Petraeus’s affair was no “scandal”
In truth, Petraeus’s behavior doesn’t even merit the label “scandal.” L’affaire Petraeus lacks every element of the definition. …
It’s illegal, or of dubious legality. Eliot Spitzer, a.k.a. Client 9, had to resign as governor of New York because he and the woman he met at the Mayflower Hotel got swept up in a prostitution sting. Idaho Republican Larry Craig had to resign from the Senate because the man he interacted with in the neighboring stall was a police officer. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) probably would have resigned if the evidence tying him to the D.C. Madam had been more specific than the presence of his phone number in her little black book.
Petraeus? Nothing illegal.
It’s non-consensual, or underage. Florida congressman Mark Foley resigned from the House after it was learned that he was engaging in Internet sex with congressional pages. Gary Condit and Bill Clinton rated higher on the scandal meter because the women involved were interns. Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) lost his reelection bid because of allegations (later settled) that he had assaulted his mistress.
Petraeus? Consenting adults.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Maybe not a scandal, but good enough for Chicago blackmail.
petefrt on November 21, 2012 at 8:54 AM
It’s a “scandal” insofar as it covers the admin’s rearend on the real scandal involving the before, during and after the attack issues surrounding benghazi.
Beaver.…it’s the new squirrel.
ted c on November 21, 2012 at 8:55 AM
I could be wrong but I’d bet that if one of the GEN’s subordinates was caught doing these things, the GEN would have been first in line to relieve/UCMJ the service member.
Dingbat63 on November 21, 2012 at 8:59 AM
Kelley is sounding more and more like a shakedown artist trying to peddle influence based on her association with Petraeus. Petraeus looks like an idiot.
Blake on November 21, 2012 at 9:04 AM
He’s definitively guilty of double standards.
Blake on November 21, 2012 at 9:05 AM
I like the way that Milbank seems to think that Larry Craig toe tapping was far more scandalous than, oh say, Bill Clinton or Gary Condit. It was also good of him to point out in every instance, the political affiliation of all the Republicans. The Dem’s? Not so much.
BettyRuth on November 21, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Dana once again proves why he should never, ever be allowed to speak about the military or honor or the US Government.
UCMJ Article 134
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Even if you could claim that nothing happened while Gen Petraeus was in uniform, the CIA still has probations on adultery, as well as the Office of Professional Responsibility, and adultery is one of the reasons why one can lose their security clearance. So it was to quote our VP “a big F’ing deal.”
An ill-formed opinion written by a buffoon.
I realize that the Washington Post can’t help their colossal ignorance, but I do expect better of Hot Air. We do have standards after all.
LincolntheHun on November 21, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Dana Millbank is an idiot.
The top intelligence official in the CIA engages in behaviour he wishes to keep secret, which directly opens himself to blackmail, IS a scandal. Not necessarily monetary blackmail. More along the lines of looking the other way, or trading of information.
These people who have no idea about the intelligence community, or security clearances have no business expounding upon such.
Mitoch55 on November 21, 2012 at 9:11 AM
You nailed it – well said
jake-the-goose on November 21, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Iowahawk: Murder, wrapped inside a government cover-up, wrapped inside an extramarital affair: Benghazi is the Turducken of scandals.
dont taze me bro on November 21, 2012 at 9:18 AM
..of course it’s not…because there’s a democrat in the White House.
You know what else isn’t a scandal in liberal eyes…
…selling thousands of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels that are in turn responsible for hundreds of deaths including American law enforcement…
…….not providing sufficient security for an American Consulate in Libya in the middle of an al-qaeda hot bed….refusing to provide security after it has been requested many times and in the face of multiple attacks….covering up and misleading the public on the causes of the attack….and leaving our brave men to be slaughtered while fighting for there lives for up to 7 hours.
…………….taking billions of tax payer dollars to subsidize green companies that would obviously fail and go bankrupt…then changing the rules so that Obama campaign bundler’s get their money while the tax payer is left out to dry.
…….having such a close relationship with the White House that even the VP declares that they go to John Corzine for economic advice….only to watch him screw people out of over a billion dollars and then walks away scott free……Abranoff couldn’t be reached for comment.
No scandals to see here….nothing but honest government and a big helping of “Hope and Change” when a democrat is in office.
Thank God no democrats in the State department have exposed the identity of a CIA desk jockey though…because that would be a MAJOR scandal.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM
Bingo, LincolntheHun. These guys do not even research before they blather. So the General was under special rules–end of argument
But me thinks the liberal bobbleheads fear the undoing of the Clinton Doctrine and certainly the standards for the general should apply to the commander-in-chief. It is so funny to see moral relativists are argue for an absolute (excellent public service absolves massive private failings). Milbank, the circumstances have changed and so have the moral standards (just going along with his reasoning). Dana, the “other woman” has smart phones and Ipads. It is a whole new world now. National security is the greatest concern, not David Petraeus discreetly (ha, ha) meeting his needs. Every affair by high military and elected officials can potentially put others in danger or get them killed. It must really stink that your celebrity politicians are having their moral relativism come back to bite them.
mwbri on November 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM
When you get one of your major points wrong, it’s tough to take the rest of the article seriously. Larry Craig, at a press conference, said he would resign. But he never did. He served out the rest of his term and did not run for re-election.
Mitoch55 on November 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM
“Consenting adults”
One of the consenting adults was an ambitious, tech-savvy, West Point grad, who thought she knew what was going on in Benghazi. She may or may not be right on Benghazi being a black ops center, but where did she get information that led her to that conclusion? Pillow talk, Dana?
mwbri on November 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM
Sleeping with another man’s wife is enough. That is scandal enough.
That immoral conduct creates disorder not only in the general, societal sense but immediately in his personal affairs. It creates enemies, distractions, and risk.
You don’t sleep with another person period, because that person cannot be trusted to be purely interested in your ability to run a 6 minute mile between the sheets.
When that other person is an ambitious, opsec wannabee, underqualified, resume gilding and quite willing to sacrifice honor for advancement, to expose yourself to their machinations is nothing but blind and foolish.
SarahW on November 21, 2012 at 9:47 AM
I don’t know what definition Dana is using, but illegality is not one of its elements
Mitoch55 on November 21, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Nope, no scandal at all. He, being a great deep-penetration agent was just broadening the well. What do they know about trench warfare anyway?
tommy71 on November 21, 2012 at 9:58 AM
…remember when the Germans used to send good looking women as spies to sleep with military leaders so that they could get inside information through “pillow talk”…..
Wasn’t long ago that we had some good looking Russian spies busted on our soil looking to make the same inroads using their “assets”….
….yea….no scandal here at all.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM
And just think the German spies did not have I pads and Smartphones. Milbank is naively telling us that the old rules (JFK and Clinton rules) still apply. What an unserious person!
mwbri on November 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Tell that to his wife. Or her husband.
cptacek on November 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Could not agree more.
Circle the wagons…….
…………..these are the same people who glorified and deemed the “Lion of the Senate” and “crusader for women’s rights” the same Kennedy that left a woman to drown while he slept off his drunk and had no problem dry humping waitress’s in restaurants full of people.
As long as you share the liberal ideology and vote for the cause….
….it’s all good…nothing to see here.
Baxter Greene on November 21, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Petraeus is a fool.
Which, for the head of the CIA, is a scandal.
profitsbeard on November 21, 2012 at 11:15 AM
In the Dem/MSM lexicon some words have different definitions depending on the politics of the individual(s), organization(s), or group(s) involved. These words mean one thing for Dems/liberals and something else for Republicans/conservatives. “Scandal” has become one of those words.
farsighted on November 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM