The Benghazi scandal that isn't: How Republicans and the media are distorting a tragedy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Another day, another breathless report of something supposedly "new" in the whole Benghazi saga, which really just amounts to a media-enabled Republican assault on the the Obama Administration -- first the president himself as the target, now, with Republicans looking ahead to 2016, Hillary Clinton.

Today it's from Jonathan Karl of ABC News, who "reports" the following:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

Okay... and? 

As ThinkProgress notes:

[T]he ABC report suggests the State Department "scrubbed" the talking points of terror references as some sort of nefarious cover-up of what really happened in Benghazi for political reasons. This, of course, playing into the GOP's conspiracy theory that President Obama was trying to preserve his campaign theme that his policies has significantly crippled the terror network. 

And I would note that Karl's piece seems to be written from the perspective of those conspiracy theories. At the very least, Karl is playing right along with the right's obsessions. ThinkProgress continues:

The story soon set reporters and Twitter alight. "Scrubbing the truth from Benghazi," a National Journal headline read. Even the BBC speculated that "heads will roll."

But absent in ABC's report is the key point that Obama and various members of his administration referred to the Benghazi assault as a terror attack on numerous occasions shortly after the incident (thereby negating the need to "scrub" any references in the talking points) and that then-CIA Director David Petraeus said the terrorist references were taken out to, as the New York Times reported, "avoid tipping off the groups" that may have been involved.

Basically, the State Department -- specifically former Cheney advisor Victoria Nuland -- was more involved in the development of the talking points than previously reported.

Republicans and their various enablers in the media -- who may think they're digging for the truth but are really just doing the Republicans' bidding -- seem to think this rises to the level of, well, something possibly worse than Watergate.

Read more »

Petraeus: "I screwed up royally."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He added in a hand-written letter to his buddy General James Shelton (e-mail not always being the best way to communicate): "I paid the price (appropriately) and I sought to do the right thing at the end of the day."

"And thus, the public apology tour begins," writes Joe Coscarelli at Daily Intel. 

Yes, he'll be back. And probably sooner than you think. This is just an early stage of a massive self-serving PR campaign to rehabilitate his image. And it'll work, even if the whole Myth (and Cult) of Petraeus has been punctured and temporarily deflated, because nothing goes over better in evangelical America, as well as in the media, than the whole fall from grace and redemption bullshit.

In the meantime, raise your hand if you feel sorry for the guy...

Didn't think so.

**********

For more, see Frank's post, "Cliches for David Petraeus," which includes the following: "Even after the mighty hero's fall, the mainstream media just can't let go. We are still greeted with pieces saying nothing other than, "Petraeus is great and what he did was minor." I agree about his affair being minor. He has committed far worse sins in public view to applauding media. But since we will never get this kind of discussion, we can at least hope that reporters will shut the fuck up about the man."

Metaphorical fellatio

By Frank Moraes

Matt Taibbi took one for the team; he read All In, Paula Broadwell's biography of General Petraeus. He referred to the book as "slobberific" -- a new word worth repeating.

The point of his article -- "One Interesting Thing About Paula Broadwell's Petraeus Biography" -- is that it is perfectly in keeping with authorized biographies generally. And that is a big problem. He even quotes Glenn Greenwald's well-known observation about media bias in modern America: "The overwhelming, driving bias of the US media is subservience to power, whoever happens to be wielding it."

Of course, Taibbi has his own way of getting his point across:

If you read All In carefully, the book's tone will remind you of pretty much any other authorized bio of any major figure in business or politics (particularly in business), and it will most particularly remind you of almost any Time or Newsweek famous-statesperson profile.

Which means: it's impossible to tell the difference between the tone of a reporter who we now know was literally sucking the dick of her subject and the tone of just about any other modern American reporter who is given access to a powerful person for a biography or feature-length profile.

*****

The real scandal in the Petraeus episode isn't that a would-be journalist was sleeping with her subject, it's that lots and lots of other journalists are doing the same thing -- metaphorically, anyway.

Read more »

Let's call it like it is: Those Republicans attacking Susan Rice over Benghazi are full of shit

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The ridiculous Republican claim, made by the likes of John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham, among others, is that Ambassador Rice misled the American people by claiming on the Sunday talk shows that the attack was a spontaneous incident rather than a terrorist attack.

But as I wrote the other day, it's desperately partisan Republicans vs. Obama, the CIA, and the facts. Rice was only saying what she was being advised to say by the intelligence community. The talking point changes weren't politically motivated and reflected caution, which is really the sort of thing one wants and expects from those tasked with figuring out what the hell's going on around the world. A new report by CBS News backs this up:

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.

Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.

However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

People like John McCain should know better, and maybe do know better. Obviously, they're either completely delusional or trying to score political points by turning this into a major scandal (at the level of Watergate, some of them are crazily suggesting).

"The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," [a senior U.S. official] tells CBS News, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly."

"Most people understand that saying 'extremists' were involved in a direct assault on the mission isn't shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," added the official. "Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants."

Makes sense, no? It's intelligence. It's messy. And it's all happening in a very messy part of the world. For her part, Rice did nothing wrong. She communicated what she thought was right -- and what in fact was right, in nuanced terms carefully chosen by those whose job it is to get it right. To attack her now is just partisan scapegoating, an effort on the part of Republicans to tarnish the credibility of one of President's Obama's chief foreign policy officials and quite possibly his nominee to replace Hillary as secretary of state -- and therefore an effort to tarnish the president himself, to bring him down with a manufactured scandal built, as is typical of Republicans, on lies.

They really are full of shit.

Michael Hastings ruining journalism... again

By Frank Moraes

I really like Michael Hastings. Like most people, I learned about him when he published his explosive "The Runaway General" in Rolling Stone. I didn't give the article itself that much thought. A reporter had a good scoop. It was the reaction to the article that made me take notice of him. It seemed you couldn't turn the page of a magazine without being confronted with another journalist explaining why Hastings' article was a bad thing. Never again would the disgraced Stanley McChrystal trust him.

My opinion of Hastings went even higher when he appeared on Up with Chris Hayes in August and dismantled Josh Barro's fascist argument against Julian Assange. Even more than Jeremy Scahill, Hastings seems determined to get at the truth regardless (or perhaps because) of powerful interests.

Earlier this week, Hastings wrote an article for BuzzFeed, "The Sins Of General David Petraeus." He doesn't talk much about the sex scandal. In fact, he writes, "For the record: Who really cares whom P4 is sleeping with? The idea that the FBI was investigating his sex life says more about the FBI and our absurd surveillance and national security state than it does about King David's morality." Overall, he is understanding of both Petraeus' and Broadwell's dalliances.

The problem is not Petraeus' affair with Broadwell; it is Petraeus' affair with the media. Hastings then goes through the last ten years of his career and shows that it has been a sham. He managed to trick the Washington establishment into thinking that the Surge in Iraq was successful and then managed to get the Obama administration to repeat the Surge in Afghanistan -- with tragic results. All while the media cheered along.

Of course, just as after the Rolling Stone article, there were journalists who had to snipe. Dylan Byers at Politico wrote a hatchet piece. It is particularly offensive because it tries to psychoanalyze Hastings. Hastings lost his girlfriend in Iraq? He went after someone who worked at Little, Brown because they decided not to publish his book? Hastings considers himself a Gonzo journalist? What any of this has to do with anything is unclear.

A commenter, Tr Randolph, wrote what I thought was a very good reply to this bit of journalistic nonsense:

Reading this warning makes me like Michael Hastings even more. The idea that journalists aren't already advocates is hogwash. The cheerleading from media up to and in to the Iraq War was disgusting, but that wasn't deemed as advocating at the time. Embedded journalists were easily the biggest military advocates and Wikileaks proved they were either unable or unwilling to report horrific crimes carried out by the U.S. military...

When journalists at Politico and other places can actually start speaking to power (you know, that whole military industrial complex that you seem to gloss over) you can put Hastings out of work. Until you develop some substance yourselves, save your warnings.

Other commenters focused on one bit of Byers article that is worth repeating here:

If you believe that journalists are supposed to call bull when they see it, then Hastings is your man. But to those who believe journalists shouldn't be advocates -- either out of ethical concerns or practical ones (it's not always effective) -- Hastings is muddying sacred waters.

This is exactly the argument we heard against the Rolling Stone article: you shouldn't tell the truth about powerful people! If you do, you will lose access. And if you lose access, you won't be able to... continue not to tell the truth about them?

Afterword

This is a great bit of TV with Hastings at his best: 


(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

On Benghazi, it's desperately partisan Republicans vs. Obama, the CIA, and the facts

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The desperate Republican obsession with Benghazi -- and more broadly with bringing down President Obama no matter what -- ran into a problem on Friday by the name of General David Petraeus.

Yes, yes, I know, l'affaire Petraeus is the current media obsession, but let's detach that scandal from the general's closed-door comments to Congress.

But first, the obsession, courtesy this time of the WSJ:

David Petraeus told Congress Friday in closed hearings that the CIA believed from the start that the September 11 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were by terrorists. That leaves one VIP who's still missing from Congressional scrutiny: Hillary Clinton.

GOP Congressman Peter King said Mr. Petraeus's testimony differed from what the former CIA director told Congress immediately after the attacks. Mr. King also said Mr. Petraeus said that the CIA's original talking points on the attacks were edited. The altered version became the basis for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's misleading and now infamous comments blaming the attacks on a YouTube video. Both that discrepancy and the issue of the altered talking points need further digging, especially if Ms. Rice is nominated to be the next Secretary of State. 

The overt purpose of this editorial is to smear Hillary (as well as Rice), but the selective "reporting" of events typical of Republican conspiracy theorizing on Benghazi (and on pretty much everything else) is clear from out outset: the talking points were edited, which is proof of a conspiratorial cover-up (that in the warped view of some Republicans rises to the level of, and even surpasses, Watergate).

But what did Petraeus really say? And what are these Republican partisans (and the WSJ is nothing if not a partisan Republican organ) leaving out?

First, the Obama administration did change "consulate" to "diplomatic facility" -- but only for the sake of accuracy.

Second, and more to the point, check out Daily Intel's recounting of the general's testimony, from the AP report. Basically:

-- Yes, the CIA from the outset thought the attack involved a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.

-- Yes, CIA talking points referred to it as a terrorist attack.

-- Yes, those talking points were changed to remove references to terrorism, though by whom exactly Petraeus wasn't clear.

-- Yes, Rice's comments on the Sunday talk shows reflected these new talking points, which means she was relaying the CIA's "best intelligence" when saying the attacks were spontaneous.

But: 

Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not made for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.

"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "He completely debunked that idea."

So why the changes? Well, there was a really, really good reason -- one that contrats starkly with Republican efforts to politicize the entire Benghazi story -- lead-up, attack, and aftermath (we saw it from Romney in the heat of the moment just as we're now seeing it from the likes of McCain and Graham): 

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail...

"There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process," Schiff said. "They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information."

Which is to say, as Dan Amira summed it up, "there was a conspiracy... to catch the terrorists."

You'd think this would shut Republicans up on the matter. It won't.

Desperate to catch Obama in a major scandal, even more so now after what to many of them was a shocking re-election win, they'll keep playing politics not just with a tragedy but with intelligence and the anti-terrorist effort, including the effort to track down the perpetrators of this deadly attack, even with the facts staring them in the face.

Seriously funny

By Mustang Bobby

When you take away all the serious issues surrounding the Petraeus story — the possible breaches of security, the FBI digging into e-mails without a whole lot of probable cause, the probable break-up of marriages — and look at it with from just the perspective of characters and plot and story, this is a farce worthy of the best comedy writers.

Look at it: the dizzying connections between the leading characters, the jealousy between men and women fighting over their prizes, the FBI agent posing shirtless for photos, the society folks puffing up their resumes and connections, even the local TV coverage with the classic "oops" moment; it's an updated Feydeau farce. Or better yet, a Woody Allen sex comedy; after all, he knows something about fooling around with women on an inappropriate level.

I realize a lot of careers and important issues are on the line here, but perhaps the best way to look at it is to realize just how seriously funny all of this is once you get down to the fact that these alleged grown-ups were acting like a bunch of horny teenagers.

Stay tuned for scenes from our next episode of Covert Affairs. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Is she a slut?

By Carl 

No, this isn't about Petraeus/Kelley/Broadwell/Allen.

Well, tangentially, because that was the topic that created this chain of thought in my mind. But I want to look at a deeper point.

I don't really care what adults do in the privacy of their own homes and my only real comment on the whole sordid mess is that this was not just two -- or four, or how many -- consenting adults, but entire families, including apparently non-consenting adults and children, so that's a shitty excuse for deciding it should be ignored.

However, it does not affect me so I really don't care about the people involved. What I do care about is words.

A lot of political hay, a lot of what's wrong with American culture in general, is the ambiguity of words.

So I asked myself (and a few other people), "What makes a slut?" If Kelley or Broadwell (or for that matter Petraeus or Allen) had slept with two generals? Four? Where do we draw the line and agree, that's running into slutitude?

You're going to reply, "It doesn't matter, it's an offensive word and should be banned from use." But it's not going to be, and it sure as heck didn't spring out of the muck, in search of a definition.

The way to take the power away from a word is to define it. Let me instruct with an example:

"A liberal application of paint." No one would object to that adjective, "liberal." It's a very factual description of how to apply paint. Let's switch the words around:

"An application of liberal paint."

Now you're forcing this sentence into a context. If I say it, "An application of liberal paint," it comes off as a very benign and even positive sentence.

Now imagine Glenn Beck saying it. Now imagine the imagery he would try to create with it: cheaply made, overpriced, probably government issued, masking an underlying problem of such great depth and profundity that it would require a tax cut for himself. I mean, the wealthy.

"Liberal" used to be a good thing to be. "Conservatism" was defined by its reactionary -- the word that we all used when we wanted to characterize someone negatively -- outlook and its "stuck in the past" first principles. In an era where progress was paramount, conservation was antithetical to society.

Now, in an era that desperately cries out for moving forward, "liberal" is only just starting to emerge from the turtle shell we all withdrew into decades ago, and conservatism is the ideology in the dock.

If you scroll to the top right corner of my blog, you'll find this quote, which I think sums up this column nicely. It is also one of the greatest lines ever written for TV: 

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." -- Matt Santos, The West Wing 

In truth, this quote is probably loosely based on a quote from JFK:

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

By redefining the word, liberal now means something powerful to me. It goes from being an epithet spit out by someone full of bile and hatred and becomes an affirmation of my life and my beliefs.

There have been a few attempts to take back the word "slut." I'm thinking of how many feminist groups have annual "slut walks," protesting how women are portrayed in the media and in culture. My own daughter has participated in these. (She has her dad's temper. I never worry about her.)

It's not enough. When Rush Limbaugh can define the word to apply it to a woman who merely testifies that it would be nice if contraception was maintained as an insurance benefit, despite the religious status of the employer, then the word begs to be defined better.

Because if we don't do it, the Limbaughs of the world surely will. And we fought hard to make liberal an acceptable word again. And I like being a liberal again. 

But then, I'm also a slut, undeniably.

 (Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

Making sense of l'affaire Petraeus

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Far be it from me to wallow in the gutter. And while there are indeed some interesting, and troubling, issues raised by this whole David Petraeus infidelity mess (like the FBI overstepping its bounds, like a distinguished military leader proving to be yet another right-wing hypocrite), I do think the media are obsessing a tad too much (with some dealing with their own Petraeus infatuation), making more ado than needs to be made about what is essentially a private matter with only vague public implications (like the possible communication of top-secret information).

But we're written about it -- Carl here, Frank here, Libby/me here -- and, well, why not keep going?

First, is it any wonder Petraeus said he didn't want to be Romney's running mate? Just imagine. How deliciously scandalous.

Second... oh, where to go with this? It's a mess (and getting messier, now with another general, John Allen, involved -- a guy set to become head of NATO). So for now here's a helpful flowchart from Gawker:

Okay, third. I love that Chuck Klosterman is involved, if only on the periphery as an ethicist. I'm a fan, and what he has to say about his involvement (and being sucked into a ridiculous conspiracy theory) is, as usual, excellent.

Enjoy whatever schadenfreude you take from this whole thing. 

Update:

It's getting better and better... 

Jill Kelley requested "diplomatic protection" in 911 call 

Paula Broadwell's License Discovered in D.C. Park

Petraeus helps whistleblower's 'unstable' twin in nasty custody fight
 
Gen. John Allen also helped Jill Kelley's sister during custody battle 

Jill Kelley, Woman Who Sparked Petraeus Scandal, Ran Questionable Charity

Good times.

Thoughts on Petraeus

By Carl 

I really don't have much to say about the Petraeus resignation and scandal, except a few observations.

First, a hint to public officials everywhere: if she'd (or he'd) be out of your league if you were a civvy and both of you were in a bar, then leave it alone. Go home, jerk off, and forget her. You're sixty and not particularly good-looking -- how long did you think it would last? And you're forty and a starry-eyed biographer -- how long did you think it would last?

Next, Andy Borowitz had the best take on the "conspiracy" angle, by pointing out that Petraeus began the affair over a year ago, so clearly he intended to use it to distract from the Benghazi story. Petraeus can still be called as a witness in the House hearings and worse for the Obama administration, can't hide behind executive privilege or national security any longer.

Third, it's pretty sad that a man of such accomplishment and a woman of such accomplishment have created such a roadblock for themselves. I'm not going to point fingers: the second the tango began, both of them were to blame and who's to say when the music started?

My real sympathy goes out to the spouses of the couple in question, of course, but I save my deepest symapthies for Jill Kelly, the woman who triggered this whole mess -- not incorrectly -- by complaining about threatening anonymous e-mails. She gets implicated in so many ways here and I expect this will have repercussions for an apparently (there's one implication right there) uninvolved person. Think about it: she is suspected by folks of being the "other" other woman, her actions disgraced Petraeus (*ahem* no, but people will think that), her name gets dragged out through trials and investigations and she'll now have to lawyer up for what? For being the recipient of some really nasty e-mails.

Finally, I wish we'd all grow up a little and learn that power begets sex. This is an unspoken deal that politicians and their families make going in, and if you think they do not, then they're being naive and not paying attention. While the smart ones manage to stay away from it all, to ask anyone to betray their sex drive is like asking them to stop eating.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

American hero gives Andrea Mitchell the vapors

By Frank Moraes

You have to forgive her, I think. After all, she is married to Alan Greenspan. But Andrea Mitchell is getting the vapors over General David Petraeus. Rachel Maddow asked if she was sure that the affair was the real reason he resigned from the CIA. She was! David Petraeus?! Why he's an American hero! Anyway, a man like him? Young women must be throwing themselves at him all the time. But the man cannot tell a lie and he doesn't even chop down cherry trees.

And the la-hand of the Freeeeee!
And the hoooome, of thhhhhe, braaaave!

And the crowd goes wild! What a sad day for the United States. Another American hero brought down. And after those meanies at MoveOn.org called him "David Betray Us"![1] This is unthinkable!

My take on it is a little different. First, I think MoveOn was correct: like any military man of that level, Patraeus was a political hack who was about as familiar with the truth as I am with moon exploration. Second, David Petraeus is a powerful and famous man. Of course he's gonna get a little young tail. Ms. Broadwell is a hottie. I think Petraeus is showing a lot of taste. She's not so young that the relationship is creepy, and she's a writer and that means she's smart. If Paula Broadwell needs a shoulder to cry on, I'm available. Just saying.

Most important, from a broader perspective, this whole thing doesn't make sense. I don't buy that Petraeus is such an honorable man that this caused him to step down. Instead, I figure he thinks that if he steps down, the controversy will be over next week. And he's probably right. This also sets him up to publish a tell-all memoir in the next two years that will get him a 7-figure advance.

Meanwhile, this little scandal will do nothing but improve Broadwell's reputation. I mean, she's the woman who bagged the American hero. I'm sure Andrea Mitchell is so jealous that... Oh my! She's got the vapors.

**********

[1] Here it is. Click on it if you can't quite read it.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Petraeus resigns over affair

By Libby Spencer

Few details but just now, CIA head David Petraeus resigned because of an extra-martial affair. All the smart people are saying he had to do it because, blackmail. Not sure how that works once the affair has been admitted. What leverage does the rejected lover have once it's made public?

Always being the outlier, I'm not a fan of his at all, but I find it hard to believe he would compromise national security for sex. Think it's more likely he had a fling with a younger woman, because that's what men so often do at that stage of marriage, and wants to spare his wife and family the media circus which would be relentless if he held on to the job. This way, since it appears he's leaving immediately, the media will lose interest in a couple of days once they tease out what few prurient details they can. 

**********

Update by MJWS:

The woman in question, according to Slate's Fred Kaplan, is Paula Broadwell, the author of a recent hagiographic book about him, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. Kaplan writes:

Sources tell me that President Obama, who has been getting along with Petraeus very well in the past couple years, agonized for 24 hours over the letter of resignation before accepting it. The move no doubt ends the career of the most famous, and perhaps most strategically astute, American military commander in decades...

It had long been rumored that something was going on between Petraeus and Broadwell. Her book, co-written with Vernon Loeb, is widely regarded as a valentine to the general. When she was embedded with him in Afghanistan, they went on frequent 5-mile runs together. But Petraeus went on 5-mile runs with many reporters, and few people who knew him took the rumors seriously. In his personal life, he’s always been seen as a straight shooter, a square. Few could have imagined that his end would come as the result of a morals scandal.

But that's how it often is, right? It's the ones who seem morally/religiously disinclined to do such things who end up self-destructing.

(And All In's quite the title, no? The jokes write themselves.)

Anyway, here's a photo making the rounds:

As Libby writes:

Looking at this photo, I suspect that may well turn out to be the story. I see an older guy giddy from the attention from a young, attractive, adoring fan girl.  

It's not impossible that there's some dark nefarious plot going on I guess, but lust makes people do crazy things. I'm inclined to go with Occam's razor on this one. I mean, who doesn't know of any otherwise happily married people who were thrust into close proximity for professional reasons and succumbed to sexual attraction? 

I'm generally not one to make too much of these things, which are mostly private matters (except when there's moral-political hypocrisy going on, as in the case of many Republican transgressions). But whatever you think of Petraeus, there's no denying it marks a stunning ending to a long and distinguished career.

Does Romney want Petraeus on his ticket?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"I don't know a lot about politics, but I know a lot about baseball." -- Richard Nixon

Obama thinks so, or so says Dudge, but, then again, Drudge is known for trudging through sludge and reporting nonsense as fact.

As Ed Kilgore writes, "It must be interesting to be Matt Drudge, with the power and the amorality to create big media 'stories' at the flick of a mouse, and with no limitations other than serving the ultimate aims of his corporate and partisan overlords." And, indeed, Drudge is supposedly tuned in to "Boston," Romney's HQ.

Then again, I'm not sure this is nonsense. Sure, it's highly unlikely that Petraeus would join Romney. He's currently running the CIA, an Obama appointee, and has repeatedly said -- and one suspects his sincerity here -- that he wouldn't run for political office.

So maybe Drudge is right that Romney wants (and fantasizes about) Petraeus, or at least that Obama thinks that he wants him. (As Dan Amira writes, Romney would "also probably love to have Ronald Reagan, and that scenario seems just about as likely.") Fine. But so what? Petraeus would no doubt be, at least at the outset, a game changer (to use that overworked term). He'd give Romney some military and foreign policy gravitas, a major hole for Mitt particularly after his disastrous foreign tour. It's not clear, however, that Petraeus would do well in the political spotlight over the long haul, and of course he has his own major holes, notably domestic policy and actual (elected) political experience.

It's all a moot point, though. It won't be Petraeus. The talk is about those boring white guys -- notably Pawlenty and Portman, but also Thune -- but if Romney departs from that comfort zone look for him to take a chance on Jindal, Christie, or Ryan, not the general who waged Bush's wars.

Obama, Panetta, Petraeus

By Michael J.W. Stickings

President Obama shook up his national security team yesterday, notably moving CIA Director Leon Panetta to the Pentagon and Generalissimo David Petraeus to the CIA.

It was "a game of musical chairs," Slate's Fred Kaplan observed, though "under the circumstances, it's hard to imagine a shrewder set of moves, both politically and substantively."

Panetta is a Washington insider. Can he succeed at the Pentagon? Maybe. He certainly has credibility where it matters, on Capitol Hill:

The next defense secretary will have to wind down the wars without losing them and will almost certainly have to cut the budget without wreaking havoc in the Pentagon. It's a nightmare job for anyone, but Panetta has as much experience as anyone at carving out that sort of territory.

I don't much care for him, and he's come to be an apologist for the Bush-Obama national security state, but I suppose he has the political clout to lead what is undeniably a deeply political office. (Whether he manages to secure the trust and support of the military brass, not to mention of the rank-and-file, is another matter, though that may not matter given his political priorities in the months/years ahead.)

As for Petraeus, well, Obama had to do something with him, not least given his political inclinations, if not aspirations, and connections to the conservative/Republican foreign/military policy establishment:

Picking Petraeus to run the CIA is a move worthy of chess masters. He's been a wartime commander of one sort or another for eight years, almost non-stop. It's time for him to leave the battlefield; that was clear even to him. Yet for much of that time, he's also been a household name -- and widely hailed as the U.S. military's finest strategic mind in a generation. So the question -- which would have been vexing for any president -- is: What to do with this guy? Some who are close to the general refer to this question, with a slight smile and a cocked eyebrow, as "the Petraeus problem."

*****

Keeping Petraeus on the inside -- in a job that's related to, but not quite of, the military -- is a judicious stroke.

But will anything actually change? Well, we'll have to see. Maybe Panetta is the right man to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan, and particularly to preside of the end of the latter war. And maybe Petraeus will be a fine CIA director.

But these are political moves, first and foremost. Obama puts an ally/confidante at the Pentagon and a possible rival/critic at the CIA. Panetta will do what Obama wants him to do. Petraeus will perhaps be more independent, but he will also be constrained by his position.

Yes, it was a game of musical chairs. And Obama won.

U.S. military fucks up in Afghanistan, killing children, strengthening Taliban

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Times:

Nine boys collecting firewood to heat their homes in the eastern Afghanistan mountains were killed by NATO helicopter gunners who mistook them for insurgents, according to a statement on Wednesday by NATO, which apologized for the mistake.

The boys, who were 9 to 15 years old, were attacked on Tuesday in what amounted to one of the war’s worst cases of mistaken killings by foreign-led forces. The victims included two sets of brothers. A 10th boy survived.

The NATO statement, which included an unusual personal apology by the commander of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, said the boys had been misidentified as the attackers of a NATO base earlier in the day. News of the attack enraged Afghans and led to an anti-American demonstration on Wednesday in the village of Nanglam, where the boys were from.

Something tells me the personal apology from Petraeus isn't going to help much. As Comrade Misfit puts it, "[n]o matter how many clinics NATO sets up or how many schools are opened, the relatives of the dead children aren't going to be in a forgiving mood."

And neither, of course, will the Taliban, which only gets stronger each and every time the U.S. (and NATO) fucks up like this. As Andrew Sullivan puts it:

Of course this was a mistake. But it reinforces the human toll of fighting an insurgency you often cannot see in a region you cannot fully control where insurgents and civilians are often interchangeable. At some point, the inevitability of this kind of civilian death makes one reassess the justness of this long, long war -- and the chances of "success" whatever that now means.

Can you imagine how we would feel if nine American boys were slaughtered from the air by an occupying power? Does anyone think this kind of mistake -- inevitable in such a war zone -- can do anything but help the insurgency?

Maybe it was inevitable, maybe it wasn't. But the fact that it happened, along with the inevitable anti-American response from justifiably angry Afghans, reveals a great deal about a war that has turned into a quagmire of failure.

Americans would never put up with this. Why should we expect the Afghans to?

What do Bulgaria, Jordan, Poland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States have in common?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the recently-released Pentagon report on Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), they're the only countries in the world that ban gays in the military.

Nothing against the good people from these other five countries, but that's not exactly good company to be in.

Now, I suspect that countries like, say, Saudi Arabia don't allow gays in the military either, but such countries do not generally allow gays in society either.

These six countries have explicit policies in place banning gays in the military.

**********

I got this from Fred Kaplan's excellent piece at Slate on the Pentagon report. (I highly recommend it.) And, in case you missed it, the report's findings are definitive:

Much of the study reports and analyzes the results of a survey sent to 400,000 active-duty members of the armed services (115,052 of whom responded), as well as surveys of more than 40,000 military spouses and several workshop forums and face-to-face interviews.

The top line is that 70 percent of those surveyed say that repealing DADT -- and thus working, eating, sleeping, showering, and fighting in the same room or on the same ship, plane, or battlefield with service members who say they're gay -- will have a positive, a mixed, or no effect (in other words, won't have a bad effect) on accomplishing the mission.

Yes, there is obviously still a good deal of opposition in the military to gays being allowed to serve openly -- and John McCain and others are emphasizing that opposition to the exclusion of all else. But the numbers are actually even more definitive:

Among members of the armed forces who have actually worked with someone they believe to be gay, 92 percent say that the unit's effectiveness is very good, good, or "neither good nor poor" (in other words, at very least, not bad)...

As the report puts it, the apparent "misperception that a gay man does not 'fit' the image of a good warfighter... is almost completely erased when a gay service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters."

The results are overwhelming. The military is ready for gays to be allowed to serve openly. And it will be much easier for them to serve openly than it was, say, to integrate the military racially in Truman's day, when, as the report notes, there was overwhelming opposition to blacks being allowed to serve alongside whites.

The country has come a long way, the military has come a long way, and there's no good reason to keep gays out.

Though, of course, McCain and his ilk keep trying. Kaplan concludes:

The evidence, the polling data of service men and women, the testimony of senior officers, the everyday experiences of living and fighting, the imperatives of national security, as well as the obvious moral standards of contemporary life -- all point to, at the very least, a shift in the burden of proof on whether DADT should be repealed. It's no longer valid, and it's clearly a pretense, to call for further studies, further surveys, closer questioning. If McCain and the others oppose repeal, they have to come up with some new reason -- or fall back on the oldest, most unpalatable reason -- why.

But there is no "new reason" that has any validity. And so let's just spell it out. The real reason they keep up their opposition is indeed "unpalatable." It's called bigotry.

And so, for all his supposed pro-military cred, McCain finds himself in opposition not just to the military's civilian and chief military leadership (including not just Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but perhaps America's most revered current military commander, including by McCain, Gen. David Petraeus) but to the rank-and-file as well.

And, as Kaplan notes, the issue isn't just about rights but about national security (something McCain claims to care deeply about), as DADT has resulted 13,000 "involuntary discharges," including of key language experts who are essential to the military's efforts around the world. In opposing the repeal of DADT, then, McCain is not just promoting bigotry but undermining the military and weakening national security.

To be fair, President Obama and Senate Democrats have been dragging their heels, but, while Republicans will undoubtedly keep trying to put new roadblocks in the way, there's no excuse anymore. The military has spoken. It's time to repeal DADT.

(For more on McCain's opposition to repeal and the deeply flawed arguments against repeal, see LindaBeth's excellent post from yesterday.)

Florida church responds to Petraeus, Koran burning likely still a go

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Updating my post from yesterday.)

"A Florida pastor told CNN on Tuesday that while his congregation still plans to burn Qurans to protest the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the church is 'weighing' its intentions." What exactly does that mean? "We have firmly made up our mind, but at the same time, we are definitely praying about it," said Pastor and Chief Bigot Terry Jones.

The church is apparently "taking seriously" (CNN's words) General Petraeus's warning, but Jones, refusing to back down, turned it back on Petraeus: "The general needs to point his finger to radical Islam and tell them to shut up, tell them to stop, tell them that we will not bow our knees to them." And it looks like the burning will be a go: "We are burning the book. We are not killing someone. We are not murdering people."

No, but as Petraeus said, the burning could lead directly to more killing. And, what's more, while Jones points to "radical Islam," the Koran is the holy text not just for this small subset of Muslims but for all Muslims. Jones can try to rationalize all he wants. This is hatred pure and simple.

Free expression is a deeply American right, but Americans should be outraged by this deeply anti-American expression of hatred. The rest of the world will certainly be watching, and taking notes.

Koran-burning could endanger U.S. troops, says Petraeus

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may know, a Florida church is planning to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11. It claims that the burning will be "neither an act of love nor of hate," but it is clearly the latter. Pastor Terry Jones has called Islam "of the devil," "a deceptive religion" and "a violent religion" that is "causing billions of people to go to hell."

This is despicable bigotry, of course, and the consequences could be bloody:

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Monday criticized a Florida church's plan to burn copies of the Quran on September 11, warning the demonstration "could cause significant problems" for American troops overseas.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan," Gen. David Petraeus said in a statement issued Monday.

I think that's right. Here's a church that no doubt considers itself patriotic, in that right-wing way that is really more nativist jingoism than patriotism, potentially putting American troops in harm's way as a direct result of its anti-Muslim bigotry.

But it isn't just Gainesville's Dove World Outreach Center that's doing it. There is widespread anti-Muslim sentiment on the right, including among mainstream conservatives and throughout the Republican Party, and much of it, I think, adds to the existing anti-American sentiment among America's enemies, providing them with a rallying cry for action and support. More, I think, it reinforces the less intense and often non-violent anti-American sentiment within the Muslim community generally, pushing some towards violence and others towards skepticism of America's intentions at the very least. Anti-Muslim sentiment is undermining efforts of engagement with the Muslim world, weakening America's credibility around the world and threatening what limited advances America has made in building meaningful relationships with Muslim countries and reaching out to Muslims generally.

And yet it continues. There are those, for example, who call Obama a Muslim, implying that there is nothing worse than being a Muslim, that being a Muslim is being anti-American, with Islam and America forever at odds with one another. And there are those, like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, among so many others on the right, attacking the planned Muslim community center near Ground Zero, Park51, implying that being a Muslim is essentially the same as being a terrorist, that the Muslims who would go to Park51 are essentially the same as those Muslims who flew planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11. Why else, in their view, would it be disrespectful to have a Muslim community near Ground Zero?

If they even understand this, conservatives don't seem to care. And why would they? Many of them adhere to a radical right-wing worldview that pits America (and fundamentalist American Christianity) against Islam in a clash of civilizations to the death. Their ideology rests to a great extent on bigotry. And their electoral success relies on feeding the culture of fear and loathing at home, scaring Americans into being terrified of their defined Other (Muslims, gays, socialists, etc.).

But there are consequences. And like a boomerang, the hatred that goes out will come right back, a cycle that keeps feeding on itself, and growing, allowing extremists there and here to ratchet up the attacks.

It must be stopped, but how, with churches burning the Koran, conservatism moving ever further to the right, and the Republican Party descending ever further into madness? There is so much more to America than this right-wing and evangelical Christian bigotry, so much goodness and decency in the American soul, but it is that bigotry that gets the attention, and that gets projected, and perhaps Muslims and others around the world should be excused, short of responding with violence, for thinking that these bigots speak for America.

From McChrystal to Petraeus: A choice for security at an unpleasant crossroads

Guest post by Wade C. Barnes 

Wade Barnes is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, a veteran naval officer, and a fellow at the Truman National Security Project. He is a graduate student at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. This is his first guest post at The Reaction.

The circumstances that culminated in the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal as Commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan should rightfully disappoint every citizen of the United States. Though this incident should not discolor the general's 34 years of faithful service, we as a nation deserve better than flag officers who speak out publicly against their superiors.

As a former military officer, I believe that President Obama's decision to accept General McChrystal's resignation was inevitable given the tone and public nature of his gaffe. The president's subsequent selection of General David Petraeus as General McChrystal's successor, however, represents a strategic choice that will ultimately enhance American national security.

Sometimes leadership means choosing the right person for the job. By appointing General Petraeus to lead coalition forces in Afghanistan, President Obama selected the U.S. military officer most skilled in the nuances of modern warfare. An expert in counterinsurgency – he literally helped write the manual – General Petraeus will arrive in Afghanistan at an inflection point.

Following a difficult campaign in Marja, in the midst of preparations to apply pressure on Kandahar, and with the administration's July 2011 phased withdrawal deadline fast approaching, General Petraeus faces a tough road to hoe. Nevertheless, as General McChrystal's direct superior and having recently salvaged the U.S. war effort in Iraq, there is no soldier, sailor, airman, or marine better equipped to deliver the conditions necessary for Afghans to establish functional self-governance.

Leadership by example is the best kind of leadership. It is too easy to accuse the White House of blunting U.S. efforts in Afghanistan by relieving General McChrystal of command. This only tells half of the story. When junior officers or enlisted service members undermine the authority of their senior chain of command, this is termed "insubordination" and is often addressed with non-judicial punishment. When generals and admirals snipe at the civilian chain of command, however, it grinds at the very core of our national security architecture.

President Obama demonstrated leadership by example when he said, "I welcome debate... but I won't tolerate division." After all, valuing debate over division is the lubricant that facilitated our military's transition from a reactionary peacetime service on September 10, 2001 to a dynamic fighting force capable of prosecuting pitched battles and counterinsurgency alike in pursuit of U.S. national security interests.

America suffers when tensions such as these emerge from the shadows. In 1951, General Douglas MacArthur reminded our country that "old soldiers never die, they just fade away." There is no joy in watching General McChrystal walk down this road, only somber reflection on the otherwise meteoric career of a decorated warrior and a venerable member of the Army's post-Powell New Guard.

President Obama showed wisdom by selecting a devoutly apolitical military leader who packs as much diplomacy under his belt as he does strategy and tactics. If America is to emerge stronger and safer from the Afghan conflict, we must reject the pall of Afghan defeat that shattered Soviet vitality in 1989. Already energized by a comprehensive strategy and sufficient resourcing under the Obama administration, the appointment of General Petraeus to replace General McChrystal will lend terminal velocity to the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. General Petraeus has the vision and experience to make that strategy a reality.