Of course, one wonders why the administration leaked the news “anonymously” to the New York Times, that the Justice Department was considering recommending that retired General David Petraeus be prosecuted for passing classified documents to his biographer (and ex-lover) Paula Broadwell in time for Eric Holder to get in the Sunday TV shows and play “Where’s Waldo” with Chuck Todd about who would be making the decision to move forward or not. The Obama White House, like others before it, is a gushing sieve of “anonymous” leaks to media outlets whose Obamatite loyalties can never be questioned. But this one clearly was strategically timed for a reason, one we may never know, but one can guess. They needed to make sure the good General kept his mouth shut on something of import or perhaps there was a need to further discredit a very admired general of our armed services for other reasons.
One thing is absolutely certain, however, the affair for which he was forced to resign from the CIA, was well known by not only the CIA and other covert intelligence agencies prior to his being appointed by the President and Congress to the post, it was well known when he was in Afghanistan as well. It is also seems that the American Presidents who actually do not have affairs, a seemingly very rare breed indeed, tend to sublimate their libidinous energies into more insidious and nationally damaging endeavors. This whole issue has smelled like a trout in the milk since the very start!
AMERICA’S MILITARY: A conservative institution’s uneasy cultural evolution
Obama’s mark on the military
A deeply unpopular commander in chief is forcing profound change inside the ranks.
By Stephen Losey
In his first term, President Obama oversaw repeal of the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Then he broke with one of the military’s most deeply rooted traditions and vowed to lift the ban on women serving in combat. And the commander in chief has aggressively sought to change military culture by cracking down on sexual assault and sexual harassment, problems that for years were under reported or overlooked.
Obama is an unpopular president in the eyes of the men and women in uniform. Yet his two-term administration is etching a deep imprint on the culture inside the armed forces. As commander in chief, he will leave behind a legacy that will shape the Pentagon’s personnel policies and the social customs of rank-and-file troops for decades to come. For Obama’s supporters, the cultural changes he’s overseeing are on a level with President Truman’s 1948 order that desegregated the military and put it at the forefront of the national push for racial equality. But to his critics, his moves amount to heavy-handed social engineering that erode deep-seated traditions and potentially undermine good order and discipline. And for the troops in today’s career force, the wave of changes to deep-seated policies and attitudes can be jarring.
“It’s a very different Army than the one I came in to,” said Sgt. 1st Class Eric Rexilius, who joined the Army 21 years ago and is now a helicopter repairman at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state. “I personally don’t think it’s a bad change,” he said — while acknowledging that among his cohort of older career soldiers, “I’m probably a minority.”
“For most of my peers,” Rexilius said, “it makes them uncomfortable because it’s not what they are used to.” The long-term effects of Obama’s social policies on the military remain unknown. But one thing is clear: He is a deeper unpopular commander in chief among the troops. According to a Military Times survey of almost 2,300 active-duty service members, Obama’s popularity — never high to begin with — has crumbled, falling from 35 percent in 2009 to just 15 percent this year, while his disapproval ratings have increased to 55 percent from 40 percent over that time.