Charles Krauthammer claims “the sword was lowered” on Gen. David Petraeus “on Election Day”: The Obama White House knew of the CIA director’s affair, and they’re using it to punish him for contradicting the administration line on Benghazi during testimony Sept. 14 before the House Intelligence Committee.
At Reason magazine, Judge Andrew Napolitano charges that the administration must have known about Petraeus’s 2010 affair when it offered him the CIA post, and implies that a conspiracy is ongoing:
In the modern era, office-holders with forgiving spouses simply do not resign from powerful jobs because of a temporary, non-criminal, consensual adult sexual liaison, as the history of the FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton presidencies attest. So, why is Petraeus different? Someone wants to silence him.
This will very likely turn out to be the “all wet” reaction to the Petraeus saga.
Adam Entous and Siobhan Gorman have a compelling insider account in the Wall Street Journal that paints a more complicated picture. There is a kernel of truth to Krauthammer’s assertion that Petraeus is being punished. But the punishment, in this case, appears passive-aggressive. The Obama administration didn’t so much punish the four-star general as it opted not to defend him.
And therein, perhaps, lies all the difference between a bureaucratic knife-fight and a full-blown political conspiracy.
According to the WSJ:
Administration officials respected Mr. Petraeus’s success in Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Barack Obama praised him in a news conference Wednesday for his “extraordinary career.” But he didn’t have a deep bench of backers within Mr. Obama’s powerful inner circle, current and former officials say.
Not being fully aligned with the administration is sometimes good for the head of an intelligence agency that prides itself on being apolitical, the former intelligence official said.
Some lawmakers and administration officials have questioned why Mr. Petraeus had to resign over an affair that apparently didn’t compromise national security. But throughout his tenure, Mr. Obama has shown little patience with aides who are at the center of what he sees as unwelcome media spectacles.
Making matters worse, Petraeus apparently made few friends within the CIA:
Mr. Petraeus had struggled to win over CIA employees, who initially viewed him with suspicion because he was a high-profile former general accustomed to the hierarchical respect conferred within the military. The CIA, by contrast, is a less hierarchical institution.
“That was a big change for him,” said Michael Hurley, a former agency officer. “Authority comes with rank in the military, but CIA directors have to earn the respect of agency officers.”
Agency officers saw his CIA office as much more regimented compared with the relative ease with which they could stop in to see top agency officials under Leon Panetta, Mr. Petraeus’s predecessor. Mr. Petraeus appeared to be surprised when much younger analysts would disagree with a point he made, a former official said.
Mr. Petraeus’s attempts to connect with agency officers over running—he extended an invitation to exercise with him as long as they could keep up with his six- to seven-minute miles—often fell flat as many analysts and operatives weren’t as athletic.
In the end, Petraeus was left to twist in the wind.
CK 
Joe the Plutocrat 
icarusr 
General Paralysis 
Our country loves a BIG political scandal, so here is the potential to uncover one and maybe make the career of a couple of journalists (I am not referring to TAC). The fact is, Petraeus left himself exposed to a political backlash. He knows or should know how politics works, and he failed to give himself cover or to curry the favors needed to provide such cover.
On a personal level, I could care less about a consensual tryst. That should be between Petraeus and his wife.
On a professional level, it is at best a demonstration of poor judgment for the man whose role requires the exercise of excellent judgment and the ability to anticipate when he (or his group) is being backed into an inescapable corner. At worst, so long as his wife and superiors were not aware of his affair (even though unlikely), he was vulnerable to improper influence, even if none had yet occurred.
Just as with conflict of interest, judging the appropriateness of the behavior based solely on outcome misses the point. Once information has been leaked or compromised, it is impossible to un-leak it. With both of Petraeus’ roles, as General and as DCI, lives were at stake.
This lack of judgment is a reasonable basis for agency officers to withhold their respect. Petraeus failed to recognize or respond to that effectively. In the end, his affair exposed him to loss of his position and his reputation, even if it is political retaliation. We expect the country’s DCI to be smarter than that (despite the history of DCI leadership).