Another Perspective
The Timely Tragedy of David Petraeus
Why was it convenient to have him resign now?
By January 1938, Adolf Hitler was planning to launch major military campaigns to achieve German hegemony in Western Europe. The Führer and other Nazi leaders, however, regarded War Minister, Gen. Werner von Blomberg as too hesitant toward war preparations and an impediment to extending Nazi control over the Wehrmacht. Hitler didn’t yet feel powerful enough to take on Blomberg and the traditional Prussian leadership, but fate turned the tables the Führer’s way.
In early January, Blomberg married Erna Gruhn. Prior to the marriage, Blomberg confided to Hitler that his fiancée had a shady past due to economic desperation during the depression years of the Weimar Republic. Hitler, assuring the general of National Socialist understanding, not only approved the marriage, he attended the ceremony where Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goring served as best man. Within days the Gestapo fed incriminating information on Mrs. Blomberg to the press. Blomberg resigned rather than accede to Hitler’s demands that he annul the marriage. The Führer then moved to place the Wehrmacht more firmly under his personal control.
The sad end of Gen. David Petraeus has a similar stench to it. First, there is no regulation against Central Intelligence Agency personnel having extra-marital affairs. If, however, those affairs are with foreigners or involve exotic matters like kinky sex, particularly with prostitutes, then those cases would be problematic, particularly for top leadership. A straight affair, with a U.S. national, married or not, would be a matter of poor judgment on the part of a director, but not especially troubling. If, however, as is reported, Director Petraeus pursued the woman in question, Paula Broadwell, after she terminated the affair, this could reveal an obsession that might betray a major character flaw or some kind of libido connected instability. In any event, Mrs. Broadwell, a graduate student at the John F. Kennedy School, West Point graduate, and formerly an Army reservist, was not subject to Petraeus’ chain of command either while he was a serving officer or directing the CIA.
And please spare us the self-righteous breast beating about adultery on the part of a serving Army officer being grounds for disciplinary action. Technically, marital infidelity can provide grounds for punishment, but it has rarely been used against officers, particularly flag officers, especially in cases where there is no involvement with the chain of command. While in recent years using one’s rank to obtain sexual favors through harassment has been more vigorously prosecuted, that was not the issue in this instance.
Conduct unbecoming? Maybe, but again spare us the self-righteous indignation. Just last June, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta effusively praised the initial celebration of “Gay Pride Month.” The Obama administration has hardly set the bar high when it comes to sexual conduct.
How likely is it that the FBI suddenly discovered this affair after last Tuesday’s election? Certainly an affair concerning the director of the CIA would have been briefed to the attorney general and then taken to the president, supposedly quicker than one can say, “Attack underway on a U.S. consulate in Libya.” It’s more likely that this investigation was underway for quite some time and that David Petraeus knew it. Again, scandal lurks outside a door marked, “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”
More to the point, why is that within a week of the director’s absolutely crucial testimony before a closed congressional session looking into the Benghazi affair, is David Petraeus gone and no longer available for testimony? If President Obama really wants to get to the essence of the truth as to what happened in Benghazi, why did he not insist that Petraeus remain at his post until after his testimony clears the air? Certainly the president and his advisors understand that the Petraeus resignation at this critical time will only fan the flames of speculation concerning a Benghazi cover-up.
The Petraeus testimony is crucial to understanding what was known about Benghazi and when it was known. Congress, which has subpoenaed Mafia dons, Ku Klux Klan leaders, and yes, CIA officials in the past, can also bring in a retired general and former CIA director and put him under oath. To do anything less, is to sell out a Republic that has already been sold short by too many in top leadership positions.
The Petraeus affair reminds us that government is an aggregate of men and women with all the flaws innate to humans, but government itself is of the people, by the people, and for the people — not of, for, and by individuals, whatever their position or status. Therein lays the foundation of the American Republic.
Darin| 11.13.12 @ 6:36AM
Should Congress actually show some backbone and investigate the Benghazi incident, Petraeus would be called to testify. As CIA Director, I don't think he would be allowed to please the 5th Amendment. As a private citizen (since he resigned), he can do so. Could it really be that simple, or is there more to it? A trustworthy media would dig in to it. Therefore, we'll likely never know.
KyMouse| 11.13.12 @ 4:18PM
This entire chain of events is far more serious, but I recall the day that Air Force One sparked fears of another 9/11 when it was flown in, around, and through Manhattan.
Lots of people demanded to know who was getting the personal air tour at taxpayer expense, but (as far as I know) the White House has never released the names of those on board, or the reason for the costly tour. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If the press won't pursue a story, it is quickly forgotten. We're in for a hair-raising second term, I fear.
Henry22| 11.13.12 @ 6:42AM
As conservatives might I remind my fellow travelers to tone down the "it's only sex!" line of thinking. You know pundits and the press are going to throw Bill Clinton back in your face. Most of us thought Clinton should have left because he lied to a grand jury, not because he got a BJ from a teenager.
The stench of the entire incident is overbearing, however, the "they're only human" line of reasoning won't get us to the bottom of Obama's perfidy on this issue.
Joellen| 11.13.12 @ 7:14AM
Panetta effsusively praising "Gay Pride Month" well, there you go with the start of the "slippery slope".
I would ask the author to please stop "judging" those of us who do expect our leaders to be Leaders, to try and make their "rightous" points. It's understood that we all are sinners, let's stop using that as the excuse. Those twenty years olds sitting in the trenches EARN the right to have their leaders be of noble character and conduct themselves as such. If Petraeus couldnt put his troops or his staff first, then he shouldnt have accepted the position. If it was all about "power" for him, then I dont have pity for him. If it's still about power and not about what's best for the country, then my emotions turn to strong dislike as to how he is sacrificing his country for his own gain. I still pray he does the right thing - time will tell.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.13.12 @ 7:29AM
Petraeus' resignation just might blow the lid off the entire US/Islam relationship being built by obama.
Benghazi is only one tiny example of our people being driven literally crazy with frustration.
Don't forget our soldiers in Afghanistan with impossible rules of engagement. We lose a couple of guys every day with no apparent result.
Again, Obama is wasting good men.
Don't forget, our House of Reps can draw articles of impeachment any ole' time......probably no conviction at last but all Obama's schemes blocked while the process drags ou.t
John Navratil| 11.13.12 @ 8:38AM
If Petraeus can't clear the air, the stench will become overpowering.
Datsun 2000 Mark| 11.13.12 @ 10:38AM
As soon as Petraeus walks out the door his hard drive and other data will be destroyed and he'll have no evidence to back up his statements under oath. Plus he'll be tainted.
SUBVET| 11.13.12 @ 11:22AM
They set David up...........he saw the plan and declined to be part of it........you don't remember they called him betrayous.
He will be the bleeding goat.............
Occam's Tool| 11.13.12 @ 12:16PM
No stench, because Dhimmicrats don't care. And Republicans don't vote.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 11.13.12 @ 12:24PM
As this story begins to unravel, and the trickle of information increases to a stream, the full range of what it all means is difficult to ascertain as we view it through the straw of daily media reports.
Nonetheless, as I begin to hear more about Jill Kelly, I am beginning to wonder if Anna Chapman was the only honey trap that the Russians (or others who wish to diminish the effectiveness of US national security) had working to gain access to decision makers in our military and foreign policy arenas.
Joe D.| 11.13.12 @ 1:37PM
Mr. Earl Tilford, spare us your poor attitude about adultery. It is a very bad case of character. And the more we except this very bad character the more we will get it at the highest levels. And bad will come of it somewhere. So shut up.
Bob K| 11.13.12 @ 7:23PM
Aw! Let him go on about it! He is an example of the stupidity and venality of our Military Officers and of our Academics.
Imagine it! Tilford, who is both a trained Historian and a former Military Officer stating that Character does not matter when it comes to leadership!
No wonder our country is in trouble. What the hell is he doing at a Conservative college like Grove City College?
Marc Jeric| 11.13.12 @ 1:41PM
One needs a larger framework to understand these two murder coverup.
1) The purpose of Obama's April Spring program has been and continues to be to bring about jihadist governments to a series of Muslim countries. It has been successful so far in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt; to go are Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, "Palestine", ...The Benghazi murder coverup is therefore necessary to aviod the exposure of "a slip" where an extremist group acted in haste and without Obama's approval.
2) The Fast & Furious program was designed to shut down our gun shops, and then to proceed to interdict the 2nd Amendment. It was therefore necessary to erect another murder coverup.
Stan Redmond| 11.13.12 @ 2:05PM
The King Obama MUST be defended at all costs. No amount of corruption is too too much to keep the hope and change steamrolling moving forward. The country must be "fundamentally transformed" and for that the King Obama must move us FORWARD.
Paul A'Barge | 11.13.12 @ 3:04PM
Sir,
tl:dr
Why was it convenient to have him resign now?
Benghazi.
Occam's Tool| 11.13.12 @ 7:47PM
Dave should have learned that the nervous system in the pelvic area does NOT do good thinking. Rosie Palm and her 5 sisters would have been much more appropriate for him.