY POLLS”..

Still yet its “there, there, you base conservatives do not be calling the Democrats, commie, we have to work with themmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Why the hell is the center question now………….?????

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 19, 2016 at 10:15 AM

Just as Cosby is the Anti-Bill Pill on the Hillary Campaign, this is another blow to Hillary…IF Petreus gets punished, why not Hillary? At a minimum, it brings an embarrassing kerfluffle back onto the National Stage as she struggles to win the nomination….the Email Scandal won’t die. Also, not sure if this isn’t one more concrete life preserver thrown Hillary’s way by Obama, because we all KNOW how much the Obama’s & Clinton’s LOVE each other.

JFKY on January 19, 2016 at 10:16 AM

People get punished for mishandling classified material?

forest on January 19, 2016 at 10:13 AM

Apparently there are some laws on the subject. Who knew?

Fenris on January 19, 2016 at 10:18 AM

People get punished for mishandling classified material?

forest on January 19, 2016 at 10:13 AM

People yes. Princesses, not so much.

antipc on January 19, 2016 at 10:19 AM

He should be punished by being made to look at Shrillary’s yoga pictures.

Flange on January 19, 2016 at 10:19 AM

There is nothing stopping President Trump from pardoning him and promoting him to 5 star general.

ConstantineXI on January 19, 2016 at 10:12 AM

I’ve had him on a personal short list for Trump’s VP pick.

Lolo on January 19, 2016 at 10:20 AM

These “Commie Democrats” are putting every life in the U S A on the line now, prior it was just American fighting men who went off to fight some war the “Commie Democrats” would force a loss on U S All once many thousands of American fighting men had died.

Now even the enabling members of the MSM, msm, and blog media have their a$$’s on the front lines with the borders wide open to evil islmanic terrorist and death dealing El Chapo Guzman “Zeta” enforcers.

It has come home to roost with all of U S now.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 19, 2016 at 10:21 AM

Pentagon looking at demoting Petraeus over handling of classified material

Funny how the scandal broke when Petraeus first testified about Benghazi. Now, second round of testimony is looming and suddenly the administration is looking to demote him.

If this administration were not so transparent, I’d think this was as much of a threat as anything.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2016 at 10:23 AM

So what’s Carter’s stance on Bergdahl?

GarandFan on January 19, 2016 at 10:24 AM

He should be punished by being made to look at Shrillary’s yoga pictures.

Flange on January 19, 2016 at 10:19 AM

We’re a civilized society with laws that protect even the lowest of criminals against mental torment.

antipc on January 19, 2016 at 10:30 AM

…to be consistent in his treatment of senior officers who engage in misconduct and to send a message that even men of Petraeus’s fame and esteemed reputation are not immune to punishment.

Yeah, to send a message alright.

Cleombrotus on January 19, 2016 at 10:33 AM

Patraeus should be demoted

Guaranteed..he fared a lot better than someone of lower company grade rank would have fared with the same
charges….GUARANTEED

On the brighter side….MSM will be more likely to go along with throwing Hillary in prison if someone like Patreus
gets nailed more severely.

BigSven on January 19, 2016 at 10:33 AM

I’ve had him on a personal short list for Trump’s VP pick.

Lolo on January 19, 2016 at 10:20 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised. Patraeus is one of those liberal generals that have had a hand in gutting the military under Obama. He’s be a perfect pick for the King Howler Monkey who intends to continue the gutting.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2016 at 10:34 AM

irongrampa on January 19, 2016 at 10:11 AM

I don’t think you know Ed very well Grampa.

JusDreamin on January 19, 2016 at 10:35 AM

On the brighter side….MSM will be more likely to go along with throwing Hillary in prison if someone like Patreus
gets nailed more severely.

BigSven on January 19, 2016 at 10:33 AM

We heard it from Blue herself over the weekend. Nobody is too big to jail.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2016 at 10:35 AM

I’ve had him on a personal short list for Trump’s VP pick.

Lolo on January 19, 2016 at 10:20 AM

Why?! Petraeus is everything that is sick and disgusting in our Army, wrapped in one horny bundle. Pretty much everyone – yes, including even Jeb Bush! – would be a better VP.

Rix on January 19, 2016 at 10:38 AM

Hit him with the demotion. Then go after Hillary.

The law is fair if applied fairly. Patreaus did the wrong thing with his actions.

If it sets up the next round, great.

PrincetonAl on January 19, 2016 at 10:40 AM

Hopefully, the electorate will also demote HilLIARy Rotten Clinton and permanently RETIRE her this fall.

Armyspouse on January 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM

So what’s Carter’s stance on Bergdahl?

GarandFan on January 19, 2016 at 10:24 AM

Conflicted. As a shill for the administration, he wants Bergdahl to get away with his crimes. Anything to reinforce the lies that were told when Obama hosted Bergdahl’s parents and praised Allah for his release. Not to mention VJ’s claim that Bergdahl was taken on the field of battle and had served honorably.

Nevertheless, the rank-and-file Army would not tolerate the kind of free ride that the administration wants. It would encourage desertion whenever anybody didn’t like their working conditions in a combat zone. For that reason Ash Carter- who never served in uniform- has to pretend to care about military morale.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM

A few minutes ago on Fox Martha McCallum asked her guest, a Dem strategist, if Hillary should be worried about the investigation under way conducted by the FBI.

Hillary need not worry. His explanation, and I quote:

“Hillary is not being investigated by the FBI, her server is.”

Doh!

fogw on January 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM

Why?! Petraeus is everything that is sick and disgusting in our Army, wrapped in one horny bundle. Pretty much everyone – yes, including even Jeb Bush! – would be a better VP.

Rix on January 19, 2016 at 10:38 AM

If you want someone with a military background, pick Oliver North.

ConstantineXI on January 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM

Hillary need not worry. His explanation, and I quote:

“Hillary is not being investigated by the FBI, her server is.”

Doh!

fogw on January 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM

Which is why the IT Guy will be the only person jailed.

ConstantineXI on January 19, 2016 at 10:44 AM

Why is Susan Rice still employed?

Goodie on January 19, 2016 at 10:49 AM

the King Howler Monkey who intends to continue the gutting.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2016 at 10:34 AM

The Sad Rambler has a primate obsession.

Molested by a rhesus as a child?

Younggod on January 19, 2016 at 10:50 AM

Why?! Petraeus is everything that is sick and disgusting in our Army, wrapped in one horny bundle. Pretty much everyone – yes, including even Jeb Bush! – would be a better VP.

Rix on January 19, 2016 at 10:38 AM

I’m not speaking of who I’d want. I’m speaking of who I think Trump might pick.

One guess goes like this: He’s been focusing on the military. The world is going to hell in a hand basket. Trump knows his persona is business tycoon, rather than military. So I think: Some four-star could get the od.

Then, Trump’s all about branding. So the pick would be a high-profile four-star. So I come up with Petraeus.

Lolo on January 19, 2016 at 10:53 AM

get the nod.

Lolo on January 19, 2016 at 10:54 AM

Example of the media types odd need for incest with commie Democrats.

Got in pickup, out feeding the old cows listening to WFAA 660 in Dallas Tx, Mark Davis who fills in for Rush at times.

He worked years ago with this guy, has him on as a guest.

The guy left the U S, when to Europe and ran talk shows in Germany and the Netherlands, then back t U S and to U. Oregon as a media prof.
Then he takes a trip to Cuba to be able to “help them” and to bring the story of Cuba home to his students.

This is a guy a “conservative’ talk show guy should talk to and have a meeting of the minds with.??????????

This is the do good get along with evil that we have to leave behind as it has brought the country to near collapse from the very fact we will not stand up and not lay down with evil.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 19, 2016 at 10:54 AM

He should have done jail time. Demote him. I realize it’s only a $50k savings per year, but that’s still a $50K savings a year.

Dusty on January 19, 2016 at 10:56 AM

Which is why the IT Guy will be the only person jailed.

ConstantineXI on January 19, 2016 at 10:44 AM

I should add, after hearing that comment, Rich Lowry who was also in on the discussion laughed out load and said, “It’s her server.”

fogw on January 19, 2016 at 10:56 AM

So Petraeus dipped into some extramarital poon.

He’s paid the price. Leave him be.

Anything more is just Barky intimidation over Ben Gazarra.

Younggod on January 19, 2016 at 10:57 AM

If you want someone with a military background, pick Oliver North.

ConstantineXI on January 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM

He knows how to deal with Central Americans crossing the border. :)

Rix on January 19, 2016 at 10:58 AM

I’m not speaking of who I’d want. I’m speaking of who I think Trump might pick.

One guess goes like this: He’s been focusing on the military. The world is going to hell in a hand basket. Trump knows his persona is business tycoon, rather than military. So I think: Some four-star could get the nod.

Then, Trump’s all about branding. So the pick would be a high-profile four-star. So I come up with Petraeus.

Lolo on January 19, 2016 at 10:53 AM

you’re correct, I assume, that Trump might want someone with military and/or foreign policy cred. However, Petraeus brand is damaged beyond repair, and it’s very unlike Trump to associate himself with losers. I still believe he’ll prefer someone from the Senate but if he drafts a general, there’s no better candidate than retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Rix on January 19, 2016 at 11:01 AM

Better yet, put Petraeus back on active duty so he can lead the new Bruce Jenner military. Then everyone can cry and surrender to the mean Iranians.

crash72 on January 19, 2016 at 11:01 AM

Between mishandling classified information and a sex scandal, maybe Patraeus should change his name to Clinton.

Flange on January 19, 2016 at 11:02 AM

you’re correct, I assume, that Trump might want someone with military and/or foreign policy cred. However, Petraeus brand is damaged beyond repair, and it’s very unlike Trump to associate himself with losers. I still believe he’ll prefer someone from the Senate but if he drafts a general, there’s no better candidate than retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Rix on January 19, 2016 at 11:01 AM

He’s also on the list.

Lolo on January 19, 2016 at 11:03 AM

Petreaus fell hard, didn’t he? It seems not too long ago people were defending him after Code Pink (? – I think that’s right) took out an advertisement calling him General Betrayus.

dolfan on January 19, 2016 at 11:08 AM

A few minutes ago on Fox Martha McCallum asked her guest, a Dem strategist, if Hillary should be worried about the investigation under way conducted by the FBI.

Hillary need not worry. His explanation, and I quote:

“Hillary is not being investigated by the FBI, her server is.”

Doh!

fogw on January 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM

So, what does Tlaloc look like on TV? Did the camera add 10 pounds?

Del Dolemonte on January 19, 2016 at 11:10 AM

The administration that promotes the incompetent and demotes the competent.

Something to be proud of.

TimBuk3 on January 19, 2016 at 11:15 AM

Right AFTER Hillary is Indited or not at all!

Old Country Boy on January 19, 2016 at 11:18 AM

A few minutes ago on Fox Martha McCallum asked her guest, a Dem strategist, if Hillary should be worried about the investigation under way conducted by the FBI.

Hillary need not worry. His explanation, and I quote:

“Hillary is not being investigated by the FBI, her server is.

Doh!

fogw on January 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM
So, what does Tlaloc look like on TV? Did the camera add 10 pounds?

Del Dolemonte on January 19, 2016 at 11:10 AM

And guns don’t kill people, people kill people. No wonder the country is in the miserable shape it is in, when the “elites” can’t tell the difference between an inanimate tool and the wielder of that tool. Of course, these are dhimocrapts and they will use whatever lie is convenient, reversing themselves at will.

Old Country Boy on January 19, 2016 at 11:22 AM

George Patton had an affair with his niece in Hawaii in mid to late 1930’s.

gwhh on January 19, 2016 at 11:35 AM

Hillary should’ve been removed a la John Deutch.

Christien on January 19, 2016 at 11:46 AM

“The secretary is considering going in a different direction” from the Army, a defense official told The Daily Beast, because he wants to be consistent in his treatment of senior officers who engage in misconduct and to send a message that even men of Petraeus’s fame and esteemed reputation are not immune to punishment.

Well, that explains it!

No wonder Mrs. Clinton won’t be tried; she has no “esteemed reputation” worth tarnishing.

Aizen on January 19, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Why double punish Petraeus and not Hillary, Lerner, etc.?
Because:
1. No matter how unlawful and/or unethical Democrats behave, its OK.
and
2. It’s what Obama said he would do, punish his enemies, and reward his friends.
No surprise, here.

kjatexas on January 19, 2016 at 11:52 AM

General Petreaus got off easy. There were calls from some for a full general court marshal. And this was before Obama was elected. A gifted combat commander with ‘personal issues’ was how he was described to me prior to his selection. It is worth remembering that General Petreaus was the second choice. President Bush’s first choice was Marine General Jones, which brought fierce objections from senior Army leadership. The other choices were considered either too old or too junior to command a multi national force. Command positions at this level are always about personal and political relationships, and General Petreaus excelled at it. His actions kept the politicians from getting in our way, and let us go about doing our jobs. Never underestimate how important that aspect is in fighting a war. When the full story comes out, it will tarnish the great victory he led in Iraq. What a shame.

flackcatcher on January 19, 2016 at 11:56 AM

Only after Hillary Clinton is sentenced to Life for her more egregious security felonies.

Younggod on January 19, 2016 at 10:08 AM

Concur. But I would *really* like to get whoever it was that took the TS/SCI/TK satellite imagery and stripped its markings and scanned it into an unclassified computer to email to her. HRC did much wrong, but there were people helping her who are much closer to the actual classified info. They need to burn, too.

GWB on January 19, 2016 at 11:57 AM

Can we then demote Hillary to Guantanamo????

Krupnikas on January 19, 2016 at 12:50 PM

What is really shocking is the fact that General Betrayus is collecting a pension of TWENTY THOUSAND dollars per month!!

I am so glad this nation is swimming in spare cash.

Exninja on January 19, 2016 at 1:06 PM

What is really shocking is the fact that General Betrayus is collecting a pension of TWENTY THOUSAND dollars per month!!

I am so glad this nation is swimming in spare cash.

Exninja on January 19, 2016 at 1:06 PM

General Petraeus EARNED that pension, you jackal! You know what a jackal is don’t you? A jackal is a carrion eater that strikes at wounded animals, normally much stronger than the jackal. Maybe you should be stripped of your social security for attacking a better and braver man than you!

Old Country Boy on January 19, 2016 at 1:49 PM

It’s curtains for Hillary.

Mason on January 19, 2016 at 2:08 PM

when you lie down with dogs…

You get fleas. I’d be more sympathetic if Petraeus resigned over all the madness. Or maybe he didn’t have any problem with Obama’s foreign policy and defense strategy. My guess is that career advancement was a little more important that those soldiers fighting and dying in the war against radical Islam. So I have no sympathy for him.

Blain on January 19, 2016 at 2:36 PM

If an enlisted were to get caught passing secrets to a reporter they were also screwing, he would get court martialed, fined, imprisoned, demoted to E-1 and a dishonorable discharge. I have no sympathy for Patraeus.

Rode Werk on January 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM

Consider, if you will, the timing of this story about General Petraeus. As we all recall, he was the CIA Director at the time of the terror attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, back on 9/11/12. He no doubt knew explicitly what covert and related operation(s) were going on at that facility at the time. He also knew in detail what military resources were available for a rescue mission, if necessary. AND he no doubt has a good handle on the facts surrounding the initial risible claim that this attack grew out of a protest demonstration over the Mohammad film.

There are those who may think this story is intended as a shot over the bow of the Clinton campaign, coming as it does just before the Iowa Caucuses, especially given her own serious problems with the handling of classified information.

But appearances can be deceiving. Very strong indications point to the possibility that Obama and Clinton are to some extent BOTH vulnerable on the issues of 1) what, if any, resources may have been available to come to the aide of the Ambassador, and others, and 2) the issue of who exactly was involved in cooking up that initial cover story of the anti-Mohammad film protest demonstration gone bad. What matters is the proof.

Don’t forget, though she was prevented from becoming Sec. of State, Susan Rice, is still currently serving as Obama’s Nat’l Security Adviser.

Moreover, General Petraeus just testified before Trey Gowdy’s House Benghazi Committee less than two weeks ago — to be precise, back on the 6th of January. Stories which emerged on the 8th suggested that the Chairman was initially pleased with details and information Petraeus provided, and is possibly considering the probing additional witnesses.

Remember that Petraeus had been rightfully prevented (by his lawyers) from fully testifying to earlier Congressional probes during the period of time in which he was under investigation for the mishandling of classified information.

So, this story could be a direct shot over the bow by the Obama White House, and aimed directly at Petraeus, i.e., warning him NOT to provide any additional information or any suggestions (such as, for example, the names of further witnesses) which might re-open issues that could not only further torpedo Hillary’s campaign BUT which could also irreparably damage the Obama White House.

Trochilus on January 19, 2016 at 4:31 PM

If you’re not going to convict Hillary, you may as well convict Petraeus twice eh?

Oxymoron on January 19, 2016 at 6:29 PM

Under 18 USC 1924, keeping classified information in his possession constitutes a felony; sharing them with unauthorized people is another felony under 18 USC 793. He then lied to investigators, which was yet another felony, before finally admitting to what he’d done.

Well, there you go: it took three strikes to get him out.

“The secretary is considering going in a different direction” from the Army, a defense official told The Daily Beast, because he wants to be consistent in his treatment of senior officers who engage in misconduct and to send a message that even men of Petraeus’s fame and esteemed reputation are not immune to punishment.

Well, that explains it!

No wonder Mrs. Clinton won’t be tried; she has no “esteemed reputation” worth tarnishing.

Aizen on January 19, 2016 at 11:48 AM

lol
–except that it’s true.

People get punished for mishandling classified material?

forest on January 19, 2016 at 10:13 AM

People yes. Princesses, not so much.

antipc on January 19, 2016 at 10:19 AM

Indeed.
Kind of old to be a princess now, though.
Comes of marrying a prince who should have stayed a frog.

AesopFan on January 19, 2016 at 7:08 PM

Funny how the scandal broke when Petraeus first testified about Benghazi. Now, second round of testimony is looming and suddenly the administration is looking to demote him.

If this administration were not so transparent, I’d think this was as much of a threat as anything.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2016 at 10:23 AM

Great minds etc etc

Consider, if you will, the timing of this story about General Petraeus. As we all recall, he was the CIA Director at the time of the terror attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, back on 9/11/12. He no doubt knew explicitly what covert and related operation(s) were going on at that facility at the time. He also knew in detail what military resources were available for a rescue mission, if necessary. AND he no doubt has a good handle on the facts surrounding the initial risible claim that this attack grew out of a protest demonstration over the Mohammad film.


Moreover, General Petraeus just testified before Trey Gowdy’s House Benghazi Committee less than two weeks ago — to be precise, back on the 6th of January. Stories which emerged on the 8th suggested that the Chairman was initially pleased with details and information Petraeus provided, and is possibly considering the probing additional witnesses.

Remember that Petraeus had been rightfully prevented (by his lawyers) from fully testifying to earlier Congressional probes during the period of time in which he was under investigation for the mishandling of classified information.

So, this story could be a direct shot over the bow by the Obama White House, and aimed directly at Petraeus, i.e., warning him NOT to provide any additional information or any suggestions (such as, for example, the names of further witnesses) which might re-open issues that could not only further torpedo Hillary’s campaign BUT which could also irreparably damage the Obama White House.

Trochilus on January 19, 2016 at 4:31 PM

AesopFan on January 19, 2016 at 7:10 PM

The Secretary of Defense is not acting in a vacuum here. There is no way Obama did not OK this before the press release.

Johnnyreb on January 19, 2016 at 10:09 AM

On the brighter side….MSM will be more likely to go along with throwing Hillary in prison if someone like Patreus gets nailed more severely.

BigSven on January 19, 2016 at 10:33 AM

We heard it from Blue herself over the weekend. Nobody is too big to jail.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2016 at 10:35 AM

And she is definitely that particular Nobody.

Between mishandling classified information and a sex scandal, maybe Patraeus should change his name to Clinton.

Flange on January 19, 2016 at 11:02 AM

AesopFan on January 19, 2016 at 7:13 PM

So what’s Carter’s stance on Bergdahl?

GarandFan on January 19, 2016 at 10:24 AM

Conflicted. As a shill for the administration, he wants Bergdahl to get away with his crimes. Anything to reinforce the lies that were told when Obama hosted Bergdahl’s parents and praised Allah for his release. Not to mention VJ’s claim that Bergdahl was taken on the field of battle and had served honorably.

Nevertheless, the rank-and-file Army would not tolerate the kind of free ride that the administration wants.
It would encourage desertion whenever anybody didn’t like their working conditions in a combat zone. For that reason Ash Carter- who never served in uniform- has to pretend to care about military morale.

Happy Nomad on January 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM

There are always problems when a cut-and-dried legal position (Bergdahl and Petraeus) gets mixed up with political druthers.
Troops don’t ever like it, but it happens a lot.

AesopFan on January 19, 2016 at 7:15 PM

If an enlisted were to get caught passing secrets to a reporter they were also screwing, he would get court martialed, fined, imprisoned, demoted to E-1 and a dishonorable discharge. I have no sympathy for Patraeus.

Rode Werk on January 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM

General Petreaus got off easy. There were calls from some for a full general court marshal. And this was before Obama was elected. A gifted combat commander with ‘personal issues’ was how he was described to me prior to his selection. …Command positions at this level are always about personal and political relationships, and General Petreaus excelled at it. His actions kept the politicians from getting in our way, and let us go about doing our jobs. Never underestimate how important that aspect is in fighting a war. When the full story comes out, it will tarnish the great victory he led in Iraq. What a shame.

flackcatcher on January 19, 2016 at 11:56 AM

Yes, it is a shame; but it was also his choices that caused the problems.

when you lie down with dogs…

You get fleas. I’d be more sympathetic if Petraeus resigned over all the madness. Or maybe he didn’t have any problem with Obama’s foreign policy and defense strategy. My guess is that career advancement was a little more important that those soldiers fighting and dying in the war against radical Islam. So I have no sympathy for him.

Blain on January 19, 2016 at 2:36 PM

We may not ever know what he was trying to accomplish in the CIA position, and the military aspects will be chapters in a lot of books on warfare, but he still made the choices himself that caused his problems.

AesopFan on January 19, 2016 at 7:19 PM

…This is the do good get along with evil that we have to leave behind as it has brought the country to near collapse from the very fact we will not stand up and not lay down with evil.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 19, 2016 at 10:54 AM

Evil is easier to spot from a distance unless you have some really good ethical rules in place and the courage to apply them, or an active line to a more discerning Power.

AesopFan on January 19, 2016 at 7:21 PM

General officers in charge of desks and political appointees after Petraeus. I’m sure Ash Carter will demand the Hillary Clinton be held accountable.

grumpyank on January 19, 2016 at 7:57 PM

Sandy Berger got a wrist slap and Hillary Clinton is still considered a credible candidate for the highest office in the land. This is a farce. Petraeus was never an Administration team player, and he didn’t go along with the Administration’s Benghazi lies.

grumpyank on January 19, 2016 at 8:01 PM

“Why is Susan Rice still employed?”

Susan Rice is not only employed, she got a promotion. She got it for being the chief liar so that Hillary didn’t have to do it. Really, some of the things this Administration has pulled are utterly disgusting.

grumpyank on January 19, 2016 at 8:05 PM

Wait. Unsecured, verifiably hacked email server contains hundreds, if not thousands, of highly classified State Dept. documents, and the person responsible is campaigning for President. But Petraus, who was already punished for his similar infraction, is now going to have his pension slashed by a paygrade.

The dissonance here is exceeding weapons grade.

Freelancer on January 20, 2016 at 12:20 AM

I don’t know much about the General but this is political. I never could buy these types of hidden penalties. The drop in one rank for the General is about a $1,400/moth drop in retirement pay that in 10 years will be greater then the fine that was imposed. His crime was not even a tenth of what Hillary Clinton has been proven to have done not even to mention what has not yet been uncovered yet she gets a pass and may be the next President of The United States.

Since he has all ready been tried, found guilty and paid the price, is this NOT a violation of his constitutional protections of the constitution. In both cruel and unusual punishment and double jeopardy and not have the availability to face his accusers and to a fair hearing.

Just for being, he has been tried, found guilty and sentenced for the same things that he was tried, found guilty and sentenced to, 4 years ago. In the Democrats mine will this madness ever stop.

I don’t know for sure but I must not be a Democrat. Every time I type up any of these posts my auto spell has to correct Democrats. In ten year I have never been able to spell that word.

jpcpt03 on January 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM

It won’t break Petraeus, but it will damage him both financially and historically.

Perhaps that’s the point.

No one doubts that Petraeus broke the law, and did it for his own benefit. He’s admitted as much and has been held accountable for it, although perhaps not with anything remotely like the same vigor as might would have been applied to a more junior and less-famous officer.

FIFY.

So, what does Tlaloc look like on TV? Did the camera add 10 pounds?

Del Dolemonte on January 19, 2016 at 11:10 AM

It wasn’t Tlaloc, it was weedisgood. He’d heard that the camera adds 10 pounds, and his stash was getting low.

So, this story could be a direct shot over the bow by the Obama White House, and aimed directly at Petraeus…

Trochilus on January 19, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Moves at this level are like chess moves, they hardly ever open up only one option. But yes, you can safely assume that they considered all the political aspects of both the target and the timing.

I don’t know much about the General but this is political. I never could buy these types of hidden penalties. The drop in one rank for the General is about a $1,400/moth drop in retirement pay that in 10 years will be greater then the fine that was imposed.

jpcpt03 on January 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM

I have personally read in the “Good Order & Discipline” section of a POD the results of a case that still sticks in my mind to this day. A Master Chief Radioman who was found guilty on charges of Sodomy and Sexual Harassment. His “award”? Reduction in rate to E-3… which means he can just retire and get his pension for the rest of his life, no big. His retirement money is based on the highest rank at which he ever served, not his rank at time of discharge, or at least that was so in the 80s.

I dunno how it works today, and don’t know if it’s different for officers than enlisted (my guess is that it is). But I’m not sure there’s any legal barrier under US law or the UCMJ to stop them reducing his rank all the way to O-1 if they like.

GrumpyOldFart on January 20, 2016 at 9:44 AM

GrumpyOldFart on January 20, 2016 at 9:44 AM

Not really sure about this rank thing either. I believe that the highest Military rank is O-6, Full Colonel.The General officers ranks look like military ranks, act like military ranks get paid like military ranks BUT are in fact political appointment controlled by congress. I believe that the highest rank held concept only applies to down to the rank of O-6 Full Colonel. Another peculiarity of the General rank is that they are always subject to recall and the desire of Congress. Senior enlisted ranks and all officer ranks with specialized training are subject to recall until age 60. This is when they give you what is called your 60 year certificate which officially retires you from the military. If you like I’ll show you mine. I proudly display it on the wall next to the toilet. After 26 years of service I got recalled 3 times.

jpcpt03 on January 20, 2016 at 10:32 AM

Oh, please.

Didn’t Gen. P just testify before the Benghazi Committee? Wasn’t his testimony described as “helpful”?

This demotion is nothing but punishment, for not keeping Hillary’s backstory covered. There are no coincidences.

ReggieA on January 20, 2016 at 5:15 PM